Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “mission assurance requirements”

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 NTRS2004

How Systems Engineering and Risk Management Defend Against Murphy's Law and Human Error

Systems Engineering and Risk Management processes can work synergistically to defend against the causes of many mission ending failures. Defending against mission ending failures is facilitated by fostering a team that has a healthy respect for Murphy's Law and a team with a of curiosity for how things work, how they can fail, and what they need to know. This curiosity is channeled into making the unknowns known or what is uncertain more certain. Efforts to assure mission success require the expenditure of energy in the following areas: 1. Understanding what defines Mission Success as guided by the customer's needs, objectives and constraints. 2. Understanding how the system is supposed to work and how the system is to be produced, fueled by the curiosity of how the system should work and how it should be produced. 3. Understanding how the system can fail and how the system might not be produced on time and within cost, fueled by the curiosity of how the system might fail and how production might be difficult. 4. Understanding what we need to know and what we need learn for proper completion of the above three items, fueled by the curiosity of what we might not know in order to make the best decisions.

Bay, Michael↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Inherited Items Process 2.0

This presentation describes the process at NASA GSFC for SMA acceptance of inherited products.

inherited items↗
NASA NTRS2011

Analysis of Data in Accordance with Space Flight Mission Environmental Requirements

The Environmental Assurance Program sets forth standards to ensure that all flight hardware is compatible with the environments that will be encountered during a spacecraft mission. It outlines the design, test and analysis, and risk control standards for the mission and certifies that it will survive in any external or self-induced environments that the spacecraft may experience. The Environmental Requirements Document (ERD) is the most important document in the Environmental Assurance Program, providing the design and test requirements for the project's flight system, subsystems, assemblies, and instruments. This summer's project was to assist Environmental Requirements Engineers (ERE's) in completing the Environmental Assurance Program Summary Report for both the Juno Project and Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Project. The Summary Report is a document summarizing the environmental tests and analyses of each spacecraft at both the assembly and system level. It compiles a source of all relevant information such as waivers and Problem/Failure Reports (PFRs) into a single report for easy reference of how well the spacecraft met the requirements of the project.

Jupiter properties↗
NASA NTRS2016

Early Engagement of Safety and Mission Assurance Expertise Using Systems Engineering Tools: A Risk-Based Approach to Early Identification of Safety and Assurance Requirements

Decades of systems engineering practice have demonstrated that the earlier the identification of requirements occurs, the lower the chance that costly redesigns will needed later in the project life cycle. A better understanding of all requirements can also improve the likelihood of a design's success. Significant effort has been put into developing tools and practices that facilitate requirements determination, including those that are part of the model-based systems engineering (MBSE) paradigm. These efforts have yielded improvements in requirements definition, but have thus far focused on a design's performance needs. The identification of safety & mission assurance (S&MA) related requirements, in comparison, can occur after preliminary designs are already established, yielding forced redesigns. Engaging S&MA expertise at an earlier stage, facilitated by the use of MBSE tools, and focused on actual project risk, can yield the same type of design life cycle improvements that have been realized in technical and performance requirements.

Requirement↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance Integration - the Future of Safe Deep Space Human Exploration

As a foundational element of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Artemis Campaign, the Gateway is an incrementally built cislunar spacecraft that will serve as a platform for deep space human exploration, science, and technology demonstration. The Gateway will be a unifying catalyst for international partners around the world to establish sustained deep space scientific investigations, lunar surface access, and missions to Mars. As human exploration moves farther away from Earth, spacecraft designs must prioritize and optimize mass and volume allocations, while minimizing human and spacecraft risk. To accomplish this objective, the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance functions develop, implement, and ensure compliance with requirements, in concert with the accurate characterization and transparent communication of residual hazard risks, for integrated safety, reliability and maintainability and quality assurance. Safety and Mission Assurance was a key contributor during Gateway program pre-formulation and formulation activities where safety and reliability analysis was embedded in the Gateway Systems Engineering and Integration team. During these early program stages, a preliminary Gateway Integrated Hazard Analysis and Preliminary Gateway Probabilistic Risk Assessment assisted in Gateway architectural and operational definition as part of a risk-informed design process. As the deep space architecture has matured, the integrated Safety and Mission Assurance analyses have matured, new safety review processes have been developed, and requirements have been refined to ensure compliance with integrated safety and mission assurance objectives. The Gateway Program is currently concluding the preliminary design review informed milestone, where the primary objectives included: - Ensured completeness and consistency of the preliminary design, including the meeting of all requirements within appropriate margins and acceptable risk posture. - Identification of any major issues moving forward to the Critical Design phase. At this milestone, Safety and Mission Assurance provided numerous products, including Gateway Top Risks and Risk Mitigation Plans, updated integrated hazard analyses, updated probabilistic risk assessment, Crew Survival Analysis Report, and updated Safety and Mission Assurance Requirements and Plans. These products provide a many-faceted perspective on the inherent risk and available mitigations involved in flying the current proposed vehicle design and anticipated stack configurations. In addition, Safety and Mission Assurance identified top technical, process and workforce concerns to be addressed as the program progresses toward the critical design phase. This paper will detail the evolution of the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance integration functions, provide its current status and lessons learned for future human spaceflight programs. Throughout this paper the key tenets of the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance will be discussed: - Application of a risk-informed approach to identify and mitigate areas of highest risk. - Leverage of valuable processes and lessons learned from earlier spaceflight programs. - Development of Safety and Mission Assurance products to inform design risk trades. - Utilization of common Safety and Mission Assurance practices to identify safety risks for multiple perspectives: top-down, bottom-up, and across lines of integration. - Approval of safety hazards at the appropriate level of authority, keeping most deliberation closest to design expertise and elevating risks of greatest concern for program-level consideration. - Championing of Safety and Mission Assurance processes and forums to foster a pervasive safety culture that is transparent, inclusive, and collaborative between all partners. These tenets have allowed the Gateway Safety and Mission Assurance function to play a key role in optimized vehicle design evolution, and early identification and mitigation of Gateway program and Artemis mission risk.

Helen Vaccaro↗
NASA NTRS2016

The NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Mission Assurance Process

In 2010, NASA established the Commercial Crew Program in order to provide human access to the International Space Station and low earth orbit via the commercial (non-governmental) sector. A particular challenge to NASA has been how to determine the commercial providers transportation system complies with Programmatic safety requirements. The process used in this determination is the Safety Technical Review Board which reviews and approves provider submitted Hazard Reports. One significant product of the review is a set of hazard control verifications. In past NASA programs, 100 percent of these safety critical verifications were typically confirmed by NASA. The traditional Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) model does not support the nature of the Commercial Crew Program. To that end, NASA SMA is implementing a Risk Based Assurance (RBA) process to determine which hazard control verifications require NASA authentication. Additionally, a Shared Assurance Model is also being developed to efficiently use the available resources to execute the verifications. This paper will describe the evolution of the CCP Mission Assurance process from the beginning of the Program to its current incarnation. Topics to be covered include a short history of the CCP; the development of the Programmatic mission assurance requirements; the current safety review process; a description of the RBA process and its products and ending with a description of the Shared Assurance Model.

Commercial Crew Program↗
NASA NTRS1972

Saturn 5 launch vehicle flight evaluation report-AS-511 Apollo 16 mission

A postflight analysis of the Apollo 16 mission is presented. The basic objective of the flight evaluation is to acquire, reduce, analyze, and report on flight data to the extent required to assure future mission success and vehicle reliability. Actual flight problems are identified, their causes are deet determined, and recommendations are made for corrective actions. Summaries of launch operations and spacecraft performance are included. Significant events for all phases of the flight are provide in tabular form.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1971

Saturn 5 launch vehicle flight evaluation report-AS-509 Apollo 14 mission

A postflight analysis of the Apollo 14 flight is presented. The basic objective of the flight evaluation is to acquire, reduce, analyze, and report on flight data to the extent required to assure future mission success and vehicle reliability. Actual flight failures are identified, their causes are determined and corrective actions are recommended. Summaries of launch operations and spacecraft performance are included. The significant events for all phases of the flight are analyzed.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1982

Safety policy and requirements for payloads using the Space Transportation System (STS)

The Space Transportation Operations (STO) safety policy is to minimize STO involvement in the payload and its GSE (ground support equipment) design process while maintaining the assurance of a safe operation. Requirements for assuring payload mission success are the responsibility of the payload organization and are beyond the scope of this document. The intent is to provide the overall safety policies and requirements while allowing for negotiation between the payload organization and the STO operator in the method of implementation of payload safety. This revision provides for a relaxation in the monitoring requirements for inhibits, allows the payload organization to pursue design options and reflects, additionally, some new requirements. As of the issue date of this NHB, payloads which have completed the formal safety assessment reviews of their preliminary design on the basis of the May 1979 issue will be reassessed for compliance with the above changes.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1973

Saturn 5 Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report-AS-512 Apollo 17 Mission

An evaluation of the launch vehicle and lunar roving vehicle performance for the Apollo 17 flight is presented. The objective of the evaluation is to acquire, reduce, analyze, and report on flight data to the extent required to assure future mission success and vehicle reliability. Actual flight problems are identified, their causes are determined, and recommendations are made for corrective action. Summaries of launch operations and spacecraft performance are included. The significant events for all phases of the flight are analyzed.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1971

Saturn 5 Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report, AS-510, Apollo 15 Mission

A postflight analysis of the Apollo 15 flight is presented. The performance of the launch vehicle, spacecraft, and lunar roving vehicle are discussed. The objective of the evaluation is to acquire, reduce, analyze, and report on flight data to the extent required to assure future mission success and vehicle reliability. Actual flight problems are identified, their causes are determined, and recommendations are made for corrective actions. Summaries of launch operations and spacecraft performance are included. Significant events for all phases of the flight are tabulated.

Source record↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Adopting an Objectives-Driven Assurance Case Approach for Achieving Space Flight Mission Planetary Protection Objectives

Traditionally, NASA has utilized prescriptive technical and process requirements to ensure safety and mission assurance performance objectives for space flight missions are achieved. While prescriptive re-quirements may be easier to communicate and manage throughout the systems engineering process, the highly-constrained nature of prescriptive requirements can limit the ability to take advantage of cost-saving opportunities and offer limited ability to explore other options or alternative designs, processes, and methods. It can also be difficult to develop prescriptive requirements for objectives that are prob-abilistic in nature or that cannot be satisfied by direct verification. In contrast, the development of an assurance case allows for a compelling, comprehensible, and valid argument to be developed with support-ing evidence that shows safety and mission assurance objectives have been satisfied. Analogous to how patent applications are constructed for inventions, an assurance case has a high-level claim of meeting a safety and mission assurance objective, followed by a more specific set of sub-claims and technical evidence which supports the claims. The objectives-driven assurance case approach allows for a better understand-ing and exploration of the trade space, more flexibility to balance trades, and the ability to realize and implement technical and process innovations for resource, time, and cost savings. The assurance case is a living case that evolves over the entire program life cycle. Recently, NASA’s Office of Planetary Pro-tection (OPP) has adopted the assurance case approach as an acceptable methodology for demonstrating avoidance of contamination of target solar system bodies explored by NASA space flight missions. This methodology has been incorporated into NASA’s new technical standard for planetary protection and is currently being utilized by the Mars Sample Return campaign for safe sample containment during sample return. This presentation will explore the development and implementation of an assurance case approach in the context of planetary protection, the shift from prescriptive requirements and the ongoing culture change in the technical community, and the support and guidance from NASA’s OPP in adopting the assurance case approach for achieving planetary protection objectives on NASA’s space flight missions.

Elaine Seasly↗
NASA NTRS2006

Quality Interaction Between Mission Assurance and Project Team Members

Mission Assurance independent assessments started during the development cycle and continued through post launch operations. In operations, Health and Safety of the Observatory is of utmost importance. Therefore, Mission Assurance must ensure requirements compliance and focus on process improvements required across the operational systems including new/modified products, tools, and procedures. The deployment of the interactive model involves three objectives: Team member Interaction, Good Root Cause Analysis Practices, and Risk Assessment to avoid reoccurrences. In applying this model, we use a metric based measurement process and was found to have the most significant effect, which points to the importance of focuses on a combination of root cause analysis and risk approaches allowing the engineers the ability to prioritize and quantify their corrective actions based on a well-defined set of root cause definitions (i.e. closure criteria for problem reports), success criteria and risk rating definitions.

quality↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Adopting an Objectives-Driven Assurance Case Approach for Achieving Space Flight Mission Planetary Protection Objectives

Traditionally, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has utilized prescriptive technical and process requirements to ensure safety and mission assurance performance objectives for planetary protection are achieved during space flight missions. While prescriptive requirements may be easier to communicate and manage throughout the systems engineering process, the highly constrained nature of prescriptive requirements can limit the ability to take advantage of cost-saving opportunities and offer limited ability to explore other options or alternative designs, processes, and methods. It can also be difficult to develop prescriptive requirements for objectives that are probabilistic in nature or that cannot be satisfied by direct verification. In contrast, the development of an assurance case allows for a compelling, comprehensible, and valid argument to be developed with supporting evidence that shows safety and mission assurance objectives have been satisfied. Analogous to how patent applications are constructed for inventions, an assurance case has a high-level claim of meeting a safety and mission assurance objective, followed by a more specific set of sub-claims and technical evidence which supports the claims. The objectives-driven assurance case approach allows for a better understanding and exploration of the trade space, more flexibility to balance trades, and the ability to realize and implement technical and process innovations for resource, time, and cost savings. The assurance case is a living case that evolves over the entire program life cycle. Recently, NASA’s Office of Planetary Protection (OPP) has adopted the assurance case approach as an acceptable methodology for demonstrating avoidance of contamination of target solar system bodies explored by NASA space flight missions. This methodology has been incorporated into NASA’s new technical standard for planetary protection and is currently being utilized by the Mars Sample Return campaign for safe sample containment during sample return.

Assurance Case↗
NASA NTRS2002

Managing Risk for Cassini During Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MOandDA)

A Risk Management Process has been tailored for Cassini that not only satisfies the requirements of NASA and JPL, but also allows the Program to proactively identify and assess risks that threaten mission objectives. Cassini Risk Management is a team effort that involves both management and engineering staff. The process is managed and facilitated by the Mission Assurance Manager (MAM), but requires regular interactions with Program Staff and team members to instill the risk management philosophy into the day to day mission operations. While Risk Management is well defined for projects in the development phase, it is a relatively new concept for Mission Operations. The Cassini team has embraced this process and has begun using it in an effective, proactive manner, to ensure mission success. It is hoped that the Cassini Risk Management Process will form the basis by which risk management is conducted during MO&DA on future projects. proactive in identifying, assessing and mitigating risks before they become problems. Cost ehtiveness is achieved by: Comprehensively identifying risks Rapidly assessing which risks require the expenditure of pruject cewums Taking early actions to mitigate these risks Iterating the process frequently, to be responsive to the dynamic internal and external environments The Cassini Program has successfully implemented a Risk Management Process for mission operations, The initial SRL has been developed and input into he online tool. The Risk Management webbased system has been rolled out for use by the flight team and risk owners we working proactive in identifying, assessing and mitigating risks before they become problems. Cost ehtiveness is achieved by: Comprehensively identifying risks Rapidly assessing which risks require the expenditure of pruject cewums Taking early actions to mitigate these risks Iterating the process frequently, to be responsive to the dynamic internal and external environments The Cassini Program has successfully implemented a Risk Management Process for mission operations, The initial SRL has been developed and input into he online tool. The Risk Management webbased system has been rolled out for use by the flight team and risk owners we working put into place will become visible and will be illusmted in future papers.

risk management↗
NASA NTRS2007

The Hyper-X Flight Systems Validation Program

For the Hyper-X/X-43A program, the development of a comprehensive validation test plan played an integral part in the success of the mission. The goal was to demonstrate hypersonic propulsion technologies by flight testing an airframe-integrated scramjet engine. Preparation for flight involved both verification and validation testing. By definition, verification is the process of assuring that the product meets design requirements; whereas validation is the process of assuring that the design meets mission requirements for the intended environment. This report presents an overview of the program with emphasis on the validation efforts. It includes topics such as hardware-in-the-loop, failure modes and effects, aircraft-in-the-loop, plugs-out, power characterization, antenna pattern, integration, combined systems, captive carry, and flight testing. Where applicable, test results are also discussed. The report provides a brief description of the flight systems onboard the X-43A research vehicle and an introduction to the ground support equipment required to execute the validation plan. The intent is to provide validation concepts that are applicable to current, follow-on, and next generation vehicles that share the hybrid spacecraft and aircraft characteristics of the Hyper-X vehicle.

Redifer, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2026

Moving from Information Assurance to Functional Assurance with Engineered Controls

Cyber threats to operational technology demand more than traditional IT defenses—they require full-spectrum mission assurance. Cyber-Informed Engineering (CIE) is an approach that embeds engineered controls into system design to ensure critical functions remain safe and reliable, even under attack. Unlike conventional cybersecurity tools, engineered controls act directly on physical processes to prevent unacceptable outcomes such as equipment damage or mission failure. This session will outline the CIE framework and share examples of consequence-based design that deliver true resilience, not just fail-safe behaviors. Attendees will learn how to integrate these principles into the engineering lifecycle to support resilient-by-design architectures and inform emerging standards. This talk sets the stage for the panel discussion on advancing CIE across sectors as digital and physical systems converge.

24 - POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRS2015

The NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Program: Overview and the New Tenets for Cost Conscious Mission Assurance on Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts

The NEPP Program focuses on the reliability aspects of electronic devices (integrated circuits such as a processor in a computer). There are three principal aspects of this reliability: 1) Lifetime, inherent failure and design issues related to the EEE parts technology and packaging; 2) Effects of space radiation and the space environment on these technologies, and; 3) Creation and maintenance of the assurance support infrastructure required for mission success. The NEPP mission is to provide guidance to NASA for the selection and application of microelectronics technologies, to improve understanding of the risks related to the use of these technologies in the space environment, and to ensure that appropriate EEE parts research is performed to meet NASA mission assurance needs. NEPPs FY15 goals are to represent the NASA voice to the greater aerospace EEE parts community including supporting anti-counterfeit and trust, provide relevant guidance to cost-effective missions, aid insertion of advanced (and commercial) technologies, resolve unexpected parts issues, ensure access to appropriate radiation test facilities, and collaborate as widely as possible with external entities. In accordance with the changing mission profiles throughout NASA, the NEPP Program has developed a balanced portfolio of efforts to provide agency-wide assurance for not only traditional spacecraft developments, but also those in-line with the new philosophies emerging worldwide. In this presentation, we shall present an overview of this program and considerations for EEE parts assurance as applied to cost conscious missions.

space radiation↗