Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “safety certification”

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 307 records · Page 17
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2008

Guidance and Control Software Project Data - Volume 3: Verification Documents

The Guidance and Control Software (GCS) project was the last in a series of software reliability studies conducted at Langley Research Center between 1977 and 1994. The technical results of the GCS project were recorded after the experiment was completed. Some of the support documentation produced as part of the experiment, however, is serving an unexpected role far beyond its original project context. Some of the software used as part of the GCS project was developed to conform to the RTCA/DO-178B software standard, "Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification," used in the civil aviation industry. That standard requires extensive documentation throughout the software development life cycle, including plans, software requirements, design and source code, verification cases and results, and configuration management and quality control data. The project documentation that includes this information is open for public scrutiny without the legal or safety implications associated with comparable data from an avionics manufacturer. This public availability has afforded an opportunity to use the GCS project documents for DO-178B training. This report provides a brief overview of the GCS project, describes the 4-volume set of documents and the role they are playing in training, and includes the verification documents from the GCS project. Volume 3 contains four appendices: A. Software Verification Cases and Procedures for the Guidance and Control Software Project; B. Software Verification Results for the Pluto Implementation of the Guidance and Control Software; C. Review Records for the Pluto Implementation of the Guidance and Control Software; and D. Test Results Logs for the Pluto Implementation of the Guidance and Control Software.

Hayhurst, Kelly J.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Guidance and Control Software Project Data - Volume 4: Configuration Management and Quality Assurance Documents

The Guidance and Control Software (GCS) project was the last in a series of software reliability studies conducted at Langley Research Center between 1977 and 1994. The technical results of the GCS project were recorded after the experiment was completed. Some of the support documentation produced as part of the experiment, however, is serving an unexpected role far beyond its original project context. Some of the software used as part of the GCS project was developed to conform to the RTCA/DO-178B software standard, "Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification," used in the civil aviation industry. That standard requires extensive documentation throughout the software development life cycle, including plans, software requirements, design and source code, verification cases and results, and configuration management and quality control data. The project documentation that includes this information is open for public scrutiny without the legal or safety implications associated with comparable data from an avionics manufacturer. This public availability has afforded an opportunity to use the GCS project documents for DO-178B training. This report provides a brief overview of the GCS project, describes the 4-volume set of documents and the role they are playing in training, and includes configuration management and quality assurance documents from the GCS project. Volume 4 contains six appendices: A. Software Accomplishment Summary for the Guidance and Control Software Project; B. Software Configuration Index for the Guidance and Control Software Project; C. Configuration Management Records for the Guidance and Control Software Project; D. Software Quality Assurance Records for the Guidance and Control Software Project; E. Problem Report for the Pluto Implementation of the Guidance and Control Software Project; and F. Support Documentation Change Reports for the Guidance and Control Software Project.

Hayhurst, Kelly J.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Perceived Noise Analysis for Offset Jets Applied to Commercial Supersonic Aircraft

A systems analysis was performed with experimental jet noise data, engine/aircraft performance codes and aircraft noise prediction codes to assess takeoff noise levels and mission range for conceptual supersonic commercial aircraft. A parametric study was done to identify viable engine cycles that meet NASAs N+2 goals for noise and performance. Model scale data from offset jets was used as input to the aircraft noise prediction code to determine the expected sound levels for the lateral certification point where jet noise dominates over all other noise sources. The noise predictions were used to determine the optimal orientation of the offset nozzles to minimize the noise at the lateral microphone location. An alternative takeoff procedure called programmed lapse rate was evaluated for noise reduction benefits. Results show there are two types of engines that provide acceptable range performance; one is a standard mixed-flow turbofan with a single-stage fan, and the other is a three-stream variable-cycle engine with a multi-stage fan. The engine with a single-stage fan has a lower specific thrust and is 8 to 10 EPNdB quieter for takeoff. Offset nozzles reduce the noise directed toward the thicker side of the outer flow stream, but have less benefit as the core nozzle pressure ratio is reduced and the bypass-to-core area ratio increases. At the systems level for a three-engine N+2 aircraft with full throttle takeoff, there is a 1.4 EPNdB margin to Chapter 3 noise regulations predicted for the lateral certification point (assuming jet noise dominates). With a 10 reduction in thrust just after takeoff rotation, the margin increases to 5.5 EPNdB. Margins to Chapter 4 and Chapter 14 levels will depend on the cumulative split between the three certification points, but it appears that low specific thrust engines with a 10 reduction in thrust (programmed lapse rate) can come close to meeting Chapter 14 noise levels. Further noise reduction is possible with additional reduction in takeoff thrust using programmed lapse rate, but studies are needed to investigate the practical limits for safety and takeoff regulations.

Turbofans↗
NASA NTRS2019

Perceived Noise Analysis for Offset Jets Applied to Commercial Supersonic Aircraft

A systems analysis was performed with experimental jet noise data, engineaircraft performance codes and aircraft noise prediction codes to assess takeoff noise levels and mission range for conceptual supersonic commercial aircraft. A parametric study was done to identify viable engine cycles that meet NASAs N+2 goals for noise and performance. Model scale data from offset jets was used as input to the aircraft noise prediction code to determine the expected sound levels for the lateral certification point where jet noise dominates over all other noise sources. The noise predictions were used to determine the optimal orientation of the offset nozzles to minimize the noise at the lateral microphone location. An alternative takeoff procedure called programmed lapse rate was evaluated for noise reduction benefits. Results show there are two types of engines that provide acceptable range performance; one is a standard mixed-flow turbofan with a single-stage fan, and the other is a three-stream variable-cycle engine with a multi-stage fan. The engine with a single-stage fan has a lower specific thrust and is 8 to 10 EPNdB quieter for takeoff. Offset nozzles reduce the noise directed toward the thicker side of the outer flow stream, but have less benefit as the core nozzle pressure ratio is reduced and the bypass-to-core area ratio increases. At the systems level for a three-engine N+2 aircraft with full throttle takeoff, there is a 1.4 EPNdB margin to Chapter 3 noise regulations predicted for the lateral certification point (assuming jet noise dominates). With a 10 reduction in thrust just after takeoff rotation, the margin increases to 5.5 EPNdB. Margins to Chapter 4 and Chapter 14 levels will depend on the cumulative split between the three certification points, but it appears that low specific thrust engines with a 10 reduction in thrust (programmed lapse rate) can come close to meeting Chapter 14 noise levels. Further noise reduction is possible with additional reduction in takeoff thrust using programmed lapse rate, but studies are needed to investigate the practical limits for safety and takeoff regulations.

Jet Noise↗
NASA NTRS2015

Orion Launch Abort System Performance on Exploration Flight Test 1

This paper will present an overview of the flight test objectives and performance of the Orion Launch Abort System during Exploration Flight Test-1. Exploration Flight Test-1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was managed and led by the Orion prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, and launched atop a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket. This flight test was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety. This test included the first flight test of the Launch Abort System preforming Orion nominal flight mission critical objectives. NASA is currently designing and testing the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Orion will serve as NASA's new exploration vehicle to carry astronauts to deep space destinations and safely return them to earth. The Orion spacecraft is composed of four main elements: the Launch Abort System, the Crew Module, the Service Module, and the Spacecraft Adapter (Fig. 1). The Launch Abort System (LAS) provides two functions; during nominal launches, the LAS provides protection for the Crew Module from atmospheric loads and heating during first stage flight and during emergencies provides a reliable abort capability for aborts that occur within the atmosphere. The Orion Launch Abort System (LAS) consists of an Abort Motor to provide the abort separation from the Launch Vehicle, an Attitude Control Motor to provide attitude and rate control, and a Jettison Motor for crew module to LAS separation (Fig. 2). The jettison motor is used during a nominal launch to separate the LAS from the Launch Vehicle (LV) early in the flight of the second stage when it is no longer needed for aborts and at the end of an LAS abort sequence to enable deployment of the crew module's Landing Recovery System. The LAS also provides a Boost Protective Cover fairing that shields the crew module from debris and the aero-thermal environment during ascent. Although the Orion Program has tested a number of the critical systems of the Orion spacecraft on the ground, the launch environment cannot be replicated completely on Earth. A number of flight tests have been conducted and are planned to demonstrate the performance and enable certification of the Orion Spacecraft. Exploration Flight Test 1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was successfully flown on December 5, 2014 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's Space Launch Complex 37. Orion's first flight was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety, such as heat shield performance, separation events, avionics and software performance, attitude control and guidance, parachute deployment and recovery operations. One of the key separation events tested during this flight was the nominal jettison of the LAS. Data from this flight will be used to verify the function of the jettison motor to separate the Launch Abort System from the crew module so it can continue on with the mission. The LAS nominal jettison event on Exploration Flight Test 1 occurred at six minutes and twenty seconds after liftoff (See Fig. 3). The abort motor and attitude control motors were inert for Exploration Flight Test 1, since the mission did not require abort capabilities. A suite of developmental flight instrumentation was included on the flight test to provide data on spacecraft subsystems and separation events. This paper will focus on the flight test objectives and performance of the LAS during ascent and nominal jettison. Selected LAS subsystem flight test data will be presented and discussed in the paper. Exploration Flight Test -1 will provide critical data that will enable engineering to improve Orion's design and reduce risk for the astronauts it will protect as NASA continues to move forward on its human journey to Mars. The lessons learned from Exploration Flight Test 1 and the other Flight Test Vehicles will certainly contribute to the vehicle architecture of a human-rated space launch vehicle.

McCauley, R.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Summary of the industry/NASA/FAA workshop on philosophy of automation: Promises and realities

Issues of flight deck automation are multi-faceted and complex. The rapid introduction of advanced computer based technology on to the flight deck of transport category aircraft has had considerable impact on both aircraft operations and the flight crew. As part of NASA's responsibility to facilitate an active exchange of ideas and information between members of the aviation community, an Industry/NASA/FAA workshop was conducted in August 1988. One of the most important conclusions to emerge from the workshop was that the introduction of automation has clearly benefited aviation and has substantially improved the operational safety and efficiency of our air transport system. For example, one carrier stated that they have been flying the Boeing 767 (one of the first aircraft to employ substantial automation) since 1982, and they have never had an accident or incident resulting in damage to the aircraft. Notwithstanding its benefits, many issues associated with the design, certification, and operation of automated aircraft were identified. For example two key conceptual issues were the need for the crew to have a thorough understanding of the system and the importance of defining the pilot's role. With respect to certification, a fundamental issue is the lack of comprehensive human factors requirements in the current regulations. Operational considerations, which have been a factor in incidents involving automation, were also cited. Viewgraphs used in the presentation are given.

Norman, Susan D.↗
NASA NTRS2022

Supporting Hazard Analysis for Wildfire Response Using fmdtools and MIKA

The System Wide Safety (SWS) Safety Demonstrator (SD) Series drives development of an increasingly capable In-Time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) focusing on humanitarian applications, starting with wildfire response (SD-1). The goals of this report are to (1) provide an early hazard analysis and mitigation evaluation of wildfire response to support these efforts and (2) provide a demonstration of capabilities of the Fault Model Design Tools (fmdtools) and Manager for Intelligent Knowledge Access (MIKA) tools. fmdtools provides a modeling, simulation, and resiliency analysis framework in which a wildfire response model, the System Modeling and Analysis of Resiliency in Scalable Traffic Management for Emergency Response Operations (SMARt-STEReO), is built. MIKA is an intelligent knowledge manager with several capabilities, including assisting in hazard analysis by extracting and analyzing hazards from historical incident reports. The following topics are covered in the report: Understanding Wildfire Hazard Dynamics. We provide a description and simulated examples of how hazards occur in the SMARt-STEReO model of wildfire response and their effect on its outcome. This provides a common mental model and focuses the analysis presented in the remainder of the report. Wildfire Hazard Identification. MIKA identifies wildfire hazards from three relevant datasets: the ICS-209-PLUS, SAFECOM, and SAFENET. Hazards are manually organized into a taxonomy and MIKA analyzes each hazard’s effects, likelihood, severity, and risk. Evaluating Mitigation Strategies. The SMARt-STEReO wildfire response model built in fmdtools evaluates a subset of identified hazards. Specifically, we simulate the effect of communications faults and equipment faults on operator safety, the effect of changing winds and flammability, and a scenario with multiple ignition points and heavy smoke. Tool Limitations and Usage Considerations. We provide a discussion of appropriate tool use cases as well as limitations and considerations for usage. The tool findings are used to synthesize recommendations for wildfire response operations, which can be captured as part of an IASMS. Key recommendations are as follows: Hazards are identified from a broad spectrum of sources including aircraft subsystems, operational sources, and ground crew operations. Highest risk operational environment hazards identified are Evacuations. The highest risk manned aerial operations hazard categorized is Jumper Operations Mishap. Ground crew hazards that are highest risk are Burns, Cargo Operations Overhead, Dehydration, Entrapment, Falling Objects, Heart Attacks, Heat Exhaustion, Inadequate Training or Certification, Vehicle Breakdown, and Vehicle Collision. Modelled containment failures arise from a mismatch between the difficulty of the firefighting scenario and the capacity (e.g., speed, effectiveness, awareness) of the response. In firefighting scenarios where containment is possible (e.g., because the fire does not spread too quickly), these mismatches can occur because of a change in environmental conditions (e.g., wind, flammability, etc) or because of planning, equipment, or communications faults. Improvements to communications increase the capacity of the firefighting response by reducing the time needed to respond to the fire. While surveillance does not increase this capacity by itself, it increases operator safety by increasing state awareness, enabling firefighters to evade approaching fires. Increasing both has a synergistic effect. In general, these performance and resilience increases generalize over fault scenarios as well as unforeseen changes to circumstances (i.e., wind, aridity, etc.). However, these improvements need to be designed so as not to make the system prone to persistent large-scale communications outages, which can reduce performance.

Hazard analysis↗
NASA NTRS2011

The Legacy of Space Shuttle Flight Software

The initial goals of the Space Shuttle Program required that the avionics and software systems blaze new trails in advancing avionics system technology. Many of the requirements placed on avionics and software were accomplished for the first time on this program. Examples include comprehensive digital fly-by-wire technology, use of a digital databus for flight critical functions, fail operational/fail safe requirements, complex automated redundancy management, and the use of a high-order software language for flight software development. In order to meet the operational and safety goals of the program, the Space Shuttle software had to be extremely high quality, reliable, robust, reconfigurable and maintainable. To achieve this, the software development team evolved a software process focused on continuous process improvement and defect elimination that consistently produced highly predictable and top quality results, providing software managers the confidence needed to sign each Certificate of Flight Readiness (COFR). This process, which has been appraised at Capability Maturity Model (CMM)/Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 5, has resulted in one of the lowest software defect rates in the industry. This paper will present an overview of the evolution of the Primary Avionics Software System (PASS) project and processes over thirty years, an argument for strong statistical control of software processes with examples, an overview of the success story for identifying and driving out errors before flight, a case study of the few significant software issues and how they were either identified before flight or slipped through the process onto a flight vehicle, and identification of the valuable lessons learned over the life of the project.

Hickey, Christopher J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

EVA Swab Kit: Tools and Techniques for Collecting Aseptic Samples from Crewed Space Missions

Introduction: When we send humans to search for life on other planets, we'll need to know what we brought with us versus what may already be there. To ensure our crewed spacecraft meet planetary protection requirements—and to protect our science from human contamination—we'll need to assess and verify whether micro-organisms may be leaking/venting from our spacesuits. This requires collecting samples under Extravehicular Activity (EVA) conditions. Detailed, systematic research on forward contamination from robotic spacecraft has been steadily progressing since the Viking missions, but systematic studies of contamination from space suits has not been conducted in many years. The modern EMU (Extravehicular Mobility Unit) suit used by NASA is designed to leak at rates as high as 100 cc/min. Before humans land on Mars there is a critical need to understand the types and quantities of microbes that could be introduced via space suits. The Human Forward Contamination Assessment team at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) has developed a prototype EVA swab tool [1,2,3,4] designed for use in space to sample cleaned and uncleaned space suits to determine the present day microbial load and eventually the rate of leakage. The ability to assess microbial leakage early in advanced space suit and life support system design cycles will help avoid costly hardware redesign later. Test Objectives: The primary objective of EMU testing was to characterize the type of micro-organisms typically found on or near selected suit pressure joints under suit differential pressure conditions. Most human-borne microbes can fit through a 0.5 to 1.0 µm gap. Knowing which joints are more likely to leak will inform hardware design decisions. Knowing which types of micro-organisms may leak from EVA suits provides a basis for subsequent studies to characterize the viability of those organisms under destination conditions, as well as how far they might spread through natural or human-influenced processes. That data, in turn, will inform exploration mission operations and hardware design. The secondary objective of testing was to evaluate the interface between a fully suited test subject and the EVA swab tool at vacuum. Bulky EVA suits can restrict movement and limit visibility through the helmet visor. Fully suited testing is important for identifying tool design issues prior to flight. At exploration destinations, such as Mars, suited crew may be required to periodically sample their suits as part of an environmental monitoring protocol. Suit Microbial Sampling Results: This report details results of microbial swabs collected from current flight suit configurations worn by crew members assigned to upcoming ISS expedition missions as well as swabs collected from prototype suits intended for use on the Orion spacecraft. These tests were intended to characterize the types of contaminants found on flight suits under current, typical handling conditions. No attempt was made to change suit handling procedures, provide additional sterilization, or to limit typical potential contaminant sources. Using culture based techniques, we cultivated 235 CFU (colony forming units) comprised of 26 bacterial species and one fungal species on the outside of the suits. The fungal species and 14 of the bacterial species were unique to the suit surfaces and were not detected in any of the background samples collected within the chambers. We sequenced 755,434 ribosomal fragments on all of the suit surfaces from swab samples. 557,016 of these sequences represent DNA that survived at least 4 hours at vacuum. These sequences formed 2,464 OTU's (Operational Taxonomic Units, 97% similarity) showing low diversity in the samples. The most abundant sequences that survived vacuum belong to the genera Staphyloccocus, Ralstona, Bacillus and Rhodobacter all of which are common to the human microbiome. [5] See Danko et al., (2021) for more complete details of these first analyses. Further analysis of EVA suit materials with respect to the efficacy of various cleaning protocols and engineered containment solutions is planned to inform suit design for NASA’s Artemis Moon to Mars program crew testing. Swab Tool Function Results: The kit was demonstrated for fit and function in suited subject vacuum tests to determine how well the tool worked as an aseptic microbial sampling device as well as to identify any design elements that could be upgraded for EVA task specific improvement. It was found that sample acquisition efficacy could be enhanced by redesign of the sample canister to end-effector interface. Several modifications of the sample caddy assemblies to optimize EVA safety and functionality were also identified. Consequently, fabrication of the redesigned sample canister to end-effector assembly interfaces and and the sample caddy assemblies are required. Fabrication of sixteen flight sample canister assemblies (8 per each of two EVA Swab Kits) and two sample caddy assemblies are in process to be followed by hardware testing and certification to produce two flight-certified EVA Swab Kits for transport to ISS no earlier than summer of 2022. Sampling Strategy: The International Space Station is an ideal testbed for systematic studies of contamination from crewed vehicles since it has been continuously occupied for 20 years and exposed to non-terrestrial conditions. We will sample the exterior of the ISS during EVA using a purpose-built swab tool capable of maintaining sterility while undergoing temperature changes from -151 to +121°C under hard vacuum. Prior to each EVA, the project team will work with ISS mission managers to identify precise sampling locations, which will vary by EVA based on the translation paths and worksites scheduled for that particular EVA. Ideally, translation path handrails and areas near ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) external vent openings on a spacecraft would be assessed. There are currently more than a dozen ECLSS external vents on the ISS. Some are connected to systems that vent waste products, while others are intended to equalize cabin pressure. As EVA opportunity allows, microbial samples from any of these external vents would provide a valuable data point, though some will be more useful than others. Four criteria have been identified to help prioritize sampling sites near vents: • EVA Accessibility: To minimize cost, it is desired to piggy-back onto a planned EVA. Therefore, the sampling location must be readily accessible by an EVA crew • Type of Vented Products: Vent products that have been in direct contact with crew, such as cabin air, are more likely to contain microorganisms than vent products associated with isolated systems, such as experiment module combustion products. • Mass of Vented Products: Higher-flow vents are more likely to contain detectible levels of microbial contaminants than lower-flow vents. • Local Environment: Sample locations with relatively benign local conditions, such as warm surfaces shielded from direct ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure, may be more likely to support microbial growth than locations with harsher local environmental conditions. Because EVA accessibility is the most important criteria, the proposal team worked with an astronaut and flight controllers using the Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics (DOUG) tool. The DOUG virtual environment allows an operator to “fly” around the current ISS vehicle configuration to assess EVA translation paths, attach points, and keep-out zones. While analysis on station or rapid return to Earth would be preferable, samples collected from the exterior of the ISS have already been exposed to temperature variations between -157 and +121 °C as well as hard vacuum. Therefore, they should be fairly stable and robust. We hypothesize that samples collected from the ISS exterior could be stored for up to 6 months at -80°C without degradation. Sample canisters will be returned to Earth while frozen at -80°C for analysis, and sterilized canisters can be re-flown back to ISS to support additional sampling opportunities Relevance to NASA Exploration Objectives: These data will allow us to identify new or improved methods, technologies, and procedures for spacecraft sterilization and leakage mitigation to minimize the amount of contamination introduced to the environment by human explorers. This work is funded by NASA research grant: NNH18ZDA001N-PPR References: [1] Bell, M.S. et al. (2015) LPS XLVI, Abst. #1832 [2] Rucker et al. (2018) 42nd COSPAR (PPP.3) [3] Bell, M.S. et al. (2019) Mars Extant Life Conference, Abst. #5096.[4] Bell, M.S. et al., (2020) 43rd COSPAR (BO.2).[5] Danko D, et.al.,(2021)Front.Microbiol.12:608478.

Mary Suzanne Bell↗
NASA NTRS2016

Perceived Noise Analysis for Offset Jets Applied to Commercial Supersonic Aircraft

A systems analysis was performed with experimental jet noise data, engine/aircraft performance codes and aircraft noise prediction codes to assess takeoff noise levels and mission range for conceptual supersonic commercial aircraft. A parametric study was done to identify viable engine cycles that meet NASA's N+2 goals for noise and performance. Model scale data from offset jets were used as input to the aircraft noise prediction code to determine the expected sound levels for the lateral certification point where jet noise dominates over all other noise sources. The noise predictions were used to determine the optimal orientation of the offset nozzles to minimize the noise at the lateral microphone location. An alternative takeoff procedure called "programmed lapse rate" was evaluated for noise reduction benefits. Results show there are two types of engines that provide acceptable mission range performance; one is a conventional mixed-flow turbofan and the other is a three-stream variable-cycle engine. Separate flow offset nozzles reduce the noise directed toward the thicker side of the outer flow stream, but have less benefit as the core nozzle pressure ratio is reduced. At the systems level for a three-engine N+2 aircraft with full throttle takeoff, there is a 1.4 EPNdB margin to Chapter 3 noise regulations predicted for the lateral certification point (assuming jet noise dominates). With a 10% reduction in thrust just after clearing the runway, the margin increases to 5.5 EPNdB. Margins to Chapter 4 and Chapter 14 levels will depend on the cumulative split between the three certification points, but it appears that low specific thrust engines with a 10% reduction in thrust (programmed lapse rate) can come close to meeting Chapter 14 noise levels. Further noise reduction is possible with engine oversizing and derated takeoff, but more detailed mission studies are needed to investigate the range impacts as well as the practical limits for safety and takeoff regulations.

Turbofans↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’S Current Efforts and Applications of NDE to Improve Space Flight Safety

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) continues to push the boundary of manned flight. Current mission profiles include flights to the moon and mars. Many of these missions require advance manufacturing and planned off planet resource utilization. As NASA continues to develop highly advance materials and manufacturing techniques to meet these mission profiles, inspection of these increasingly complex parts has had to evolve as well. Additive manufacturing is coming to the forefront as a primary manufacturing technique but offers unique challenges when inspection and certification are required. NASA has been working diligently to be a leader in developing and utilizing inspection techniques capable of inspecting these highly advanced parts. Additionally additive manufacturing techniques can also be used to build parts in space and provides a vehicle for in-situ resource utilization for off world missions. As NASA and its commercial crew partners move forward inspection techniques will need to continue to advance to ensure safe manned space flight. In this talk NASA will highlight many of the advanced nondestructive evaluation efforts going on across the agency. As well as highlights for points of infusion for helping NASA meet it’s future missions.

NDE↗
NASA NTRS2004

Toward Synthesis, Analysis, and Certification of Security Protocols

Implemented security protocols are basically pieces of software which are used to (a) authenticate the other communication partners, (b) establish a secure communication channel between them (using insecure communication media), and (c) transfer data between the communication partners in such a way that these data only available to the desired receiver, but not to anyone else. Such an implementation usually consists of the following components: the protocol-engine, which controls in which sequence the messages of the protocol are sent over the network, and which controls the assembly/disassembly and processing (e.g., decryption) of the data. the cryptographic routines to actually encrypt or decrypt the data (using given keys), and t,he interface to the operating system and to the application. For a correct working of such a security protocol, all of these components must work flawlessly. Many formal-methods based techniques for the analysis of a security protocols have been developed. They range from using specific logics (e.g.: BAN-logic [4], or higher order logics [12] to model checking [2] approaches. In each approach, the analysis tries to prove that no (or at least not a modeled intruder) can get access to secret data. Otherwise, a scenario illustrating the &tack may be produced. Despite the seeming simplicity of security protocols ("only" a few messages are sent between the protocol partners in order to ensure a secure communication), many flaws have been detected. Unfortunately, even a perfect protocol engine does not guarantee flawless working of a security protocol, as incidents show. Many break-ins and security vulnerabilities are caused by exploiting errors in the implementation of the protocol engine or the underlying operating system. Attacks using buffer-overflows are a very common class of such attacks. Errors in the implementation of exception or error handling can open up additional vulnerabilities. For example, on a website with a log-in screen: multiple tries with invalid passwords caused the expected error message (too many retries). but let the user nevertheless pass. Finally, security can be compromised by silly implementation bugs or design decisions. In a commercial VPN software, all calls to the encryption routines were incidentally replaced by stubs, probably during factory testing. The product worked nicely. and the error (an open VPN) would have gone undetected, if a team member had not inspected the low-level traffic out of curiosity. Also, the use secret proprietary encryption routines can backfire, because such algorithms often exhibit weaknesses which can be exploited easily (see e.g., DVD encoding). Summarizing, there is large number of possibilities to make errors which can compromise the security of a protocol. In today s world with short time-to-market and the use of security protocols in open and hostile networks for safety-critical applications (e.g., power or air-traffic control), such slips could lead to catastrophic situations. Thus, formal methods and automatic reasoning techniques should not be used just for the formal proof of absence of an attack, but they ought to be used to provide an end-to-end tool-supported framework for security software. With such an approach all required artifacts (code, documentation, test cases) , formal analyses, and reliable certification will be generated automatically, given a single, high level specification. By a combination of program synthesis, formal protocol analysis, certification; and proof-carrying code, this goal is within practical reach, since all the important technologies for such an approach actually exist and only need to be assembled in the right way.

Schumann, Johann↗
NASA NTRS1992

Mission management aircraft operations manual

This manual prescribes the NASA mission management aircraft program and provides policies and criteria for the safe and economical operation, maintenance, and inspection of NASA mission management aircraft. The operation of NASA mission management aircraft is based on the concept that safety has the highest priority. Operations involving unwarranted risks will not be tolerated. NASA mission management aircraft will be designated by the Associate Administrator for Management Systems and Facilities. NASA mission management aircraft are public aircraft as defined by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Maintenance standards, as a minimum, will meet those required for retention of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airworthiness certification. Federal Aviation Regulation Part 91, Subparts A and B, will apply except when requirements of this manual are more restrictive.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2007

An Overview of the Space Shuttle Orbiter's Aging Aircraft Program

The Space Shuttle Orbiter has well exceeded its original design life of 10 years or 100 missions. The Orbiter Project Office (OPO) has sponsored several activities to address aging vehicle concerns, including a Corrosion Control Review Board (CCRB), a mid-life certification program, and most recently the formation of the Aging Orbiter Working Group (AOWG). The AOWG was chartered in 2004 as a proactive group which provides the OPO oversight for aging issues such as corrosion, non-destructive inspection, non-metallics, wiring and subsystems. The core team consists of mainly representatives from the Materials and Processes Problem Resolution Team (M&P PRT) and Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA). Subsystem engineers and subject matter experts are called in as required. The AOWG has functioned by forming issues based sub-teams. Examples of completed sub-teams include adhesives, wiring and wing leading edge metallic materials. Current sub-teams include Composite Over-Wrapped Pressure Vessels (COPV), elastomeric materials and mechanisms.

Russell, Richard W.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Synthesis from Design Requirements of a Hybrid System for Transport Aircraft Longitudinal Control

Volume I of this report presents a new method for synthesizing hybrid systems directly from desi gn requirements, and applies the method to design of a hybrid system for longitudinal control of transport aircraft. The resulting system satisfies general requirement for safety and effectiveness specified a priori, enabling formal validation to be achieved. Volume II contains seven appendices intended to make the report accessible to readers with backgrounds in human factors, flight dynamics and control, and formal logic. Major design goals are (1) system design integrity based on proof of correctness at the design level, (2) significant simplification and cost reduction in system development and certification, and (3) improved operational efficiency, with significant alleviation of human-factors problems encountered by pilots in current transport aircraft. This report provides for the first time a firm technical basis for criteria governing design and certification of avionic systems for transport aircraft. It should be of primary interest to designers of next-generation avionic systems.

Hynes, Charles S.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Cockpit Technology for Prevention of General Aviation Runway Incursions

General aviation accounted for 74 percent of runway incursions but only 57 percent of the operations during the four-year period from fiscal year (FY) 2001 through FY2004. Elements of the NASA Runway Incursion Prevention System were adapted and tested for general aviation aircraft. Sixteen General Aviation pilots, of varying levels of certification and amount of experience, participated in a piloted simulation study to evaluate the system for prevention of general aviation runway incursions compared to existing moving map displays. Pilots flew numerous complex, high workload approaches under varying weather and visibility conditions. A rare-event runway incursion scenario was presented, unbeknownst to the pilots, which represented a typical runway incursion situation. The results validated the efficacy and safety need for a runway incursion prevention system for general aviation aircraft.

Prinzel, Lawrence J., III↗
NASA NTRS2010

Certification

Objective 1: Provide regulators with a methodology for development of airworthiness requirements for certification of UAS. a) Rationale: a comprehensive methodology does not currently exist to support development of regulation for certification of UAS. Regulation is essential to enable routine access to the NAS. b) Approach: 1) assess existing approaches and classification schemes for deriving acceptable means of compliance to airworthiness requirements. 2) investigate a service-based approach to classification of UAS. 3) conduct comparative analysis of different methodologies. 4) work with FAA to determine best approach and conduct case study. 5) participate in regulatory/standards organizations developing safety and performance requirements for UAS. Objective 2: Provide regulators and industry with hazard and risk-related data to support criteria for UAS type design. a) Rationale: There is presently little UAS specific data (incident, accident, and reliability), especially in a civil context, to support risk assessment and development of standards and regulation. b) Approach: Identify gaps in existing data, provide measured data as needed, and formulate recommendations by: 1) evaluating UAS incident/accident data collection efforts and determining additional support necessary for regulation. 2) assessing UAS-specific hazards and risks. 3) evaluating need for reliability data for UAS-unique systems, components and subsystem, and determining additional measurement requirements. 4) developing guidance and best practices for UAS type design.

Hayhurst, Kelly↗
NASA NTRS2007

Synthesis from Design Requirements of a Hybrid System for Transport Aircraft Longitudinal Control

Volume I of this report presents a new method for synthesizing hybrid systems directly from design requirements, and applies the method to design of a hybrid system for longitudinal control of transport aircraft. The resulting system satisfies general requirement for safety and effectiveness specified a priori, enabling formal validation to be achieved. Volume II contains seven appendices intended to make the report accessible to readers with backgrounds in human factors, fli ght dynamics and control. and formal logic. Major design goals are (1) system desi g n integrity based on proof of correctness at the design level, (2), significant simplification and cost reduction in system development and certification, and (3) improved operational efficiency, with significant alleviation of human-factors problems encountered by pilots in current transport aircraft. This report provides for the first time a firm technical basis for criteria governing design and certification of avionic systems for transport aircraft. It should be of primary interest to designers of next-generation avionic systems.

Hynes, Charles S.↗