Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Probabilistic risk”

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

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

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Strategy for Risk Quantification of Spaceflight Crew Health and Performance Using Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment

At NASA, the Crew Health and Performance (CHP) system represents the span of countermeasures, capabilities, interventions, and tested processes and procedures that in combination work to mitigate the human component of spaceflight mission risk. Across the varying NASA mental models of the CHP system, the different functionalities needed to meet human flight systems standards can be broken down into specific categories (i.e. medical capability, environmental health, behavioral health). These categories can be further broken down into specific subgroups generally associated with the CHP functionalities meant to mitigate or buy down individual human system risks. Taking a similar development approach we seek to leverage dynamic probabilistic risk assessment as a means to quantify and relatively assess the human risk state within the crew health and performance domain. By utilizing existing tools as integrators, we propose a rapid development strategy for incorporating research and operational data that represent the influence of the CHP system functionalities, in order to provide order of magnitudes estimates of the influence on most human system risks outcomes. The model system utilizes a modest cumulative risk approach and that limits the scope to primary paths of influence between the CHP functionalities and human system risks, thus enabling quick prototypes of the integrative effects of CHP functional combinations to solicit valuable feedback from stakeholders and customers on the data, relationship, and structure of the integration.

Drayton Munster↗
DOE OSTI2023

Identifying human failure events (HFEs) for external hazard probabilistic risk assessment

In recent years, several advancements in nuclear power plant (NPP) probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) have been driven by increased understanding of external hazards, plant response, and uncertainties. However, major sources of uncertainty associated with external hazard PRA remain. One important source is how risk-significant human actions that are carried out to enable plant response and recovery from natural hazards cause the close coupling of physical impacts on plants and overall plant risk during these hazard events. This makes human reliability and human-plant interactions important elements to consider in resolving PRA gaps in external hazards. One of the challenges in considering human response in external hazard probabilistic risk assessment (XHPRA) is that most existing human reliability analysis (HRA) models were not developed for assessing actions outside the control room (termed ex-control room actions) and hazard response. To support this new scope, HRA models will need to be developed or modified to support identification of human activities, causal factors, and uncertainties inherent in external hazard response, thereby providing insights regarding event timing and physical event conditions as they relate to human performance. In this study, there are two main objectives: (1) evaluate the applicability of an existing cognitive-based HRA method, Phoenix, to ex-control room actions, and (2) identify sources of uncertainty to be characterized or reduced in order to make this method suitable for XHPRA. The first step of such work is performed by assessing the suitability of existing HRA methods to support identifying human failure events (HFEs) for human response to flooding hazards. These HFEs are human actions or inactions that are involved in human responses to flooding hazards and could contribute to the loss of a critical function for the plant in the scenario being examined. Here, in this work, decomposition analyses using the cognitive-based Phoenix HRA model are used to identify HFEs. The Phoenix method was found to be suitable for analyzing ex-control room actions as well as identifying specific HFEs and underlying crew failure modes (CFMs). However, the method's suitability for use in ex-control room actions would benefit from expanding the available CFMs to accommodate a larger variety of physical and communication tasks.

42 ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRS2006

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA): A Practical and Cost Effective Approach

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is the first mission of the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program (RLEP), a space exploration venture to the Moon, Mars and beyond. The LRO mission includes spacecraft developed by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and seven instruments built by GSFC, Russia, and contractors across the nation. LRO is defined as a measurement mission, not a science mission. It emphasizes the overall objectives of obtaining data to facilitate returning mankind safely to the Moon in preparation for an eventual manned mission to Mars. As the first mission in response to the President's commitment of the journey of exploring the solar system and beyond: returning to the Moon in the next decade, then venturing further into the solar system, ultimately sending humans to Mars and beyond, LRO has high-visibility to the public but limited resources and a tight schedule. This paper demonstrates how NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission project office incorporated reliability analyses in assessing risks and performing design tradeoffs to ensure mission success. Risk assessment is performed using NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.5 - Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Procedures for NASA Programs and Projects to formulate probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). As required, a limited scope PRA is being performed for the LRO project. The PRA is used to optimize the mission design within mandated budget, manpower, and schedule constraints. The technique that LRO project office uses to perform PRA relies on the application of a component failure database to quantify the potential mission success risks. To ensure mission success in an efficient manner, low cost and tight schedule, the traditional reliability analyses, such as reliability predictions, Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), are used to perform PRA for the large system of LRO with more than 14,000 piece parts and over 120 purchased or contractor built components.

Lee, Lydia L.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Shuttle Decision Making Process

This slide presentation reviews the use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to assist in the decision making for the shuttle design and operation. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a comprehensive, structured, and disciplined approach to identifying and analyzing risk in complex systems and/or processes that seeks answers to three basic questions: (i.e., what can go wrong? what is the likelihood of these occurring? and what are the consequences that could result if these occur?) The purpose of the Shuttle PRA (SPRA) is to provide a useful risk management tool for the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) to identify strengths and possible weaknesses in the Shuttle design and operation. SPRA was initially developed to support upgrade decisions, but has evolved into a tool that supports Flight Readiness Reviews (FRR) and near real-time flight decisions. Examples of the use of PRA for the shuttle are reviewed.

Boyer, Roger L.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Incorporating FLEX Strategies in Multi-Unit Probabilistic Risk Assessment

The catastrophic Fukushima nuclear accident reminded nuclear community about the possibilities of extreme accident scenarios, including those involving multiple reactor units on the same site. As the responses to the Fukushima accident, the nuclear power industry developed and implemented a series of strategies, including the Diverse and Flexible Coping Strategies (FLEX), to enhance the coping capacities of nuclear power plants (NPPs) under extreme accidents. This study intends to examine the impact of FLEX strategies on the risk from all the reactor units on the same NPP site, including risks from accidents involving a single unit and from accidents involving multiple units. The fundamental, methodological element of this study is Multi-Unit Probabilistic Risk Assessment (MUPRA), which requires a shift in Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) from a “one-reactor-at-a-time” mindset to a “considering all reactors sharing a site as a unity” one. An integrated modeling approach for multi-unit event sequence development will be leveraged to develop MUPRA model and address the intra-unit and inter-unit dependencies. Systems Analysis Programs for Hands-on Integrated Reliability Evaluations (SAPHIRE), a PRA software developed and maintained by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), will serve as the platform for MUPRA modeling. This study selects Loss Of Offsite Power (LOOP) as a representative initiating event, which may occur on a generic two-unit NPP site and impacts both reactor units on the site. First, an MUPRA model, including multi-unit event trees, will be developed to obtain single-unit and multi-unit accident scenarios. Next, different FLEX strategies will be assumed, including FLEX equipment for a unit cannot be used for another unit, FLEX equipment for multiple units can be used in a cross-connected manner, etc. Lastly, the effectiveness of each postulated FLEX strategy will be evaluated by incorporating the corresponding FLEX equipment and deployment logic in the MUPRA model.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2025

A systematic decision-making methodology to formalize the selection of degree of realism in screening analysis of probabilistic risk assessment

In the nuclear power domain, Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is used to inform decision-making for Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs). Recently, there has been an increase in the utilization of modeling and simulation (M&S) to support the estimation of PRA inputs. Risk analysts should carefully select the PRA items that require M&S and their degree of realism (DoR) with consideration of the required resources. To support this selection, this article formulates a systematic decision-making approach for the DoR selection. The DoR selection is made based on two predictive decision-making attributes: the predicted differences in safety risk estimate (ΔSaRi) and the cost of analysis (ΔCAN). This research also develops and quantifies causal models to estimate ΔSaRi and ΔCAN. The causal model-based prediction of ΔSaRi and ΔCAN helps reduce the trial-and-error nature of the DoR selection in the PRA screening analysis and provides insights for DoR selection and the gradual refinements of PRA realism. This approach is demonstrated for a case study on fire PRA of NPPs, where an adequate DoR is selected from two fire models: an engineering correlation and a zone model.

Alkhatib, Sari [Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and↗
NASA NTRS2019

"Making Safety Happen" Through Probabilistic Risk Assessment at NASA

NASA is using Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) as one of the tools in its Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) tool belt to identify and quantify risks associated with human spaceflight. This paper discusses some of the challenges and benefits associated with developing and using PRA for NASA human space programs. Some programs have entered operation prior to developing a PRA, while some have implemented PRA from the start of the program. It has been observed that the earlier a design change is made in the concept or design phase, the less impact it has on cost and schedule. Not finding risks until the operation phase yields much costlier design changes and major delays, which can result in discussions of just accepting the risk. Risk contributors identified by PRA are not just associated with hardware failures. They include but are not limited to crew fatality due to medical causes, the environment the vehicle and crew are exposed to, the software being used, and the reliability of the crew performing required actions. Some programs have entered operation prior to developing a PRA, and while PRA can still provide a benefit for operations and future design trades, the benefit of implementing PRA from the start of the program provides the added benefit of informing design and reducing risk early in program development. Currently, NASA’s International Space Station (ISS) program is in its 20th year of on-orbit operations around the Earth and has several new programs in the design phase preparing to enter the operation phase all of which have active (or living) PRAs. These programs incorporate PRA as part of their Risk-Informed, Decision-Making (RIDM) process. For new NASA human spaceflight programs discussion begins with mission concept, establishing requirements, forming the PRA team, and continues through the design cycles into the operational phase. Several examples of PRA related applications and observed lessons are included.

Applications↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparison of Artemis 2 and Artemis 5 Model Outcomes Using the Impact Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool

BACKGROUND The Artemis campaign is a Moon exploration program with a series of six planned missions, five of which will be crewed. These five crewed missions will contain a single mission segment (space flight), or multiple mission segments involving space flight (Orion), lunar landing (LTV) and/or space habitat (Gateway). Each crewed segment faces the risk of unique medical conditions, necessitating medical sets/kits tailored to those specificities. To support and enable a data-driven and evidence-based decision-making process through out a mission’s life cycle, a software tool called IMPACT was developed. Using probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methodologies, IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a novel tool built for analyzing the possibility of encountering complex medical risks during space flight, and for identifying the medical resources and capabilities needed to treat those potential at-risk medical conditions. This presentation will seek to compare IMPACT’s computational results upon potential complex space medical conditions (e.g., sprain/strain back or sleep disturbance) using IMPACT’s risk metrics and the associated optimized medical sets/kits between two Artemis missions: single segment Artemis 2 and multi-segmented Artemis 5. OVERVIEW By identifying potential medical conditions in space using input criteria such as crew quantity and composition, certain crew physical characteristics, mission duration and mission activities, IMPACT can produce analyses on the type of medical resources and capabilities needed to produce an optimized medical set/kit to address those medical conditions. IMPACT achieves this by performing hundreds of thousands of Monte Carlo simulations of missions to build aggregate pictures of medical risk. IMPACT’s risk metrics include loss of crew life (LOCL) – a measure of crew mortality due to medical conditions in space, return to definitive care (RTDC) – the need to perform crew evacuation, and task time lost (TTL) – a measure of the inability to perform activities due to crew disability. These risk metrics are applied to every medical condition identified by IMPACT’s computation analyses for every segment of the mission. Medical sets/kits are optimized to address these medical conditions but must fit within the stated Artemis Design Reference Mission (DRM) request for mass and volume physical size constraints. ANTICIPATED ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Using two Artemis missions, Artemis 2 and Artemis 5, IMPACT will provide the analyses for comparison of medical set/kit contents based upon mass and/or volume requirements and identify the at-risk medical conditions within both missions. This paper serves as an initial exploration of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) medical risk calculations between two crewed Artemis missions and is not intended to be deemed the official medical response for the Artemis campaign.

probabilistic risk assessment↗
DOE OSTI2020

Use of Flooding Probabilistic Risk Assessment

General slide information on using flooding Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) taken from published INL reports or public Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) information. Topics covered are: SDP related to flooding in US Door integrity tests at Idaho State University Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics for external flooding NRC-INL Flood Barrier project

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

Crew Composition↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of A Crew Health and Performance System Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool: Proof-of-Concept Approach

The crew health and performance (CHP) system represents the span of technological interventions and tested processes and procedures that in combination address the human risk to space flight. The Human Research Program (HRP) mental model of the CHP system breaks the capabilities needed to meet NASA human flight systems standards into specific categories (i.e., countermeasures, behavioral health, medical intervention). These categories are further broken down into specific sub-groups generally associated with the human system risks that these capabilities seek to mitigate. Like the approach used to develop the Integrated Medical Model (IMM) and the Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Analysis Tool (MEDPRAT), HRP tasked NASA GRC’s Cross-Cutting Computational Modeling Project with developing a CHP probabilistic risk assessment tool, the CHP-PRA. The CHP-PRA model seeks to quantify and relatively assess the human risk state within the crew health and performance domain, using a combination of knowledge about human system risks and technology and practices likely to be applied during space flight missions. This modeling system will incorporate customer and stakeholder feedback and be flexible enough to address multiple different questions about important low-level mission-specific parameters. This presentation will introduce the initial concept and development timeline for this tool and demonstrate proof-of-concept through an application addressing a specific human risk question posed within the Artemis program.

Risk analysis↗
NASA NTRS2011

Shuttle Risk Progression: Use of the Shuttle Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to Show Reliability Growth

It is important to the Space Shuttle Program (SSP), as well as future manned spaceflight programs, to understand the early mission risk and progression of risk as the program gains insights into the integrated vehicle through flight. The risk progression is important to the SSP as part of the documentation of lessons learned. The risk progression is important to future programs to understand reliability growth and the first flight risk. This analysis uses the knowledge gained from 30 years of operational flights and the current Shuttle PRA to calculate the risk of Loss of Crew and Vehicle (LOCV) at significant milestones beginning with the first flight. Key flights were evaluated based upon historical events and significant re-designs. The results indicated that the Shuttle risk tends to follow a step function as opposed to following a traditional reliability growth pattern where risk exponentially improves with each flight. In addition, it shows that risk can increase due to trading safety margin for increased performance or due to external events. Due to the risk drivers not being addressed, the risk did not improve appreciably during the first 25 flights. It was only after significant events occurred such as Challenger and Columbia, where the risk drivers were apparent, that risk was significantly improved. In addition, this paper will show that the SSP has reduced the risk of LOCV by almost an order of magnitude. It is easy to look back afte r 30 years and point to risks that are now obvious, however; the key is to use this knowledge to benefit other programs which are in their infancy stages. One lesson learned from the SSP is understanding risk drivers are essential in order to considerably reduce risk. This will enable the new program to focus time and resources on identifying and reducing the significant risks. A comprehensive PRA, similar to that of the Shuttle PRA, is an effective tool quantifying risk drivers if support from all of the stakeholders is given.

Hamlin, Teri L.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Introduction to Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT)

A key component in the development of NASA Human Research Programs (HRP) next generation risk model, the Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) intends to deliver a means to quantify how HRP products impact astronaut medical and health risks. MEDPRAT is extensible to the majority of exploration missions. Similar to other risk models, the tool utilizes the available space and terrestrial medical data. MEDPRAT is designed to be extended with additional human health research information, medical equipment, space and terrestrial standards and practices to assess space flight medical risk in a manner consistent with other risk measures used in spacecraft and mission design. This tool provides risk-based medical system design information necessary to evaluate new technologies, procedures, research insights and mission plans.

physiological response↗
NASA NTRS2001

Overview of Probabilistic Risk Assessment at NASA: Past, Present and Future

PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessment) adds the "probability" dimension to the traditional "deterministic" dimension of engineering and safety analyses. Although PRA, as a discipline, has been the evolutionary product of only the last couple of decades, much of the underlying methodology has been in use for a long time. In fact, the concept of probability for describing the likelihood that rare events happen is ancient and dates from Ancient Greece. Our vision is for NASA to achieve world-class state-of-the-art capability in performing and using PRA in technical and management decisions. Since NASA is a leader in many technical fields in which it is involved, we hope, before long, to see NASA become a leader in this field also.

Stamatelatos, Michael G.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Estimating Software Reliability for Space Launch Vehicles in Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)

It is acutely recognized in the Probabilistic Risk assessment (PRA) field that software plays a defining role in overall system reliability for all modern systems across a wide variety of industries. Regardless if the software is embedded firmware for working components or elements, part of a Human-Machine-Interface, or automated command and control logic, the success of the software to fulfill its function under nominal and off-nominal environments will be a dominant contributor to system reliability. It is also recognized that software reliability prediction and estimation is one of the more challenging and questionable aspects of any PRA or system analyses due to the nature of software and its integration with physics based systems. Irrespective of this dichotomy, any incorporation of software reliability methods requires that the contributions are accountable, quantitative, and tractable. This paper provides a brief overview of software reliability methods, establishes some minimum requirements that the methods should incorporate for completeness, and provides a logic structure for applying software reliability. Model resolution will be discussed that supports current testing plans and trade studies. We will provide initial recommendations for use in the NASA PRA and present a future dynamic option for software and PRA. Space Launch Vehicle Software is recognized to be reliable in static conditions, yet relatively vulnerable to a set of failure modes in changing environments/flight phases. Two quantitative methods were chosen to incorporate software reliability into a Space Launch Vehicle PRA accounting for phase adjustments. One method predicts latent software failure using statistical methods, and the second provides estimates of coding errors and software operating system failures based on test and historical data, respectively. Software uncertainty will also be discussed. We determined that recommendations for PRA software reliability should be modeled at the software module level where multiple software components compose a module and combinations of the software architecture can lead to a functional failure.

Novack, Steven↗
NASA NTRS2018

Estimating Software Reliability for Space Launch Vehicles in Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)

It is acutely recognized in the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) field that software plays a defining role in overall system reliability for all modern systems across a wide variety of industries. Regardless of whether the software is embedded firmware for working components or elements, part of a Human-Machine-Interface, or automated command and control logic, the success of the software to fulfill its function under nominal and off-nominal environments will be a dominant contributor to system reliability. It is also recognized that software reliability prediction and estimation is one of the more challenging and questionable aspects of any PRA or system analyses due to the nature of software and its integration with physics based systems. Irrespective of this dichotomy, any incorporation of software reliability methods requires that the contributions are accountable, quantitative, and tractable. This paper provides a brief overview of software reliability methods, establishes some minimum requirements that the methods should incorporate for completeness, and provides a logic structure for applying software reliability. Model resolution will be discussed that supports current testing plans and trade studies. We will provide initial recommendations for use in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) PRA and present a future dynamic option for software and PRA. Space Launch Vehicle software is recognized to be reliable in static conditions, yet relatively vulnerable to a set of failure modes in changing environments/flight phases. Two quantitative methods were chosen to incorporate software reliability into a Space Launch Vehicle PRA accounting for phase adjustments. One method predicts latent software failure using statistical methods, and the second provides estimates of coding errors and software operating system failures based on test and historical data. Software uncertainty will also be discussed. It is determined that recommendations for PRA software reliability should be modeled at the software module level where multiple software components compose a module and combinations of the software architecture can lead to a functional failure.

Steven D. Novack↗
NASA NTRS2011

Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners (Second Edition)

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a comprehensive, structured, and logical analysis method aimed at identifying and assessing risks in complex technological systems for the purpose of cost-effectively improving their safety and performance. NASA's objective is to better understand and effectively manage risk, and thus more effectively ensure mission and programmatic success, and to achieve and maintain high safety standards at NASA. NASA intends to use risk assessment in its programs and projects to support optimal management decision making for the improvement of safety and program performance. In addition to using quantitative/probabilistic risk assessment to improve safety and enhance the safety decision process, NASA has incorporated quantitative risk assessment into its system safety assessment process, which until now has relied primarily on a qualitative representation of risk. Also, NASA has recently adopted the Risk-Informed Decision Making (RIDM) process [1-1] as a valuable addition to supplement existing deterministic and experience-based engineering methods and tools. Over the years, NASA has been a leader in most of the technologies it has employed in its programs. One would think that PRA should be no exception. In fact, it would be natural for NASA to be a leader in PRA because, as a technology pioneer, NASA uses risk assessment and management implicitly or explicitly on a daily basis. NASA has probabilistic safety requirements (thresholds and goals) for crew transportation system missions to the International Space Station (ISS) [1-2]. NASA intends to have probabilistic requirements for any new human spaceflight transportation system acquisition. Methods to perform risk and reliability assessment in the early 1960s originated in U.S. aerospace and missile programs. Fault tree analysis (FTA) is an example. It would have been a reasonable extrapolation to expect that NASA would also become the world leader in the application of PRA. That was, however, not to happen. Early in the Apollo program, estimates of the probability for a successful roundtrip human mission to the moon yielded disappointingly low (and suspect) values and NASA became discouraged from further performing quantitative risk analyses until some two decades later when the methods were more refined, rigorous, and repeatable. Instead, NASA decided to rely primarily on the Hazard Analysis (HA) and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) methods for system safety assessment.

Stamatelatos,Michael↗
NASA NTRS1995

Probabilistic risk assessment of the Space Shuttle. Phase 3: A study of the potential of losing the vehicle during nominal operation, volume 1

This document is the Executive Summary of a technical report on a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) of the Space Shuttle vehicle performed under the sponsorship of the Office of Space Flight of the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It briefly summarizes the methodology and results of the Shuttle PRA. The primary objective of this project was to support management and engineering decision-making with respect to the Shuttle program by producing (1) a quantitative probabilistic risk model of the Space Shuttle during flight, (2) a quantitative assessment of in-flight safety risk, (3) an identification and prioritization of the design and operations that principally contribute to in-flight safety risk, and (4) a mechanism for risk-based evaluation proposed modifications to the Shuttle System. Secondary objectives were to provide a vehicle for introducing and transferring PRA technology to the NASA community, and to demonstrate the value of PRA by applying it beneficially to a real program of great international importance.

Fragola, Joseph R.↗