Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “safety reporting”

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 253 records · Page 14

Annual survey of spaceflight safety systems - 10th supplement /Survey period: July 1979-June 1980/

The survey summarizes 15 papers whose topics represent significant safety developments reported between July 1979 and June 1980 in connection with spaceflight. The majority of the papers address the Space Shuttle mission (control-system software modification; abort procedures; Vandenberg AFB launch operations; assembly and repair of the Orbiter's Thermal Protection System; flight hardware). One paper describes a procedure aiding Space Transportation System (STS) payload organizations in complying with safety requirements established by NASA. Spacecraft cabin environments, collision avoidance in near-earth space, and intercept and rendezvous charts are other topics of discussion. The survey also includes two papers outlining the European and Chinese approaches to astronaut selection and training.

Brown, N. E.↗

Interchangeable Tools for Remote Manipulators

Report presents concepts and specifications for set of interchangeable end-effector tools used on remotely operated manipulator to work on satellites in orbit. Tools make urgent repairs, do routine maintenance, transfer fluids, construct and assemble satellites, and deploy and retract appendages. With modifications, tool concepts and systematic approach to tool design applicable to such terrestrial uses as industrial robots, manually operated tools, and safety equipment. Report discusses concept for tool-storage system that holds tools securely when not used but kept accessible to manipulator.

Cody, J. C.↗

Orbiting propellant depot safety. Volume 1: Management summary report

Orbital missions are considered which require the use of orbiting vehicles, e.g., a cislunar shuttle, that is either chemically or nuclear propelled, functioning as orbit-to-orbit shuttles combined with space tugs for servicing earth-orbiting payloads. Such vehicles may be stationed in a low earth orbit from which they would initiate and terminate flights. The flight frequency of these vehicles indicates that large quantities of propellants will have to be delivered to them in orbit. Orbiting propellant depots, in both geocentric and selenocentric orbits, are being considered as candidate methods of making the required propellants readily available. An assessment of the potential safety hazards associated with the operation of such a depot is summarized.

Source record↗

Perceive: Proactive Exploration of Risky Concept Emergence for Identifying Vulnerabilities & Exposures

National databases that collect various kinds of textual threat reports such as ASRS, CERT, and NVD manually process their reports individually. They then offer data products to disseminate the aggregate information, like newsletters, alerts or individual report searching. The goal of this research is to connect these individual reports thematically and temporally to identify emerging or recurring threats, by analyzing large collections of text, source code, collaboration and communication patterns. This capability, I argue, enables us to identify the emergence and recurrence of such themes, and the contexts in which they re-occur, facilitating faster and more capable mitigation. I propose two models to shed light on this goal: An empirical model of vulnerabilities as bugs, the commit flow model, and one of the vulnerabilities and aviation safety threats as topics, the topic flow model. I use as gold standard existing manual workflows in both domains, reflected in the existing data products by these organizations, and empirically evaluate if the automated model scan match or outperform existing manual practices.

ASRS↗

System Safety Analysis of Complex NASA Systems with Model-Based Engineering

The emergence of model-based engineering is transforming design and analysis methodologies [5]. A recognized benefit of model-based engineering is the existence of a “single source of truth” about the system that becomes the authoritative source of data and information for designers, analysts, and developers. This promotes consistency and efficiency as the design emerges and can be used to further optimize the design. Integrating System Safety Engineers to the “single source of truth” will ensure that the outputs of their assessments and analyses are relevant to the design as it evolves. Use of an integrated system model enables near immediate evaluation of a design change as well as development of operational processes for risk assessment and communication. Such models can enable efficient and timely analysis of system hazards (e.g., hazard fault tree analysis and procedure simulations) and produce complete, accurate, and more consistent products (e.g., hazard reports and safety requirement evaluations). Therefore, an agency-sponsored team at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) recently completed a System Safety Study of modeling and testing capabilities as part of a Model-Based Safety and Mission Assurance Initiative (MBSMAI). Using an existing model developed for reliability analyses [1], GSFC modeling and system safety experts performed system safety analysis/modeling and produced safety products. The team evaluated model-based feasibility to support System Safety Engineering, developed safety analysis modeling processes, and identified tool capability advancement/development needs. These study results indicate model-based engineering is valid and useable for System

NASA↗

System Safety Analysis of Complex NASA Systems with Model Based Engineering

The emergence of model-based engineering is transforming design and analysis methodologies [5]. A recognized benefit of model-based engineering is the existence of a “single source of truth” about the system that becomes the authoritative source of data and information for designers, analysts, and developers. This promotes consistency and efficiency as the design emerges and can be used to further optimize the design. Integrating System Safety Engineers to the “single source of truth” will ensure that the outputs of their assessments and analyses are relevant to the design as it evolves. Use of an integrated system model enables near immediate evaluation of a design change as well as development of operational processes for risk assessment and communication. Such models can enable efficient and timely analysis of system hazards (e.g., hazard fault tree analysis and procedure simulations) and produce complete, accurate, and more consistent products (e.g., hazard reports and safety requirement evaluations). Therefore, an agency-sponsored team at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) recently completed a System Safety Study of modeling and testing capabilities as part of a Model-Based Safety and Mission Assurance Initiative (MBSMAI). Using an existing model developed for reliability analyses [1], GSFC modeling and system safety experts performed system safety analysis/modeling and produced safety products. The team evaluated model-based feasibility to support System Safety Engineering, developed safety analysis modeling processes, and identified tool capability advancement/development needs. These study results indicate model-based engineering is valid and useable for System

Model Based Engineering↗

System Safety Analysis of Complex NASA Systems with Model-Based Engineering (REV B)

The emergence of model-based engineering is transforming design and analysis methodologies. A recognized benefit of model-based engineering is the existence of a “single source of truth” about the system that becomes the authoritative source of data and information for designers, analysts, and developers. This promotes consistency and efficiency as the design emerges and can be used to further optimize the design. Integrating System Safety Engineers to the “single source of truth” will ensure that the outputs of their assessments and analyses are relevant to the design as it evolves. Use of an integrated system model enables near immediate evaluation of a design change as well as development of operational processes for risk assessment and communication. Such models can enable efficient and timely analysis of system hazards (e.g., hazard fault tree analysis and procedure simulations) and produce complete, accurate, and more consistent products (e.g., hazard reports and safety requirement evaluations). Therefore, an agency-sponsored team at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) recently completed a System Safety Study of modeling and testing capabilities as part of a Model-Based Safety and Mission Assurance Initiative (MBSMAI). Using an existing model developed for reliability analyses, GSFC modeling and system safety experts performed system safety analysis/modeling and produced safety products. The team evaluated model-based feasibility to support System Safety Engineering, developed safety analysis modeling processes, and identified tool capability advancement/development needs. These study results indicate model-based engineering is valid and useable for System Safety Engineering for NASA if adequate modeling processes and environment are established.

NASA↗

Reliability Modeling Methodology for Independent Approaches on Parallel Runways Safety Analysis

This document is an adjunct to the final report An Integrated Safety Analysis Methodology for Emerging Air Transport Technologies. That report presents the results of our analysis of the problem of simultaneous but independent, approaches of two aircraft on parallel runways (independent approaches on parallel runways, or IAPR). This introductory chapter presents a brief overview and perspective of approaches and methodologies for performing safety analyses for complex systems. Ensuing chapter provide the technical details that underlie the approach that we have taken in performing the safety analysis for the IAPR concept.

Babcock, P.↗

Surface Map Traffic Intent Displays and Net-Centric Data-link Communications for NextGen

By 2025, U.S. air traffic is predicted to increase three fold and may strain the current air traffic management system, which may not be able to accommodate this growth. In response to this challenge, a revolutionary new concept has been proposed for U.S. aviation operations, termed the Next Generation Air Transportation System or "NextGen". Many key capabilities are being identified to enable NextGen, including the use of data-link communications. Because NextGen represents a radically different approach to air traffic management and requires a dramatic shift in the tasks, roles, and responsibilities for the flight deck, there are numerous research issues and challenges that must be overcome to ensure a safe, sustainable air transportation system. Flight deck display and crew-vehicle interaction concepts are being developed that proactively investigate and overcome potential technology and safety barriers that might otherwise constrain the full realization of NextGen. The paper describes simulation research, conducted at National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center, examining data-link communications and traffic intent data during envisioned four-dimensional trajectory (4DT)-based and equivalent visual (EV) surface operations. Overall, the results suggest that controller pilot data-link communications (CPDLC) with the use of mandatory pilot read-back of all clearances significantly enhanced situation awareness for 4DT and EV surface operations. The depiction of graphical traffic state and intent information on the surface map display further enhanced off-nominal detection and pilot qualitative reports of safety and awareness.

Shelton, Kevin J.↗

Cross-Cultural Barriers to Effective Communication in Aviation

Communication is essential to safe flight, as evidenced by several accidents in which crew communicates was found to have contributed to the accidents. This chapter documents the essential role of explicit efficient communication to flight safety with a global context. It addresses communication between flight crews and air traffic controllers in regions a the world where pilots and controllers speak different native languages, as well as cases in which crew members within the flight deck represent different native languages and cultures. It also addresses problems associated with "exporting" crew resource management training programs to parts of the world which values and norms differ from those of the United States, where these programs were initially developed. This chapter is organized around several central questions: (1) What are various kinds of communication failures and what are their consequences; (2) What are the causes of communication failure; (3) What are features of effective crew communication; (4) What can be done to enhance communication success? To explore a wider range of communication failures than available from accident reports, we examined a set of incident reports from the Aviation Safety Reporting System. These could be classified into three major categories: those in which language actually interfered with transmission of a message; those in which transmission was adequate but the context was not expressed unambiguously and thus the message received was not the same as the message intended; and those in which the message was received as intended, but was not adequately understood or acted upon, mainly because of cultural factors. The consequences of failed communication can be flight errors (such as when a clearance is not received correctly), loss of situation awareness, or failure of crew members (or ATC and pilots) to build a shared understanding of a situation. Causes of misunderstanding can be traced to a number of sources, often grounded in faulty assumptions held by one or both parties to a conversation. Speakers and listeners often experience "illusionary understanding" in which they think they understand each other, but in fact do not. While this problem can exist within a single culture, it is much more serious across cultures. Training in effective explicit communication is a component of Crew Resource Management training programs developed in the U.S. These programs are being adopted by airlines around the world, with varying degrees of success. The level of success in part depends on how similar the conversational and social styles of those cultures are to those of the U.S. A factor that influences conversational style is a culture's relative positioned on two major dimensions that distinguish national cultural groups: individualism vs. collectivism and degree of power distance. The chapter concludes with a discussion of techniques for overcoming the various classes of communication failures and for effectively adapting training programs to fit the values and norms of cultures around the globe.

Fischer, U.↗

Report to NASA Committee on Aircraft Operating Problems Relative to Aviation Safety Engineering and Research Activities

The following report highlights some of the work accomplished by the Aviation Safety Engineering and Research Division of the Flight Safety Foundations since the last report to the NASA Committee on Aircraft Operating Problems on 22 May 1963. The information presented is in summary form. Additional details may be provided upon request of the reports themselves may be obtained from AvSER.

Source record↗

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel

This report covers the activities of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) for calendar year 1998-a year of sharp contrasts and significant successes at NASA. The year opened with the announcement of large workforce cutbacks. The slip in the schedule for launching the International Space Station (ISS) created a five-month hiatus in Space Shuttle launches. This slack period ended with the successful and highly publicized launch of the STS-95 mission. As the year closed, ISS assembly began with the successful orbiting and joining of the Functional Cargo Block (FGB), Zarya, from Russia and the Unity Node from the United States. Throughout the year, the Panel maintained its scrutiny of NASA's safety processes. Of particular interest were the potential effects on safety of workforce reductions and the continued transition of functions to the Space Flight Operations Contractor. Attention was also given to the risk management plans of the Aero-Space Technology programs, including the X-33, X-34, and X-38. Overall, the Panel concluded that safety is well served for the present. The picture is not as clear for the future. Cutbacks have limited the depth of talent available. In many cases, technical specialties are 'one deep.' The extended hiring freeze has resulted in an older workforce that will inevitably suffer significant departures from retirements in the near future. The resulting 'brain drain' could represent a future safety risk unless appropriate succession planning is started expeditiously. This and other topics are covered in the section addressing workforce. The major NASA programs are also limited in their ability to plan property for the future. This is of particular concern for the Space Shuttle and ISS because these programs are scheduled to operate well into the next century. In the case of the Space Shuttle, beneficial and mandatory safety and operational upgrades are being delayed because of a lack of sufficient present funding. Likewise, the ISS has little flexibility to begin long lead-time items for upgrades or contingency planning. For example, the section on computer hardware and software contains specific findings related to required longer range safety-related actions. NASA can be proud of its accomplishments this past year, but must remain ever vigilant, particularly as ISS assembly begins to accelerate. The Panel will continue to focus on both the short- and long-term aspects of risk management and safety planning. This task continues to be made manageable and productive by the excellent cooperation the Panel receives from both NASA and its contractors. Particular emphasis will continue to be directed to longer term workforce and program planning issues as well as the immediate risks associated with ISS assembly and the initial flights of the X-33 and X-34. Section 2 of this report presents specific findings and recommendations generated by ASAP activities during 1998. Section 3 contains more detailed information in support of these findings and recommendations. Appendix A is a current roster of Panel members, consultants, and staff. Appendix B contains NASA's response to the findings and recommendations from the 1997 ASAP Annual Report. Appendix C details the fact-finding activities of the Panel in 1998. During the year, Mr. Richard D. Blomberg was elected chair of the Panel and Vice Admiral (VADM) Robert F Dunn was elected deputy chair. VADM Bernard M. Kauderer moved from consultant to member. Mr. Charles J. Donlan retired from the Panel after many years of meritorious service. Ms. Shirley C. McCarty and Mr. Robert L. ('Hoot') Gibson joined the Panel as consultants.

Source record↗

Manned space flight nuclear system safety. Volume 3: Reactor system preliminary nuclear safety analysis. Part 2: Accident Model Document (AMD)

The Accident Model Document is one of three documents of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) - Reactor System as applied to a Space Base Program. Potential terrestrial nuclear hazards involving the zirconium hydride reactor-Brayton power module are identified for all phases of the Space Base program. The accidents/events that give rise to the hazards are defined and abort sequence trees are developed to determine the sequence of events leading to the hazard and the associated probabilities of occurence. Source terms are calculated to determine the magnitude of the hazards. The above data is used in the mission accident analysis to determine the most probable and significant accidents/events in each mission phase. The only significant hazards during the prelaunch and launch ascent phases of the mission are those which arise form criticality accidents. Fission product inventories during this time period were found to be very low due to very limited low power acceptance testing.

Source record↗

Development concept for a small, split-core, heat-pipe-cooled nuclear reactor

There have been two main deterrents to the development of semiportable nuclear reactors. One is the high development costs; the other is the inability to satisfy with assurance the questions of operational safety. This report shows how a split-core, heat-pipe cooled reactor could conceptually eliminate these deterrents, and examines and summarizes recent work on split-core, heat-pipe reactors. A concept for a small reactor that could be developed at a comparatively low cost is presented. The concept would extend the technology of subcritical radioisotope thermoelectric generators using 238 PuO2 to the evolution of critical space power reactors using 239 PuO2.

Lantz, E.↗

Locomotive Truck Dynamics

Commonly-used locomotive trucks tested to study and improve ride safety. Federal Railroad Administration and National Aeronautics and Space Administration jointly initiated program to study locomotive truck dynamics to improve operation safety. Final report summarizes program and truck and component tests.

Berry, R. L.↗