Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Risk”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

Conceptual Launch Vehicle and Spacecraft Design for Risk Assessment

One of the most challenging aspects of developing human space launch and exploration systems is minimizing and mitigating the many potential risk factors to ensure the safest possible design while also meeting the required cost, weight, and performance criteria. In order to accomplish this, effective risk analyses and trade studies are needed to identify key risk drivers, dependencies, and sensitivities as the design evolves. The Engineering Risk Assessment (ERA) team at NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) develops advanced risk analysis approaches, models, and tools to provide such meaningful risk and reliability data throughout vehicle development. The goal of the project presented in this memorandum is to design a generic launch 7 vehicle and spacecraft architecture that can be used to develop and demonstrate these new risk analysis techniques without relying on other proprietary or sensitive vehicle designs. To accomplish this, initial spacecraft and launch vehicle (LV) designs were established using historical sizing relationships for a mission delivering four crewmembers and equipment to the International Space Station (ISS). Mass-estimating relationships (MERs) were used to size the crew capsule and launch vehicle, and a combination of optimization techniques and iterative design processes were employed to determine a possible two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) launch trajectory into a 350-kilometer orbit. Primary subsystems were also designed for the crewed capsule architecture, based on a 24-hour on-orbit mission with a 7-day contingency. Safety analysis was also performed to identify major risks to crew survivability and assess the system's overall reliability. These procedures and analyses validate that the architecture's basic design and performance are reasonable to be used for risk trade studies. While the vehicle designs presented are not intended to represent a viable architecture, they will provide a valuable initial platform for developing and demonstrating innovative risk assessment capabilities.

Launch Vehicle↗
NASA NTRS2015

Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment - How They Play Together

Since the Space Shuttle Challenger accident in 1986, NASA has extensively used probabilistic analysis methods to assess, understand, and communicate the risk of space launch vehicles. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), used in the nuclear industry, is one of the probabilistic analysis methods NASA utilizes to assess Loss of Mission (LOM) and Loss of Crew (LOC) risk for launch vehicles. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment that uses a combination of fault trees, event trees, event sequence diagrams, and probability distributions to analyze the risk of a system, a process, or an activity. It is a process designed to answer three basic questions: 1) what can go wrong that would lead to loss or degraded performance (i.e., scenarios involving undesired consequences of interest), 2) how likely is it (probabilities), and 3) what is the severity of the degradation (consequences). Since the Challenger accident, PRA has been used in supporting decisions regarding safety upgrades for launch vehicles. Another area that was given a lot of emphasis at NASA after the Challenger accident is reliability engineering. Reliability engineering has been a critical design function at NASA since the early Apollo days. However, after the Challenger accident, quantitative reliability analysis and reliability predictions were given more scrutiny because of their importance in understanding failure mechanism and quantifying the probability of failure, which are key elements in resolving technical issues, performing design trades, and implementing design improvements. Although PRA and reliability are both probabilistic in nature and, in some cases, use the same tools, they are two different activities. Specifically, reliability engineering is a broad design discipline that deals with loss of function and helps understand failure mechanism and improve component and system design. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment process intended to assess the risk scenarios that could lead to a major/top undesirable system event, and to identify those scenarios that are high-risk drivers. PRA output is critical to support risk informed decisions concerning system design. This paper describes the PRA process and the reliability engineering discipline in detail. It discusses their differences and similarities and how they work together as complementary analyses to support the design and risk assessment processes. Lessons learned, applications, and case studies in both areas are also discussed in the paper to demonstrate and explain these differences and similarities.

Safie, Fayssal↗
NASA NTRS2016

Integrating Spaceflight Human System Risk Research

NASA is working to increase the likelihoods of human health and performance success during exploration missions, and subsequent crew long-term health. To manage the risks in achieving these goals, a system modeled after a Continuous Risk Management framework is in place. "Human System Risks" (Risks) have been identified, and approximately 30 are being actively addressed by NASA's Human Research Program (HRP). Research plans for each of HRP's Risks have been developed and are being executed. Ties between the research efforts supporting each Risk have been identified, however, this has been in an ad hoc fashion. There is growing recognition that solutions developed to address the full set of Risks covering medical, physiological, behavioral, vehicle, and organizational aspects of the exploration missions must be integrated across Risks and disciplines. We will discuss how a framework of factors influencing human health and performance in space is being applied as the backbone for bringing together sometimes disparate information relevant to the individual Risks. The resulting interrelated information is allowing us to identify and visualize connections between Risks and research efforts in a systematic and standardized way. We will discuss the applications of the visualizations and insights to research planning, solicitation, and decision-making processes.

Mindock, J.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Integrating Spaceflight Human System Risk Research

NASA is working to increase the likelihood of human health and performance success during exploration missions as well as to maintain the subsequent long-term health of the crew. To manage the risks in achieving these goals, a system modelled after a Continuous Risk Management framework is in place. "Human System Risks" (Risks) have been identified, and approximately 30 are being actively addressed by NASA's Human Research Program (HRP). Research plans for each of HRP's Risks have been developed and are being executed. Inter-disciplinary ties between the research efforts supporting each Risk have been identified; however, efforts to identify and benefit from these connections have been mostly ad hoc. There is growing recognition that solutions developed to address the full set of Risks covering medical, physiological, behavioural, vehicle, and organizational aspects of exploration missions must be integrated across Risks and disciplines. This paper discusses how a framework of factors influencing human health and performance in space is being applied as the backbone for bringing together sometimes disparate information relevant to the individual Risks. The resulting interrelated information enables identification and visualization of connections between Risks and research efforts in a systematic and standardized manner. This paper also discusses the applications of the visualizations and insights into research planning, solicitation, and decision-making processes.

Mindock, Jennifer↗
NASA NTRS2017

Mind the Gap: Exploring the Underground of the NASA Space Cancer Risk Model

The REID quantifies the lifetime risk of death from radiation-induced cancer in an exposed astronaut. The NASA Space Cancer Risk (NSCR) 2012 mode incorporates elements from physics, biology, epidemiology, and statistics to generate the REID distribution. The current model quantifies the space radiation environment, radiation quality, and dose-rate effects to estimate a NASA-weighted dose. This weighted dose is mapped to the excess risk of radiation-induced cancer mortality from acute exposures to gamma rays and then transferred to an astronaut population. Finally, the REID is determined by integrating this risk over the individual's lifetime. The calculated upper 95% confidence limit of the REID is used to restrict an astronaut's permissible mission duration (PMD) for a proposed mission. As a statistical quantity characterized by broad, subjective uncertainties, REID estimates for space missions result in wide distributions. Currently, the upper 95% confidence level is over 350% larger than the mean REID value, which can severely limit an astronaut's PMD. The model incorporates inputs from multiple scientific disciplines in the risk estimation process. Physics and particle transport models calculate how radiation moves through space, penetrates spacecraft, and makes its way to the human beings onboard. Epidemiological studies of exposures from atomic bombings, medical treatments, and power plants are used to quantify health risks from acute and chronic low linear energy transfer (LET) ionizing radiation. Biological studies in cellular and animal models using radiation at various LETs and energies inform quality metrics for ions present in space radiation. Statistical methodologies unite these elements, controlling for mathematical and scientific uncertainty and variability. Despite current progress, these research platforms contain knowledge gaps contributing to the large uncertainties still present in the model. The NASA Space Radiation Program Element (SRPE) defines the knowledge gaps that impact our understanding of the cancer risks. These gaps are outlined in NASA's Human Research Roadmap [4], which identifies the research questions and actions recommended for reducing the uncertainty in the current NSCR model and for formulation of future models. The greatest contributors to uncertainty in the current model include radiation quality, dose rate effects, and the transfer of exposure-based risk from other populations to an astronaut population. Future formulations of the risk model may benefit from including other potential sources of uncertainty such as space dosimetry, errors in human epidemiology data, and the impact of microgravity and other spaceflight stressors. Here, we discuss the current capabilities of the NSCR-2012 model and several immediate research needs, highlighting areas expected to have an operational impact on the current model schema. The following subway-style route map outlines the NSCR-2012 model (Green Line), emphasizing the research gaps in the Human Research Roadmap for risk of radiation-induced carcinogenesis (Stops on Dashed Lines). The map diagrams how these research gaps feed specific portions of the model.

Chappell, L. J.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Natural Hazard Risk Assessments at the Global Scale

Since 1990, natural hazards have led to over 1.6 million fatalities globally, and economic losses are estimated at an average of around USD 260–310 billion per year. The scientific and policy communities recognise the need to reduce these risks. As a result, the last decade has seen a rapid development of global models for assessing risk from natural hazards at the global scale. In this paper, we review the scientific literature on natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale, and we specifically examine whether and how they have examined future projections of hazard, exposure, and/or vulnerability. In doing so, we examine similarities and differences between the approaches taken across the different hazards, and we identify potential ways in which different hazard communities can learn from each other. For example, there are a number of global risk studies focusing on hydrological, climatological, and meteorological hazards that have included future projections and disaster risk reduction measures (in the case of floods), whereas fewer exist in the peer-reviewed literature for global studies related to geological hazards. On the other hand, studies of earthquake and tsunami risk are now using stochastic modelling approaches to allow for a fully probabilistic assessment of risk, which could benefit the modelling of risk from other hazards. Finally, we discuss opportunities for learning from methods and approaches being developed and applied to assess natural hazard risks at more continental or regional scales. Through this paper, we hope to encourage further dialogue on knowledge sharing between disciplines and communities working on different hazards and risk and at different spatial scales.

Philip J. Ward↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Climate change reshapes the drivers of false spring risk across European trees

Temperate and boreal forests are shaped by late spring freezing events after budburst, which are also known as false springs. Research has generated conflicting results on whether or not these events will change with climate change, potentially because---to date---no study has compared the myriad climatic and geographic factors that contribute to a plant's risk of a false spring. We assessed and compared the strength of the effects of mean spring temperature, distance from the coast, elevation and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) using PEP725 leafout data for six temperate, decidious tree species across 11,648 sites in Central Europe and how these predictors shifted with climate change. Across species before recent warming, mean spring temperature and distance from the coast were the strongest predictors, with higher mean spring temperatures associated with decreased risk in false springs (–7.64% per 2°C increase) and sites further from the coast experiencing an increased risk (5.32% per 150km from the coast). Elevation (2.23% per 200m increase in elevation) and NAO index (1.91% per 0.3 increase) also increased false spring risk. With climate change, elevation and distance from coast---i.e., the geographic factors---remain relatively stable, while climatic factors shifted in magnitude for mean spring temperature (down to -2.84% in risk per 2°C), and in direction, with positive NAO phases leading to lower risk (-9.15% per 0.3). The residual effects of climate change---unexplained by the climatic and geographic factors already included in the model---magnified the species-level variation in risk, with risk increasing among early-leafout species (i.e., Aesculus hippocastanum, Alnus glutinosa and Betula pendula) but a decline or no change in risk among late-leafout species (i.e., Fagus sylvatica, Fraxinus excelsior and Quercus robur). Our results show that climate change has reshaped the major drivers of false spring risk and highlight how considering multiple factors can yield a better understanding of the complexities of climate change.

Climate change↗
NASA NTRS2023

Adaptive Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Reduces Risk of Software Impacting Safety in Artemis Missions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is asking more of its human spaceflight programs than ever before through the collective Artemis Missions. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program contributes to NASA’s human spaceflight goals by providing IV&V services for NASA’s critical spacecraft and ground software. The IV&V Program is tasked with providing assurance from both individual and integrated mission software perspectives. The Artemis IV&V organization is actively supporting six distinct development efforts: Orion, the Space Launch System (SLS), Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), Mission Control Center (MCC), the Lunar Gateway, and the Human Landing System (HLS), representing a wide diversity of developer organizations, management structures, and development approaches. With much of this extremely complex flight and ground software being essential to human safety both on the ground and in space, Artemis IV&V is likewise challenged to provide more value-added assurance to future Artemis missions within a constrained budget. To meet this challenge, Artemis IV&V employs a variety of novel and evolving “Adaptive IV&V” approaches for planning and executing IV&V analysis to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the IV&V Program’s assurance activities, and to address the difficulties imposed by assuring software for a large, highly integrated, multi-mission enterprise managed and executed by physically and organizationally distinct programs. Instilling agile principles like iterative planning cycles, self-organizing teams, and regular retrospectives, into IV&V planning and execution has led to a more rapid turnaround of a minimum viable assurance product and allowed for increased alignment of assurance activities with development progress. Adopting an assurance case methodology has led to greater consistency and clearer communication of assurance design and provided a foundation for long-term maintenance of assurance plans, products, and results across missions. The IV&V-developed Assurance / Safety Case Analytical Network (A-SCAN) framework and tool has enabled the quantification and tracking of system/software risk and confidence. These confidence measures provide a means to repeatedly express the impact of planned and completed assurance work and the remaining residual risk. Applied as part of a “Follow-the-Risk” organizational ethos, this allows consistent rightsizing of analysis rigor and intensity commensurate with the perceived risk of defects, as well as appropriate targeting of the highest risk areas of the software to find safety issues before they can manifest. Finally, the development of the IV&V Advanced Risk Reduction Integrated Software Test and Operations Tri-program Lightweight Environment (ARRISTOTLE), an integrated software-only simulation of Orion, SLS, and EGS systems, has made it possible to independently test integrated pad and flight scenarios and inject faults to observe how the Artemis multi-program, mission software behaves in degraded modes and in response to hazards. These adaptive IV&V investments have enabled Artemis IV&V to become more efficient and effective in IV&V planning and execution and respond more readily to changes in the risk landscape, increasing the breadth and depth of risk reduction possible within the available resources. Residual risk tracking allows IV&V to communicate more effectively with stakeholders, both internal and external at all levels, and inform key decision-making personnel. This evolving assurance design approach provides IV&V surety that work is performed in the highest risk, most value-added areas of the software, to keep our astronauts and ground crews safe and ensure mission success.

Gerek A Whitman↗
NASA NTRS2023

Adaptive Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Reduces Risk of Software Impacting Safety in Artemis Missions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is asking more of its human spaceflight programs than ever before through the collective Artemis Missions. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program contributes to NASA’s human spaceflight goals by providing IV&V services for NASA’s critical spacecraft and ground software. The IV&V Program is tasked with providing assurance from both individual and integrated mission software perspectives. The Artemis IV&V organization is actively supporting six distinct development efforts: Orion, the Space Launch System (SLS), Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), Mission Control Center (MCC), the Lunar Gateway, and the Human Landing System (HLS), representing a wide diversity of developer organizations, management structures, and development approaches. With much of this extremely complex flight and ground software being essential to human safety both on the ground and in space, Artemis IV&V is likewise challenged to provide more value-added assurance to future Artemis missions within a constrained budget. To meet this challenge, Artemis IV&V employs a variety of novel and evolving “Adaptive IV&V” approaches for planning and executing IV&V analysis to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the IV&V Program’s assurance activities, and to address the difficulties imposed by assuring software for a large, highly integrated, multi-mission enterprise managed and executed by physically and organizationally distinct programs. Instilling agile principles like iterative planning cycles, self-organizing teams, and regular retrospectives, into IV&V planning and execution has led to a more rapid turnaround of a minimum viable assurance product and allowed for increased alignment of assurance activities with development progress. Adopting an assurance case methodology has led to greater consistency and clearer communication of assurance design and provided a foundation for long-term maintenance of assurance plans, products, and results across missions. The IV&V-developed Assurance / Safety Case Analytical Network (A-SCAN) framework and tool has enabled the quantification and tracking of system/software risk and confidence. These confidence measures provide a means to repeatedly express the impact of planned and completed assurance work and the remaining residual risk. Applied as part of a “Follow-the-Risk” organizational ethos, this allows consistent rightsizing of analysis rigor and intensity commensurate with the perceived risk of defects, as well as appropriate targeting of the highest risk areas of the software to find safety issues before they can manifest. Finally, the development of the IV&V Advanced Risk Reduction Integrated Software Test and Operations Tri-program Lightweight Environment (ARRISTOTLE), an integrated software-only simulation of Orion, SLS, and EGS systems, has made it possible to independently test integrated pad and flight scenarios and inject faults to observe how the Artemis multi-program, mission software behaves in degraded modes and in response to hazards. These adaptive IV&V investments have enabled Artemis IV&V to become more efficient and effective in IV&V planning and execution and respond more readily to changes in the risk landscape, increasing the breadth and depth of risk reduction possible within the available resources. Residual risk tracking allows IV&V to communicate more effectively with stakeholders, both internal and external at all levels, and inform key decision-making personnel. This evolving assurance design approach provides IV&V surety that work is performed in the highest risk, most value-added areas of the software, to keep our astronauts and ground crews safe and ensure mission success.

Gerek Whitman↗
DOE OSTI2026

Development and application of an environmental risk register for marine energy device and project developers

The marine energy industry is steadily advancing as more devices are deployed worldwide. However, several challenges and barriers remain, such as lingering uncertainty regarding the potential environmental effects of marine energy devices on marine animals, habitats, and ecosystems. Concerns have led to difficulty navigating permitting and consenting processes and receiving authorization to deploy devices in the marine environment, including extended timelines and costs. Based on existing risk registers, a novel marine energy environmental risk register was created to help the marine energy industry move beyond these barriers. This risk register aims to aid marine energy device and project developers identify and assess potential environmental risks early in device design or project planning, document and track potential environmental interactions, prioritize risks and determine risk responses, and make decisions throughout device or project development. It can also be used as a tool to assist in communicating with regulators and advisors during permitting processes and to inform stakeholder and community engagement efforts. This paper details the methods and process to develop a risk register specific to environmental effects of marine energy and describes two use cases (one for wave energy and another for tidal energy) to highlight example results. Due to the tool's novelty, the paper showcases its application for the marine energy industry and acknowledges limitations and possible future improvements. Overall, the environmental risk register shows promise to support marine energy developers when identifying, tracking, and addressing potential environmental risks and to help successfully navigate permitting and deploy marine energy devices responsibly.

Environmental effects↗
NASA NTRS2011

Understanding Pre-Quantitative Risk in Projects

Standard approaches to risk management in projects depend on the ability of teams to identify risks and quantify the probabilities and consequences of these risks (e.g., the 5 x 5 risk matrix). However, long before quantification does - or even can - occur, and long after, teams make decisions based on their pre-quantitative understanding of risk. These decisions can have long-lasting impacts on the project. While significant research has looked at the process of how to quantify risk, our understanding of how teams conceive of and manage pre-quantitative risk is lacking. This paper introduces the concept of pre-quantitative risk and discusses the implications of addressing pre-quantitative risk in projects.

risk levels.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Risk Reduction for the System Design of an Enhanced MMRTG

Engineering of an enhanced Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (eMMRTG) began 3 years ago with agreement between the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is leading the transfer of skutterudite thermoelectric couple technology to industry and leading the systems engineering of the proposed eMMRTG. Should NASA fund the flight development of an eMMRTG, the DOE would lead the flight system development. The analytical models and design of the MMRTG have been enhanced to use skutterudite couples developed at Jet Propulsion Laboratory over the last two decades. This required a thorough evaluation of the MMRTG design, and concurrent engineering of an enhanced MMRTG to shed light on potential design issues or risks. At the end of the U.S. fiscal year (FY) 2015, a complete catalog of risks was produced. Tests, hardware development, and analyses have now been put in place to mitigate those risks to acceptable levels. Few risks can ever be truly eliminated unless a design is modified to eliminate specific risks and not introduce more severe risks. The design imperative for the eMMRTG is to change only a few MMRTG features; therefore, risks can largely only be mitigated, not eliminated, through design changes. However, many risks can be effectively - though not totally - eliminated without design changes. This paper briefly describes some of the documented risks and mitigations or reduction approaches to be applied in the coming 3 years, on the way to completing the eMMRTG concept.

eMMRTG↗
NASA NTRS1997

Landscape characterization of peridomestic risk for Lyme disease using satellite imagery

Remotely sensed characterizations of landscape composition were evaluated for Lyme disease exposure risk on 337 residential properties in two communities of suburban Westchester County, New York. Properties were categorized as no, low, or high risk based on seasonally adjusted densities of Ixodes scapularis nymphs, determined by drag sampling during June and July 1990. Spectral indices based on Landsat Thematic Mapper data provided relative measures of vegetation structure and moisture (wetness), as well as vegetation abundance (greenness). A geographic information system (GIS) was used to spatially quantify and relate the remotely sensed landscape variables to risk category. A comparison of the two communities showed that Chappaqua, which had more high-risk properties (P < 0.001), was significantly greener and wetter than Armonk (P < 0.001). Furthermore, within Chappaqua, high-risk properties were significantly greener and wetter than lower-risk properties in this community (P < 0.01). The high-risk properties appeared to contain a greater proportion of broadleaf trees, while lower-risk properties were interpreted as having a greater proportion of nonvegetative cover and/or open lawn. The ability to distinguish these fine scale differences among communities and individual properties illustrates the efficiency of a remote sensing/GIS-based approach for identifying peridomestic risk of Lyme disease over large geographic areas.

Topography, Medical↗
NASA NTRS2018

Imaging X-Ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) Risk Management

The Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) project is an international collaboration to build and fly a polarization sensitive X-ray observatory. The IXPE Observatory consists of the spacecraft and payload. The payload is composed of three X-ray telescopes, each consisting of a mirror module optical assembly and a polarization-sensitive X-ray detector assembly; a deployable boom maintains the focal length between the optical assemblies and the detectors. The goal of the IXPE Mission is to provide new information about the origins of cosmic X-rays and their interactions with matter and gravity as they travel through space. IXPE will do this by exploiting its unique capability to measure the polarization of X-rays emitted by cosmic sources. The collaboration for IXPE involves national and international partners during design, fabrication, assembly, integration, test, and operations. The full collaboration includes NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Ball Aerospace, the Italian Space Agency (ASI), the Italian Institute of Astrophysics and Space Planetology (IAPS)/Italian National Institute of Astrophysics (INAF), the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN), the University of Colorado (CU) Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP), Stanford University, McGill University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The goal of this paper is to discuss risk management as it applies to the IXPE project. The full IXPE Team participates in risk management providing both unique challenges and advantages for project risk management. Risk management is being employed in all phases of the IXPE Project, but is particularly important during planning and initial execution-the current phase of the IXPE Project. The discussion will address IXPE risk strategies and responsibilities, along with the IXPE management process which includes risk identification, risk assessment, risk response, and risk monitoring, control, and reporting.

IXPE↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

3D Representation of UAV-obstacle Collision Risk Under Off-nominal Conditions

Safe operations of autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in low-altitude airspace with beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) flights demand robust risk monitoring of airspace as well as of people and property on ground. One of the safety critical factors for UAV flights is the risk of collision with static and dynamic obstacles in proximity to its flight path. This paper presents a detailed formulation of risk of obstacle collision incorporating the effects of off-nominal conditions introduced by component failures, degraded controllability and environmental disturbances such as wind gusts. The risk is represented in terms of a matrix with rows corresponding to the likelihood of occurrence of collision and columns representing severity of collision to the vehicle and surrounding structures. Risk likelihood is generated using a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) that compiles knowledge from related Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEAs) and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to determine the probability of collision based on on-board sensor measurements indicative of vehicle health and controllability. Risk severity is computed utilizing a point-mass 3D kinematic model of the vehicle in presence of wind. The proposed risk factor is demonstrated on real flight data from experimental flights of an octocopter at NASA Langley Research Center in presence of simulated obstacles and wind conditions. Effect of varying wind conditions, level of controllability and obstacle measurement noise on the risk factor is demonstrated. The proposed approach enables risk-informed decision making for timely mitigation of current and future unsafe events in autonomous systems.

risk analysis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Implementing an Objectives-Driven, Risk-Informed, and Case-Assured Approach to Safety and Mission Success at NASA

NASA is developing a “Standard for Assurance of Space Flight Safety and Mission Success” that implements an objectives-driven, risk-informed, and case-assured approach to safety and mission success (S&MS) for NASA space flight programs and projects. The standard aligns with the philosophy of risk leadership that has recently been established in NASA policy to assure acceptable levels of flight crew safety and mission success risk. It is consistent with existing NASA risk management requirements and is compatible with NASA program management and systems engineering requirements. The methodology described in the standard is presented in terms of an S&MS assurance framework that is designed to allow substantial flexibility in the specific means by which programs and projects achieve acceptable mission S&MS risk. Such flexibility is necessary to accommodate the increasingly broad range of acquisition strategies employed by NASA, including commercial transportation services, as well as to accommodate the increasingly rapid evolution of space flight-related technologies and practices. A key feature of the S&MS assurance framework is the specification of S&MS success criteria for each life-cycle review (LCR). The S&MS assurance case is structured around these criteria, the satisfaction of which indicates that the program/project is adhering to the S&MS risk posture. This enables the evolving S&MS assurance case to be used as a fundamental program/project submittal at each LCR, where its inherent structure of argument, supported by evidence, directly supports the evaluation of the program/project with respect to the S&MS success criteria, and by extension, the S&MS risk posture. As such, the S&MS assurance case is integral to program/project systems engineering, risk management, and S&MS oversight activities, and provides the principal basis for S&MS risk acceptance by the Decision Authority throughout the program/project life cycle.

Risk Posture↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In-Depth Modeling and Simulation Analysis of Artemis Missions Using the Impact Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool

BACKGROUND The Artemis campaign is a Moon exploration program with a series of six planned missions, five of which will be crewed. These five crewed missions will contain a single mission segment (space flight), or multiple mission segments involving space flight (Orion), lunar landing (LTV) and/or space habitat (Gateway). Each crewed segment faces the risk of unique medical conditions, necessitating medical sets/kits tailored to those specificities. To support and enable a data-driven and evidence-based decision-making process through out a mission’s life cycle, a software tool called IMPACT was developed. Using probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methodologies, IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a novel tool built for analyzing the possibility of encountering complex medical risks during space flight, and for identifying the medical resources and capabilities needed to treat those potential at-risk medical conditions. IMPACT achieves this by performing hundreds of thousands of Monte Carlo simulations of missions to build aggregate pictures of medical risk. During an extended simulation modeling phase, IMPACT generated analytical results for medical risks, and the medical resources and capabilities to address those risks, for every segment of every crewed Artemis mission. This presentation will highlight the reliability, consistency and validity of IMPACT’s computational modeling techniques and will showcase the library of analytical outcomes generated for the Artemis missions. OVERVIEW During the early stages of IMPACT’s design, architecture and technical requirements collection, “scenarios” (use cases) - achievement goals required for acceptance testing, were identified by stakeholders. IMPACT successfully completed the scenario testing requirements and undertook an extensive operational run phase utilizing a wide range of input combinations with a goal of delivering a cohesive, trustworthy, reliable, vast, and diverse body of evidence. The intent of these modeling runs was to validate consistency in output, ensure solidity of executable operations and to streamline processes by identifying areas requiring efficiency improvements. Using the many missions of Artemis, IMPACT ran variations of operational runs to assess the output for acceptable, as well as unusual characteristics. This rigorous long-term “shakedown” analysis was implemented to help build a collective body of evidence to aid in securing a high level of confidence, reliability, and validity in the output, whether from the applicational components of IMPACT, or the entirety of the operational process. ANTICIPATED ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION This presentation will discuss the various categories of input criteria; the comparisons in the application of these input criteria to various Artemis missions; the preparation and collection of the body of evidence, and reliability of the computational modeling techniques. This paper serves as an initial analytical overview of IMPACT’s probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) medical risk outputs covering Artemis missions and is not intended to be deemed the official medical response for the Artemis campaign.

Crew Composition↗
NASA NTRS1993

Risk management for the Space Exploration Initiative

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a quantitative engineering process that provides the analytic structure and decision-making framework for total programmatic risk management. Ideally, it is initiated in the conceptual design phase and used throughout the program life cycle. Although PRA was developed for assessment of safety, reliability, and availability risk, it has far greater application. Throughout the design phase, PRA can guide trade-off studies among system performance, safety, reliability, cost, and schedule. These studies are based on the assessment of the risk of meeting each parameter goal, with full consideration of the uncertainties. Quantitative trade-off studies are essential, but without full identification, propagation, and display of uncertainties, poor decisions may result. PRA also can focus attention on risk drivers in situations where risk is too high. For example, if safety risk is unacceptable, the PRA prioritizes the risk contributors to guide the use of resources for risk mitigation. PRA is used in the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) Program. To meet the stringent requirements of the SEI mission, within strict budgetary constraints, the PRA structure supports informed and traceable decision-making. This paper briefly describes the SEI PRA process.

Buchbinder, Ben↗