SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
PCB Assurance Summary: PCB assurance actives are informed by risk in context of the Project. Lessons are being applied across Projects for continuous improvements. Newer component technologies, smaller/high pitch devices: tighter and more demanding PCB designs: Identifying new research areas. New materials, designs, structures and test methods.
Part 23 aircraft operation, and in particular general aviation, is relatively unsafe when compared to other common forms of vehicle travel. Currently, there exists technologies that could increase safety statistics for these aircraft; however, the high burden and cost of performing the requisite safety critical certification processes for these systems limits their proliferation. For this reason, many entities, including the Federal Aviation Administration, NASA, and the US Air Force, are considering new options for certification for technologies that will improve aircraft safety. Of particular interest, are low cost autopilot systems for general aviation aircraft, as these systems have the potential to positively and significantly affect safety statistics. This paper proposes new systems and techniques, leveraging run-time verification, for the assurance of general aviation autopilot systems, which would be used to supplement the current certification process and provide a viable path for near-term low-cost implementation. In addition, discussions on preliminary experimentation and building the assurance case for a system, based on these principles, is provided.
This document describes the Simple Assurance Argument Interchange Format, a proposed meta-model for describing structured assurance arguments. We describe the syntax and semantics of the model elements, compare the meta-model to existing argument formats, and give an example to illustrate its use.
This NASA Technical Handbook compiles into a single volume safety, reliability, maintainability, and quality assurance and risk management terms defined and used in NASA safety and mission assurance directives and standards. The purpose of this handbook is to support effective communication within NASA and with its contractors. The definitions in this handbook are updated when the definition of the acronym or term is updated in the originating document.
ESA is providing the ESM to NASA for the Orion Program in accordance with the Implementing Arrangement (IA) established between the two Agencies in 2012. This IA is a barter agreement, in which ESA provides Service Module vehicles for the first two flights of Orion in exchange for two servicing missions to the ISS. This arrangement has provided opportunities and challenges to both communities. It represents an important opportunity for ESA to build on its experience in the development and operations of ATV and play an active role in the development and flight of a manned space vehicle. This paper will explore some of the unique aspects of this arrangement as it affects Safety & Mission Assurance (SMA).The assessment of ESM compliance with applicable safety requirements is the responsibility of the Joint Safety and Engineering Review Panel (JSERP). The JSERP has two features that are relatively unique amongst NASA safety panels. First, NASA Engineering and SMA organizations co-chair this Panel. Previously, Safety has chaired, with Engineering as a member of the Panel. Inclusion of Engineering as a co-chair has offered greater leverage within the technical community. Second, the JSERP includes a second set of co-chairs from ESA Engineering and ESA Product Assurance and Safety (PA/S) organizations. This recognizes the international arrangement as one of partnership.Another source of both opportunity and challenge is the differing experience base of ESA and NASA. NASA has decades of experience in manned spaceflight, dating back to the Mercury program and following through Gemini, Apollo, Apollo-Soyuz, Skylab, Shuttle and the International Space Station. The risk posture for manned missions is much more rigorous than for unmanned missions. ESA brings a wealth of knowledge as well, with their flights of Ariane and Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), development and operation of the Columbus module on ISS, and satellite programs. The result is that both parties have developed paradigms related to risk and failure that contribute to ESM discussions.Orion represents humanity's first venture beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) in over fifty years. Much of that experience is captured in program documents, but first-hand knowledge is limited to a few spaceflight veterans. Missions to LEO have offered the opportunity of direct, near-instantaneous communications and assistance, and the ability to return to Earth within a matter of hours in case of emergency. Outward-bound missions do not have these features and will require a more autonomous spacecraft with attendant safety-related issues.This paper will explore these and other challenges as we approach the flight of the first Orion vehicle.
In the coming years, operations in low altitude airspace will vastly increase as the capabilities and applications of small Unmanned Aerial Systems (sUAS) continue to multiply. Therefore, solutions to managing sUAS in highly congested airspace must be explored. In this study, a Fuzzy Logic based approach was used to help mitigate the risk of collisions between aircraft using separation assurance and collision avoidance techniques. The system was evaluated for its effectiveness to mitigate the risk of mid-air collisions between aircraft. This system utilizes only current state information and can resolve potential conflicts without knowledge of intruder intent. The avoidance logic was verified using formal methods and shown to select the correct action in all instances. Additionally, the Fuzzy Logic Controllers were shown to always turn the vehicles in the correct direction. Numerical testing demonstrated that the avoidance system was able to prevent a mid-air collision between two sUAS in all tested cases. Simulations were also performed in a three-dimensional environment with a heterogenous fleet of sUAS performing a variety of realistic missions. Simulations showed that the system was 99.98 effective at preventing mid-air collisions when separation assurance was disabled (unmitigated case) and 100 effective when enabled (mitigated case).
This paper presents a comprehensive summary of the environmental assurance program for the MER project. A series of test and analysis metrics are generated. Selections of the numerous lessons that have been learned from implementation of the MER environmental assurance program are documented in this paper. They include both technical and programmatic lessons that would be helpful in improving implementation of the environmental program for future projects.
We explore the impact and consequences of the MBSE Value items discussed above and how they impact the disciplines of quality assurance, reliability and maintainability, system safety, and software assurance. We provide insight into how the MBSE modeling tools can be used to define S&MA processes (ideally as a result of Use Case [1] elaboration of processes represented in MagicDraw®), produce S&MA products (ViewEditor output of various items), and represent S&MA disciplines (S&MA inside of MagicDraw). We also provide insight into the degree to which some elements can be directly integrated into a SysML® model and when, as often happens, an interface to some external source must be provided.
NASA’s System-Wide Safety project seeks to explore, understand, and overcome technical challenges associated with assuring the safety of future aviation operations. CASA is prototyping a process for the inclusion of untrusted (including machine-learning-enabled & autonomous) components in emerging aerospace systems. CASA enables increasingly effective paths to safety assurance of complex and autonomous systems through the development of certification processes for airspace systems with untrusted components
As a foundational element of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Artemis Campaign, the Gateway is an incrementally built cislunar spacecraft that will serve as a platform for deep space human exploration, science, and technology demonstration. The Gateway will be a unifying catalyst for partners around the world to establish sustained deep space scientific investigations, lunar surface access, and missions to Mars. As human exploration moves farther from Earth, spacecraft designs must optimize mass and volume while minimizing human and spacecraft risk. To accomplish this, the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) office develops, implements, and ensures compliance with requirements, in concert with the accurate characterization and transparent communication of residual hazard risks, for integrated safety, reliability and maintainability, and quality assurance. This paper will detail the evolution of the Gateway Program S&MA integration functions, and provide its current status and lessons learned for future human spaceflight programs.
The In-Time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) Concept of Operations (ConOps) envisions new capabilities to monitor, assess, and mitigate flight safety risks. Systems will be tailored to mission type, vehicle/equipage type, operational environment, and safety risk tolerance. Within an IASMS framework, several capabilities may be implemented spanning three operational phases (pre-flight, in-flight, and post-flight/off-line); and consisting of lower level functions and information services which may reside onboard the aircraft, on third-party server(s), and/or on ground/operator station(s). Each capability will be designed to produce and disseminate safety-relevant information; perform detection, diagnosis, and prediction of unsafe situations; and/or execute mitigation actions when hazardous events warrant such changes. This paper focuses on recent testing of airborne capabilities that demonstrate inflight aspects of the overarching concept for autonomous unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operations in urban environments. A flight test architecture is described that applies run-time assurance principles (e.g., executes independent of the unassured autopilot), real-time risk assessment, and a technique to execute contingencies if necessary either automatically or via pilot intervention. Several tests using small UAS were conducted to verify the assured in-flight risk mitigation capability. The paper draws significantly from a larger NASA technical report and recent prior conference papers, providing additional details. Data is analyzed for two representative flights to illustrate the performance for various sequential and simultaneous hazards used during testing. During each automated flight, several hazards are encountered at various points along the flight path. At each point, the hazard is mitigated by the system, with the vehicle then continuing to subsequent points. The paper concludes with lessons-learned regarding relevant aspects of the overarching IASMS concept and how it may be updated and further advanced in the future.
Runtime assurance (RTA) affords an operational layer of protection against safety hazards to aeronautical products that may include less trusted or untrusted functions. However, any RTA scheme must itself be trusted before it can be deployed into use: i.e., it must be fit for its intended purpose, and it must not itself introduce safety hazards. This report contains preliminary recommendations on the application and integration of RTA into aeronautical products intended for use in civil aviation. The main purpose of these recommendations is to inform regulatory guidance and consensus standards that may be used to meet the safety intent of the applicable regulations.
This document identifies a processs for tailoring Mission Assurance (MA) activities to JPL flight projects. These MA activities are to be accomplished during appropriate phases of projects involved in design, development, test, fabrication, launch and mission operations. MA is the responsibility of all participants on a project; it enhances their contribution to the success of the mission.
The objective is to use cost-benefit analyses to identify, for a given project, optimal sets of software assurance activities. Towards this end we have incorporated cost-benefit calculations into a risk management framework.
The objective is to use cost-benefit analyses to identify, for a given project, optimal sets of software assurance activities.
Integrate the mission operations assurance function into the flight team providing: (1) value added support in identifying, mitigating, and communicating the project's risks and, (2) being an essential member of the team during the test activities, training exercises and critical flight operations.
Radiation Hardness Assurance (RHA) is the process of ensuring space system performance in the presence of a space radiation environment. Herein, we present an updated NASA methodology for RHA focusing on content, deliverables and timeframes.
In a study, that introduced ground-based separation assurance automation through a series of envisioned transitional phases of concept maturity, it was found that subjective responses to scales of workload, situation awareness, and acceptability in a post run questionnaire revealed as-predicted results for three of the four study conditions but not for the third, Moderate condition. The trend continued for losses of separation (LOS) where the number of LOS events were far greater than expected in the Moderate condition. To offer an account of why the Moderate condition was perceived to be more difficult to manage than predicted, researchers examined the increase in amount and complexity of traffic, increase in communication load, and increased complexities as a result of the simulation's mix of aircraft equipage. Further analysis compared the tools presented through the phases, finding that controllers took advantage of the informational properties of the tools presented but shied away from using their decision support capabilities. Taking into account similar findings from other studies, it is suggested that the Moderate condition represented the first step into a "shared control" environment, which requires the controller to use the automation as a decision making partner rather than just a provider of information. Viewed in this light, the combination of tools offered in the Moderate condition was reviewed and some tradeoffs that may offset the identified complexities were suggested.