Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Safety”

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 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Real-Time Safety Monitoring and Prediction for the National Airspace System

As new operational paradigms and additional aircraft are being introduced into the National Airspace System (NAS), maintaining safety in such a rapidly growing environment becomes more challenging. It is therefore desirable to have both an overview of the current safety of the airspace at different levels of granularity, as well an understanding of how the state of the safety will evolve into the future given the anticipated flight plans, weather forecasts, predicted health of assets in the airspace, and so on. To this end, we have developed a Real-Time Safety Monitoring (RTSM) that first, estimates the state of the NAS using the dynamic models. Then, given the state estimate and a probability distribution of future inputs to the NAS, the framework predicts the evolution of the NAS, i.e., the future state, and analyzes these future states to predict the occurrence of unsafe events. The entire probability distribution of airspace safety metrics is computed, not just point estimates, without significant assumptions regarding the distribution type and or parameters. We demonstrate our overall approach by predicting the occurrence of some unsafe events and show how these predictions evolve in time as flight operations progress.

National Airspace System↗
NASA NTRS2002

NASA/Navy Benchmarking Exchange (NNBE). Volume 1. Interim Report. Navy Submarine Program Safety Assurance

The NASA/Navy Benchmarking Exchange (NNBE) was undertaken to identify practices and procedures and to share lessons learned in the Navy's submarine and NASA's human space flight programs. The NNBE focus is on safety and mission assurance policies, processes, accountability, and control measures. This report is an interim summary of activity conducted through October 2002, and it coincides with completion of the first phase of a two-phase fact-finding effort.In August 2002, a team was formed, co-chaired by senior representatives from the NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance and the NAVSEA 92Q Submarine Safety and Quality Assurance Division. The team closely examined the two elements of submarine safety (SUBSAFE) certification: (1) new design/construction (initial certification) and (2) maintenance and modernization (sustaining certification), with a focus on: (1) Management and Organization, (2) Safety Requirements (technical and administrative), (3) Implementation Processes, (4) Compliance Verification Processes, and (5) Certification Processes.

SUBSAFE PROGRAM↗
NASA NTRS2001

NASA Safety and Health (Short Form). Final rule

This final rule adopts with changes the interim rule published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2001 (65 FR 18051-18053), which amended the NASA FAR Supplement to implement a Safety and Health (Short Form) clause to address safety and occupational health in all NASA contracts above the micro-purchase threshold where the existing Safety and Health clause did not apply, and amended other safety and health clauses to be consistent with the new NASA Safety and Health (Short Form) clause.

Contract Services↗
NASA NTRS2016

Ensuring Payload Safety in Missions with Special Partnerships

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) payload space flight missions involve cooperative work between NASA and partners including spacecraft (or payload) contractors, universities, nonprofit research centers, Agency payload organization, Range Safety organization, Agency launch service organizations, and launch vehicle contractors. The role of NASA's Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) Directorate is typically fairly straightforward, but when a mission's partnerships become more complex, to realize cost and science benefits (e.g., multi-agency payload(s) or cooperative international missions), the task of ensuring payload safety becomes much more challenging. This paper discusses lessons learned from NASA safety professionals working multiple-agency missions and offers suggestions to help fellow safety professionals working multiple-agency missions.

Agency launch service organizations↗
NASA NTRS2018

Effects of Aircraft Health on Airspace Safety

This manuscript investigates the effects of aircraft health on the surrounding airspace, and proposes a methodology to understand how different aircraft-level faults (system faults, communication faults, etc.) can adversely affect the safety of the airspace, and qualitatively assess the impact of such faults on airspace safety metrics (such as congestion, controller/pilot workload, etc.). The topic of systems health management deals with continuously monitoring the performance of an engineering system, identifying and detecting the presence of faults, predicting the growth/progression of faults, computing the remaining useful life, and aiding online decision-making for the robust, continued operation of such engineering systems. The topic of real-time airspace modeling and safety analysis deals with defining and computing safety metrics for airspace operations in order to support risk-informed decision-making activities for various airspace entities including pilots, air traffic controllers, airlines, etc. This report presents recent research efforts that focus on combining multiple aspects of the aforementioned topics, and investigates the impact of aircraft-level faults on the airspace safety

Aircraft Health↗
NASA NTRS2018

Survey of Methods to Predict Controller Workload for Real-Time Monitoring of Airspace Safety

The Real Time Safety Monitoring (RTSM) approach allows for assessment and prediction of the safety margin in the National Airspace System (NAS) to help preempt incidents and accidents, rather than having to reactively mitigate them. In RTSM, the NAS is modeled using state variables, and safety metrics are defined in terms of these state variables. The safety metrics have been classified as weather-related, airspace-related, and human-related. Many of the formulated human-related safety metrics need an estimate of the controller workload for their computation. However, this computation is not trivial. Hence, in this report, we perform a literature survey to identify the different factors that enable the computation of controller workload and categorize these factors. Next, we describe studies undertaken to determine a minimal set of factors that pro- vide a correct assessment of controller workload. Lastly, we survey approaches for evaluating how well the selected factors correlate with the controllers' subjective assessment of their workload. Based on this survey, we present factors beneficial to computing and predicting controller workload in real time, and discuss the status of data sources necessary for these computations.

National Airspace System↗
NASA NTRS2018

Risk Tolerance and Safety Culture: Minimizing the Risk of Catastrophe by Bringing the Lessons of Space Home

The Johnson Space Center has pursued integrating safety culture and risk management practices and techniques throughout a large organization with an extraordinarily diverse mission. Past mission and institutional failures have been used to inform NASA's safety culture and a implement a uniform risk management environment. Basics from the loss prevention industry have influenced NASA's approach to sustaining its unique, yet aging, infrastructure. Lessons learned at NASA can augment and enhance occupational safety, health and risk management capabilities within hazardous industries. By focusing on risk informed decision-making, building a pervasive safety culture, and accommodating human factors, NASA's safety capabilities have been specifically developed to minimize the risk of loss of life and loss of mission.

Mishap↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Informing New Concepts for UAS and Autonomous System Safety Management using Disaster Management and First Responder Scenarios

As emerging flight operations become more prevalent and increasingly automated and distributed, the capabilities for managing safety of vehicles and operations will also need to evolve. To address this challenge, the National Academies has envisioned an In-Time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) capability for a wide range of aviation operations including current commercial operations as well as new entrants envisioned with advanced air mobility (AAM). The suite of IASMS services, functions, and capabilities (SFCs) would be implemented in a federated approach and would address trends as well as individual operations. Through predictive modeling and data analysis, IASMS is envisioned to identify arising risks so that they can be mitigated, in-time, before a safety incident occurs. IASMS and its requisite set of SFCs must leverage a wide range of information to perform. To better understand these new needs, FSF worked with the aviation and humanitarian communities to develop and validate scenarios that include traditional aviation operations and UAS operations intermingled as they are deployed for disaster management and first responder (DMFR) situations. The three scenarios developed include: • Post Natural disaster response, such as a hurricane, involving multiple parties utilizing traditional aviation and UAS to support rescue operations, surveil damage, and locate survivors needing assistance. • Wildfire fighting in remote locations with traditional aircraft for transport and fire-retardant delivery combined with UAS for surveillance of fire locations as well as to track individual firefighter locations. • Medical Operations and AAM in Urban Environments including passenger-carrying helicopters and AAM vehicles, medical missions (such as transport of radio-pharmaceuticals), and other UAS delivery operations (such as the delivery of defibrillators). Each scenario was developed and validated by representatives with expertise in humanitarian operations, urban and rural emergency response, air traffic management, UAS operations, and traditional flight operations. The scenario definitions address roles and responsibilities of individual actors, the appropriate utilization of UAS, and the actions taken by those actors to appropriately manage risks associated with the mission and environment. The risks to aviation traffic and to people on the ground explored included potential risks arising from incompatibilities in calculating reference altitudes (eg, differing uses of AGL, MSL, barometric, or GPS-derived values), loss of command and control (C2) communications, rapid changes in weather and winds, and physical interference. For each risk, IASMS SFCs were postulated in the context of monitoring services, risk assessment capabilities, and identifying appropriate mitigation strategies. The identified SFC capabilities were envisioned from known services postulated for IASMS and for UTM. For these unique environments, IASMS SFCs are needed to address conditions such as hazardous payloads, micro-climates and urban canyons, and the need to keep uninvolved air traffic out of the area where DMFR operations are being conducted. The second phase of analysis focused on inferring the specific information needs and the SFCs for IASMS, utilizing a structure of 16 information classes to organize requirements. For each of the risks identified in the workshops, it was postulated what data sources would be necessary to monitor critical aspects of the risk (eg, surrounding air traffic, ground population, terrain, etc). to be directly measured as well as data that would be derived, which implies additional SFCs for different actors to understand what information would likely be exchanged between parties. For an IASMS to be effective, additional research is needed to develop the advanced algorithms that can address the increasingly autonomous and complex operations in differing environments and to develop means of identifying unknown risks. Looking at these scenarios highlighted a number of research issues. These include the ability to quickly "cordon off" airspace thru temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) or other means, developing clear definitions to enable automation-based algorithms for prioritizing operations, defining airspace density metrics, standardization of altitude reporting, and establishing a basis for safety data metrics definition and collection. This paper seeks to outline the development of an IASMS in the context of the DMFR scenarios and resulting demonstrations. Utilizing this contextual approach, NASA will generate recommendations for an assured safety framework for AAM operations that enables AAM operations to safely access the NAS.

In Time Aviation Safety Management System↗
NASA NTRS2021

Reliability and Safety Assessment of Urban Air Mobility Concept Vehicles

The following work was commissioned by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to guide industry and future regulation related to urban air mobility (UAM). Prior studies compared the relative safety of NASA concept vehicles, Figure ES1, designed for UAM and provided recommendations for industry research, aircraft architectural improvements, and regulatory updates. After the prior study completed, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) released regulatory guidance in the form of a special condition (SC), SC-VTOL-01, for multirotors with distributed propulsion and flight controls (DPFC). The objective of the current work was to develop DPFC architectures that will comply with SC-VTOL-01. Vehicle designs, DPFC architectures, and stability & control (S&C) models were developed to find limitations and trends to guide industry. To guide this task, NASA developed quad, hex, and an octorotor to better define vehicle attributes and trade space. Aircraft for study included electric, hybrid-electric, and turboshaft powerplants and collective and RPM control schemes. Assessments are in terms of the safety level achieved, and/or aircraft component/features needed to meet SC-VTOL-01. The most challenging criteria being the catastrophic failure rate, ≤10-9 catastrophic failures per flight hour, and that no single failures may result in a catastrophic event. A disciplined process was followed, similar to that in Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) 4761. A preliminary system safety assessment (PSSA) leveraged prior work as a basis of creating failure rate budgets for system design teams. System designs were updated and iterated upon, working with reliability and safety subject matter experts to develop SC-VTOL-01 compliant designs. Design changes were reflected in updated PSSAs for initial verification of compliance. The DPFC architecture was broken into four system design teams, the (1) flight control system (FCS), (2) drive and power system, (3) thermal management system (TMS), and (4) electrical power and distribution system. The FCS including elements necessary to control the aircraft, drive and power including elements necessary to generate and transmit shaft power, the TMS including elements necessary to maintain temperature limits in all operating environments, and electrical pow-er and distribution including equipment necessary to store and transmit electrical energy. Results found that all aircraft evaluated may have paths to comply with SC-VTOL-01, Figure ES2. However, S&C models showed large power transients that must be addressed and PSSA results show that future work is needed in single load path structures, high voltage power storage and distribution, and in motor/rotor overspeed protection.

Boeing↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Safety-Driven Approach to Exploring and Comparing Air Traffic Management Concepts for Enabling Urban Air Mobility

There is broad recognition that the high tempo and density of Urban Air Mobility (UAM) operations will require identifying new Air Traffic Management (ATM) concepts to safely integrate UAM air traffic into the airspace alongside existing air traffic. However, the simulation models used to compare ATM concepts today are difficult to apply during the early stages of concept development and do not offer enough support in identifying potential new concepts. In addition, they have limited ability to evaluate ATM concepts in terms of safety, security, and other key emergent properties. Instead of using simulation to evaluate ATM concepts, this paper demonstrates how a safety-driven systems engineering approach based on Systems-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP) can be used to design properties such as safety into an ATM system from the earliest stages of development. Using a hazard analysis technique called Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA), system requirements and the desired ATM behavior are derived. As an example, two possible ATM concepts to implement that behavior are compared to identify their safety-related benefits and tradeoffs. This new approach enables (1) systematic exploration of alternative ATM concepts and (2) identification of the safety-related tradeoffs between concepts as early as possible in the development process.

system safety↗
NASA NTRS2024

In-Time Safety Management for Part 139 Airports

Today’s airports are complex multi-faceted ecosystems. Currently, of the 517 certificated airports, 270 are required to use safety management systems (SMSs) to identify and mitigate known hazards and emergent risks and to voluntarily share safety data with commercial operators and tenants. Airports manage a wide variety of hazards. These traffic hubs have direct responsibilities, such as removing foreign object debris from runways and taxiways and configuring runways to help prevent against incursions and tail strikes during takeoff. To ensure safety in the future NAS, the National Academies recommended an In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS). An IASMS will employ services, functions, and capabilities (SFCs) to identify and mitigate hazards that are proactively and predictively managed based on data analytics of detected anomalies, precursors, and trends. SFCs would scale with airport complexity and environmental conditions using increasingly automated systems to respond proactively to hazards and, by using integrated data sources and predictive safety analytical methods, discover new, never before seen risks.

IASMS↗
NASA NTRS1971

Generalized safety equation - A concept

Concept provides definition of relationship between safety and reliability, personnel safety measurement, and equipment safety evaluation. Safety systems cope with single or combined risks. Cost and effectiveness of alternate hypothetical safety systems are estimated and used as basis for final system design.

Hano, G.↗
NASA NTRS1971

Applications of aerospace technology in industry, a technology transfer profile: Fire safety

The fire safety field is considered as being composed of three parts: an industry, a technology base, and a user base. An overview of the field is presented, including a perspective on the magnitude of the national fire safety problem. Selected NASA contributions to the technology of fire safety are considered. Communication mechanisms, particularly conferences and publications, used by NASA to alert the community to new developments in the fire safety field, are reviewed. Several examples of nonaerospace applications of NASA-generated fire safety technology are also presented. Issues associated with attempts to transfer this technology from the space program to other sectors of the American economy are outlined.

Kottenstette, J. P.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Processes of technology assessment: The National Transportation Safety Board

The functions and operations of the Safety Board as related to technology assessment are described, and a brief history of the Safety Board is given. Recommendations made for safety in all areas of transportation and the actions taken are listed. Although accident investigation is an important aspect of NTSB's activity, it is felt that the greatest contribution is in pressing for development of better accident prevention programs. Efforts of the Safety Board in changing transportation technology to improve safety and prevent accidents are illustrated.

Weiss, E.↗
NASA NTRS1976

Crew safety

Crew safety in the manned spaceflight is usually associated with a small group for safety and quality assurance. Crew safety is actually an integral part of all program phases from conception through final implementation. Factors associated with improving safety at each phase of development are discussed. Topics discussed include design, manufacture, hardware/software checkout, management reviews, training and simulation, and data retrieval and analysis. Crew safety is best accomplished by flying a successful mission.

Slayton, D. K.↗
NASA NTRS1977

Rocket propulsion hazard summary: Safety classification, handling experience and application to space shuttle payload

The DOT classification for transportation, the military classification for quantity distance, and hazard compatibility grouping used to regulate the transportation and storage of explosives are presented along with a discussion of tests used in determining sensitivity of propellants to an impact/shock environment in the absence of a large explosive donor. The safety procedures and requirements of a Scout launch vehicle, Western and Eastern Test Range, and the Minuteman, Delta, and Poseidon programs are reviewed and summarized. Requirements of the space transportation system safety program include safety reviews from the subsystem level to the completed payload. The Scout safety procedures will satisfy a portion of these requirements but additional procedures need to be implemented to comply with the safety requirements for Shuttle operation from the Eastern Test Range.

Pennington, D. F.↗
NASA NTRS1985

Space station crew safety: Human factors interaction model

A model of the various human factors issues and interactions that might affect crew safety is developed. The first step addressed systematically the central question: How is this space station different from all other spacecraft? A wide range of possible issue was identified and researched. Five major topics of human factors issues that interacted with crew safety resulted: Protocols, Critical Habitability, Work Related Issues, Crew Incapacitation and Personal Choice. Second, an interaction model was developed that would show some degree of cause and effect between objective environmental or operational conditions and the creation of potential safety hazards. The intermediary steps between these two extremes of causality were the effects on human performance and the results of degraded performance. The model contains three milestones: stressor, human performance (degraded) and safety hazard threshold. Between these milestones are two countermeasure intervention points. The first opportunity for intervention is the countermeasure against stress. If this countermeasure fails, performance degrades. The second opportunity for intervention is the countermeasure against error. If this second countermeasure fails, the threshold of a potential safety hazard may be crossed.

Cohen, M. M.↗