SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “systemic 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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 253 records · Page 14

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A New Vision and A More Rational Process Will Advance Space Life Support Through Better Projects

Many space life support assumptions are obviously mistaken but they are generally accepted because they mutually support each other and because they advance a mistaken futuristic vision of closed human ecosystems in space. Many projects have been mistakenly selected to increase life support system closure or reduce launch mass in order to implement this impractical vision. Project members rarely challenge their project’s assumptions and guiding vision. Systems engineering including cost, reliability, risk, and system trade-offs has been very strongly discouraged to prevent rational criticism of these dubious assumptions, the projects, and the ecosystem vision. A more realistic vision can define better near term life support goals and future aspirations that will improve mission support and increase public interest. Given more realistic goals, it will be possible to develop effective technical alternatives, use open rational project selection methods, conduct professional project management, and make swifter progress in the inevitable human advance into space. The current unworkable human space settlement scenario involves moon visits and permanent bases, zero gravity trips to Mars, Mars visits and bases, all leading to extensive human settlements on the moon and Mars. This is unrealistic because the moon and Mars have less than Earth normal gravity and high radiation that can seriously damage human health. A better alternative would use rotating space colonies that produce Earth gravity and are radiation shielded. The attractive fantasy of reproducing terrestrial ecology in space should be replaced by the idea of building a closed system based on advancing technology such as artificial photosynthesis. Past mistaken projects include growing plants for food to replicate terrestrial food sources, recovering small amounts of water from difficult to process waste to achieve high system closure, and using newly designed, lighter, but unreliable hardware to reduce launch mass. The political process supporting the false assumptions, projects, and vision has deliberately prevented the usual systems engineering and cost-benefit analysis. We are going to do much better.

Harry W. Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of a Safety Hazards Risk Assessment Tool for Uncrewed Aircraft System Traffic Management during Preflight Planning

Tremendous growth in the uncrewed and remotely piloted vehicle market is expected in low-altitude, uncontrolled airspace, resulting in potential decreases in safety without systems that support monitoring, assessing, and mitigating risk. At NASA, the System-Wide Safety (SWS) project has been developing a suite of data-driven tools to predict hazards so that the potential risks that these hazards pose can be mitigated. Services to predict various hazards have been developed, including battery capacity, proximity to static obstacles, population risks, global positioning system signal strength, radio frequency spectrum interference risk, and vertiport congestion. These services can monitor hazards along a flight path and if any risks posed by these hazards exceed a threshold, the uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) fleet manager can be alerted to mitigate the risk by modifying the flight path, changing the scheduled departure or arrival times, and/or diverting the vehicle to an alternate vertiport. These services were originally developed to monitor and assess risks during flight, but they have been adapted to assess hazard risks prior to departure so that a fleet manager can evaluate the potential risks for a fleet of UAS along their planned flight paths. These services have been integrated into a prototype tool called the Supplemental Data Service Provider-Consolidated Dashboard (SDSP-CD), developed at NASA Ames Research Center. The tool consists of a dashboard which provides a comprehensive overview for a number of risks and a map display that shows the details of the hazards along each flight’s path. Based on the findings from three previous studies, the SDSP-CD has been updated with new design elements and functions. In this paper, we describe lessons learned from the previous studies, changes made to the interface, and the feedback received during a follow-up usability study. Overall, participants reported that there is a substantial benefit of having a fleet manager use a consolidated dashboard to assess hazards for the vehicles in their fleet and to provide situational awareness to potential risks so that they can be mitigated prior to flight. Once the SDSP-CD matures, it will need to be integrated into flight and mission planning tools. Some initial thoughts on how this integration should be accomplished are shared in this paper. Finally, the functional differences between preflight vs. in-flight risk assessment and the differences in fleet manager vs. UAS pilot roles that may require different information and user interactions are discussed.

preflight↗

NASA NTRS2018

Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) of a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Dynamic Positioning System (DPS)

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) has been utilized by NASA in a variety of space oriented projects. It has served as one of the primary risk identification and ranking tools. Recent developments in the oil and gas industry have presented opportunities for NASA to lend their PRA expertise to both ongoing and developmental projects within the industry. As a result, NASA has entered into an agreement with Anadarko Petroleum Company (APC) to collaboratively develop PRAs for different aspects of the subsea drilling and completion process of well development. This paper documents how PRA was applied to estimate the probability that a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) equipped with a generically configured Dynamic Positioning System (DPS) loses location and needs to initiate an emergency disconnect. Since this project was in essence a pilot project, the PRA described in this paper is intended to be generic such that the vessel meets the general requirements of an International Maritime Organization (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC)/Circ. 645 Class 3 dynamically positioned vessel. The results of this analysis are not intended to be applied to any specific drilling vessel, although provisions were made to allow the analysis to be configured to a specific vessel if required.

Thigpen, Eric B.↗

NASA NTRS1993

A prototype expert/information system for examining environmental risks of KSC activities

Protection of the environment and natural resources at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is of great concern. An expert/information system to replace the paper-based KSC Environmental Checklist was developed. The computer-based system requests information only as a required and supplies assistance as needed. The most comprehensive portion of the system provides information about endangered species habitat at KSC. This module uses geographic information system (GIS) data and tools, expert rules, color graphics, computer-based video, and hypertext to provide information.

Engel, Bernard A.↗

NASA NTRS2009

The Application of a Residual Risk Evaluation Technique Used for Expendable Launch Vehicles

This presentation provides a Residual Risk Evaluation Technique (RRET) developed by Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Launch Services Division. This technique is one of many procedures used by S&MA at KSC to evaluate residual risks for each Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) mission. RRET is a straight forward technique that incorporates the proven methodology of risk management, fault tree analysis, and reliability prediction. RRET derives a system reliability impact indicator from the system baseline reliability and the system residual risk reliability values. The system reliability impact indicator provides a quantitative measure of the reduction in the system baseline reliability due to the identified residual risks associated with the designated ELV mission. An example is discussed to provide insight into the application of RRET.

Latimer, John A.↗

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 NTRSDate not supplied

AgMIP Local, National and Global Assessments of Food System Challenges in A Changing Climate

Food systems connect a diverse network of stakeholders around the world, with complex dynamics governing production, processing, transportation, trade and consumption of food products. Extreme conditions can disrupt multiple components of the food system, with systemic connections providing structure that can both buffer and exacerbate risks. Climate change is shifting current practices in agricultural production and the broader food system, encouraging shifts toward more diverse value chains capable of drawing from multiple food producing regions to reduce the chance that an entire value chain be subject to simultaneous impacts. The IPCC Working Group I report assessed that heat waves, fires, floods and severe storms are becoming more pronounced and widespread with each degree of global warming, increasing food system risk. Food system disruptions can also come from outside the climate system, including from viral outbreaks, geopolitical conflict and socioeconomic changes. This presentation will highlight how the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) develops modeling approaches that connect climate, biophysical and socioeconomic models in order to capture complex responses of the food system and potential interventions by diverse stakeholders in the public and private sectors. Models are applied on a range of scales that match decision contexts. These include households in specific agricultural production regions (e.g., within a country), national-level policymakers considering policies, sustainability and development priorities for a country’s agricultural sector, and global food market models that balance production and consumption around the world with competition for land, water, energy and sustainability priorities. Models are capable of capturing many important responses, but further development is needed to represent key systemic risks and the possibility for additional interventions beyond the farm gate. Improved food system models will provide important insights into our society’s ability to cope with climate change, as well as our ability to identify agricultural adaptation and mitigation opportunities to reduce overall risk.

Food systems↗

NASA NTRS1990

Rotor systems research aircraft risk-reduction shake test

A shake test and an extensive analysis of results were performed to evaluate the possibility of and the method for dynamically calibrating the Rotor Systems Research Aircraft (RSRA). The RSRA airframe was subjected to known vibratory loads in several degrees of freedom and the responses of many aircraft transducers were recorded. Analysis of the transducer responses using the technique of dynamic force determination showed that the RSRA, when used as a dynamic measurement system, could predict, a posteriori, an excitation force in a single axis to an accuracy of about 5 percent and sometimes better. As the analysis was broadened to include multiple degrees of freedom for the excitation force, the predictive ability of the measurement system degraded to about 20 percent, with the error occasionally reaching 100 percent. The poor performance of the measurement system is explained by the nonlinear response of the RSRA to vibratory forces and the inadequacy of the particular method used in accounting for this nonlinearity.

Wellman, J. Brent↗

NASA NTRS2016

Risk Reduction for the System Design of an Enhanced MMRTG

No abstract available

Skutterudite↗

NASA NTRS2018

A New Approach to Mission Classification and Risk Management for NASA Space Flight Missions

The NASA risk classification system is meant to uide space mission development from formulation through completion of implementation. It is also meant to be the basis on which program and project managers develop and implement appropriate mission assurance and risk management strategies for the mission. In order to be useful, the risk classification system needs to provide consistent and reproducible classification results so that missions may be designed with the appropriate components, subsystems, and testing philosophy, all of which impacts mission schedule and cost. In a cost-constrained environment, a clear, robust, and reproducible approach to mission implementation becomes more critical than ever before. Once a project's risk classification level is established, the managers can define the appropriate management controls, systems engineering processes, mission assurance requirements, safety, and testing for that mission. The current NASA mission classification system will be reviewed before a new system is proposed.NASA manages space flight missions according to a four-tiered classification which assumes increasing levels of risk. We argue that risk does not change between classes. What changes are the means available to reduce risk. In performance-driven missions, the project will spend money in order to maintain performance without reducing margins. In cost-constrained missions, performance will be reduced in order to stay within budget or to maintain schedule: measurement requirements may be traded, design life may be reduced, or both. We then propose a new approach to the classification of NASA space flight missions, based on an assessment of how flexible the requirements, how exquisite the measurements, how long the lifetime, and how rigid the budget.Our proposed approach makes possible a clearer differentiation between classification levels and more effective guidance to program and project managers.

Bordi, Francesco↗

NASA NTRS2011

Space Shuttle Systems Engineering Processes for Liftoff Debris Risk Mitigation

This slide presentation reviews the systems engineering process designed to reduce the risk from debris during Space Shuttle Launching. This process begins the day of launch from the tanking to the vehicle tower clearance. Other debris risks (i.e., Ascent, and micrometeoroid orbital debit) are mentioned) but are not the subject of this presentation. The Liftoff debris systems engineering process and an example of how it works are reviewed (i.e.,STS-119 revealed a bolt liberation trend on the Fixed Service Structure (FSS) 275 level elevator room). The process includes preparation of a Certification of Flight Readiness (CoFR) that includes (1) Lift-off debris from previous mission dispositioned, (2) Flight acceptance rationale has been provided for Lift-off debris sources/causes (3) Lift-off debris mission support documentation, processes and tools are in place for the up-coming mission. The process includes a liftoff debris data collection that occurs after each launch. This includes a post launch walkdown, that records each liftoff debris, and the entry of the debris into a database, it also includes a review of the imagery from the launch, and a review of the instrumentation data. There is also a review of the debris transport analysis process, that includes temporal and spatial framework and a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis. which incorporates a debris transport analyses (DTA), debris materials and impact tests, and impact analyses.

Mitchell, Michael↗

NASA NTRS2016

Mass and Reliability System (MaRS)

The Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Directorate is responsible for mitigating risk, providing system safety, and lowering risk for space programs from ground to space. The S&MA is divided into 4 divisions: The Space Exploration Division (NC), the International Space Station Division (NE), the Safety & Test Operations Division (NS), and the Quality and Flight Equipment Division (NT). The interns, myself and Arun Aruljothi, will be working with the Risk & Reliability Analysis Branch under the NC Division's. The mission of this division is to identify, characterize, diminish, and communicate risk by implementing an efficient and effective assurance model. The team utilizes Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) and Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to ensure decisions concerning risks are informed, vehicles are safe and reliable, and program/project requirements are realistic and realized. This project pertains to the Orion mission, so it is geared toward a long duration Human Space Flight Program(s). For space missions, payload is a critical concept; balancing what hardware can be replaced by components verse by Orbital Replacement Units (ORU) or subassemblies is key. For this effort a database was created that combines mass and reliability data, called Mass and Reliability System or MaRS. The U.S. International Space Station (ISS) components are used as reference parts in the MaRS database. Using ISS components as a platform is beneficial because of the historical context and the environment similarities to a space flight mission. MaRS uses a combination of systems: International Space Station PART for failure data, Vehicle Master Database (VMDB) for ORU & components, Maintenance & Analysis Data Set (MADS) for operation hours and other pertinent data, & Hardware History Retrieval System (HHRS) for unit weights. MaRS is populated using a Visual Basic Application. Once populated, the excel spreadsheet is comprised of information on ISS components including: operation hours, random/nonrandom failures, software/hardware failures, quantity, orbital replaceable units (ORU), date of placement, unit weight, frequency of part, etc. The motivation for creating such a database will be the development of a mass/reliability parametric model to estimate mass required for replacement parts. Once complete, engineers working on future space flight missions will have access a mean time to failures and on parts along with their mass, this will be used to make proper decisions for long duration space flight missions

Barnes, Sarah↗

NASA NTRS1992

The application of integrated knowledge-based systems for the Biomedical Risk Assessment Intelligent Network (BRAIN)

One of NASA's goals for long duration space flight is to maintain acceptable levels of crew health, safety, and performance. One way of meeting this goal is through BRAIN, an integrated network of both human and computer elements. BRAIN will function as an advisor to mission managers by assessing the risk of inflight biomedical problems and recommending appropriate countermeasures. Described here is a joint effort among various NASA elements to develop BRAIN and the Infectious Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) prototype. The implementation of this effort addresses the technological aspects of knowledge acquisition, integration of IDRA components, the use of expert systems to automate the biomedical prediction process, development of a user friendly interface, and integration of IDRA and ExerCISys systems. Because C language, CLIPS and the X-Window System are portable and easily integrated, they were chosen ss the tools for the initial IDRA prototype.

Loftin, Karin C.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) Ground Systems, Software and Operations Infrastructure Cloud Implementation

The growing number of large-scale constellations and the improvements made in the tracking and detection of resident space objects have contributed to the increase of satellite conjunction events. As a result of the increase of objects in Earth orbit, the timeline for risk analysis computations for satellite collision avoidance is more urgent when conjunctions occur. It is imperative NASA maintains a space environment safety functionality for the agency that allows CARA remote access to the ground system while maintaining redundancy. CARA’s On-premises (On-prem) ground system would no longer be able to meet these access and redundancy requirements, hence the investigation and eventual implementation of a Cloud-based ground station infrastructure as a viable solution. This paper will provide an overview of the principal parts of the Conjunction Assessment (CA) risk analysis process used at CARA, summarize the key drivers towards the Cloud solution, and share key lessons learned that are significant for any operational entity considering a cloud solution for real-time satellite operations to ensure a sustainable space traffic environment for all.

Sustainability↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Trash Compaction Processing System (TCPS) Technology Demonstrations and Risk Reduction Activities 2023-2024

The Trash Compactor Processing System (TCPS) employs heat and pressure to safely compress spacecraft trash. The Next STEP Phase B Appendix 2 contract was awarded to Sierra Space for the development of ground and flight demonstration hardware, slated for testing on the International Space Station in 2026. Meanwhile, Ames Research Center is actively engaged in risk reduction activities related to in-house hardware, fine-tuning science objectives and test procedures.This paper will discuss the updated TCPS requirements and present the results of the risk reduction activities, which include moisture analysis, component offgas, and aerosol analysis.

Justine Tra-my Richardson↗

NASA NTRS1993

Risk management in fly-by-wire systems

A general description of various types of fly-by-wire systems is provided. The risks inherent in digital flight control systems, like those used in the Space Shuttle, are identified. The results of a literature survey examining risk management methods in use throughout the aerospace industry are presented. The applicability of these methods to the Space Shuttle program is discussed.

Knoll, Karyn T.↗

NASA NTRS2012

A Systems Modeling Approach for Risk Management of Command File Errors

The main cause of commanding errors is often (but not always) due to procedures. Either lack of maturity in the processes, incompleteness of requirements or lack of compliance to these procedures. Other causes of commanding errors include lack of understanding of system states, inadequate communication, and making hasty changes in standard procedures in response to an unexpected event. In general, it's important to look at the big picture prior to making corrective actions. In the case of errors traced back to procedures, considering the reliability of the process as a metric during its' design may help to reduce risk. This metric is obtained by using data from Nuclear Industry regarding human reliability. A structured method for the collection of anomaly data will help the operator think systematically about the anomaly and facilitate risk management. Formal models can be used for risk based design and risk management. A generic set of models can be customized for a broad range of missions.

probabilistic risk↗

NASA NTRS2016

Towards a Methodology and Tooling for Model-Based Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)

A Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) aims to identify and assess potential risks to system technical performance requirements for the purpose of furnishing risk insights into project decisions. PRAs have traditionally been conducted manually using software with an isolated data model. As system complexity rises it becomes difficult to ensure consistency between a PRA, the evolving system design, and other engineering analyses; the techniques for conducting PRAs must evolve to meet this challenge. This work presents progress towards a methodology and tooling for conducting a PRA by leveraging data in the system model, embedded for other purposes and analyses, to conduct a PRA. An approach for identifying the appropriate probabilistic equation for each risk scenario from a standard library is presented, which is a significant step towards the quantification of the likelihood of a risk scenario occurrence. The final calculation of the likelihood of occurrence is left as an item of future work. We also present the development of preliminary tooling to carry out the methodology on a well-formed system model. The information needed to conduct the PRA is embedded in a consistent manner in a system model, so the model-based PRA can be regularly executed as the system model changes. The ability to modify the PRA in concert with lifecycle evolution affords a project the opportunity to track the extent to which system modification impacts compliance with requirements. These aspects of this model-based PRA methodology make it capable of managing risk in increasingly complex technical systems.

Schreiner, Samuel S.↗