A NASA GSFC Perspective on Class D
This presentation provides an overview of the mission risk classification "D" for NASA from the perspective of Goddard Space Flight Center, as viewed from developers and stakeholders.
Risk Classification↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “risk classification”
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.
Alignment of NASA’s Human System Risks with Technological Capability Gaps to Enable Integrated Research and Technology Development Strategic Planning
BACKGROUND: Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. NASA’s Human System Risk Board (HSRB) maintains a set of twenty-nine different Human System Risks with subject matter experts from across the agency providing regular updates to the estimated likelihood and consequence associated with each risk. The Human Research Program (HRP) has historically used these risk classifications as a primary basis for identifying and prioritizing human research investments aimed at characterizing and/or mitigating the respective human system risks. In many cases, technology development is required to mature and validate risk mitigation strategies, however, NASA’s primary technology development programs have not typically used Human System Risks as a basis for strategic planning. A primary function of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) – Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) is to continually identify, review, and update technological capability gaps and to establish and oversee multiyear strategic roadmaps aimed at guiding NASA’s technology development priorities in these areas. These roadmaps are intended to be agency-wide and independent of any program, directorate, or other organization within NASA. DESCRIPTION: The SCLT and HRP collaborated to establish a set of Human System Capability Gaps, which establish a formal linkage between the capability gaps used to prioritize investments across much of NASA, and the Human System Risks that are primarily used to inform and prioritize human research. This set of twenty-eight gaps was developed by subject matter experts, and each gap mapped to the primary associated Human System Risks. The gaps and risk mapping were then reviewed and approved via the HSRB, thereby formally aligning the research-focused Human System Risks with the technology-focused capability gaps. DISCUSSION: This effort has enabled development of integrated roadmaps and budget coordination with research and technology development activities that are formally linked to agency-recognized capability gaps and Human System Risks. Close and ongoing coordination between the SCLT, HRP, Mars Campaign Office, and the Health & Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) is essential to ensure alignment and prioritization of CHP-related research and technology development to enable NASA’s future exploration missions.
Andrew F J Abercromby↗
Third-Party Supplier Risk Re-Classification Using Multi-Model Semantic Voting and External Web Augmentation
Risk decisions in many third-party risk management (TPRM) workflows rely on static inherent risk questionnaires (IRQ). These static forms provide a snapshot of the vendor from the business users’ perspective, as these requests are processed without cross-referencing for evidence. Consequently, responses can be misinformed or embellished with inaccuracies, thereby masking the vendor’s true risk to the enterprise. This paper presents a multi-stage verification framework to augment IRQs with web evidence and a deterministic ensemble of large language model assessors to reclassify risk. In a case study of 100 submissions previously misclassified as low risk, the proposed framework correctly identified 76% of the cases as high risk, while the existing workflow identified none. McNemar’s continuity corrected statistics of 74 were obtained with a two sided p-value of 2.65 × 10-23, indicating a significantly more effective workflow compared to the legacy model.
99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Bayesian classification of falls risk
Background. Prior research in falls risk prediction often relies on qualitative and/or clinical methods. There are two challenges with these methods. First, qualitative methods typically use falls history to determine falls risk. Second, clinical methods do not quantify the uncertainty in the classification decision. In this paper, we propose using Bayesian classification to predict falls risk using vectors of gait variables shown to contribute to falls risk. Research Questions: (1) Using a vector of risk ratios for specific gait variables shown to contribute to falls risk, how can older adults be classified as low or high falls risk? and (2) how can the uncertainty in the classifier decision be quantified when using a vector of gait variables? Methods. Using a pressure sensitive walkway, biomechanical measurements of gait were collected from 854 adults over the age of 65. In our method, we first determine low and high falls risk labels for vectors of risk ratios using the k-means algorithm. Next, the posterior probability of low or high falls risk class membership is obtained from a two component Gaussian mixture model (GMM) of gait vectors, which enables risk assessment directly from the underlying biomechanics. We classify the gait vectors using a threshold based on Youden's J statistic. Results. Through a Monte Carlo simulation and an analysis of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC), we demonstrate that our Bayesian classifier, when compared to the k-means falls risk labels, achieves an accuracy greater than 96% at predicting low or high falls risk. Significance. Our analysis indicates that our approach based on a Bayesian framework and an individual's underlying biomechanics can predict falls risk while quantifying uncertainty in the classification decision.
59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
Recommendations on the Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions - Phase II
This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.
Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗
Computed Tomography-Based Delta-Radiomics Analysis for Discriminating Radiation Pneumonitis in Patients With Esophageal Cancer After Radiation Therapy
Our purpose was to construct a computed tomography (CT)–based delta-radiomics nomogram and corresponding risk classification system for individualized and accurate estimation of severe acute radiation pneumonitis (SARP) in patients with esophageal cancer (EC) after radiation therapy.
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
Payload test philosophy
The general philosophy of how JPL views payload qualification/acceptance testing for programs that are done either in-house or by contractors is described. Particular attention is given to mission risk classifications, preliminary critical design reviews, environmental design requirements, the thermal and dynamics development tests, and the flight spacecraft system test.
Gindorf, T.↗
Emerging and Reemeriging Human Bunyavirus Infections and Climate Change
The Bunyaviridae family includes a growing number of viruses that have contributed to the burden of emerging and reemerging infectious diseases around the globe. Many of these viruses cause severe clinical outcomes in human and animal populations, the results of which can be detrimental to public health and the economies of affected communities. The threat to endemic and non-native regions is particularly high, and national and international public health agencies are often on alert. Many of the bunyaviruses cause severe clinical disease including hemorrhage, organ failure, and death leading to their high-risk classification. Hantaviruses and Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV) (genus Phlebovirus) are National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Category A priority pathogens in the United States. Viral hemorrhagic fevers, a classification that includes many bunyaviruses, are immediately notifiable in the European Union. The emergence of new and reemerging bunyaviruses has resulted in numerous human and animal fatalities. Outbreaks of Rift Valley fever (RVF) in East Africa (1997/1998, 2006/2007), Sudan (2007), Southern Africa (2008-2010), Kenya (1997/1998, 2006/2007) (Anyamba et al., 2009, 2010; Breiman et al., 2010; Grobbelaar et al., 2011; Woods et al., 2002) and Saudi Arabia & Yemen (2000, 2010) (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2000; Hjelle and Glass, 2000; Madani et al., 2003) and the emergence of Sin Nombre virus (1993) (Hjelle and Glass, 2000) and most recently Schmallenberg virus (2011) (DEFRA, 2012) are prime examples of the devastating and worldwide toll bunyaviruses have on health and economies. Climate variability (precipitation and temperature in particular) greatly influence the ecological conditions that drive arboviral disease outbreaks across the globe. Several human and animal disease outbreaks have been influenced by changes in climate associated with the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon including the bunyaviruses RVFV and Sin Nombre (an etiologic agent of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS)), as well as Murray Valley encephalitis, chikungunya, and malaria to name but a few (Anyamba et al., 2009; Bouma and Dye, 1997; Chretien et al., 2007; Engelthaler et al., 1999; Kovats et al., 2003; Linthicum et al., 1999; Nicholls, 1986). Most bunyaviruses exhibit episodic outbreak patterns with seasonal or annual trends dependent upon climate conditions, vector abundance, and the proximity of a susceptible population. The implications for continued climate change are dire, especially with regard to vector-borne diseases, many of which can cause severe morbidity, sequelae, and death. Increased rainfall and widening endemicity as a result of climate change, compounded by the emergence of new viruses, poses a serious threat to a greater geographic range beyond the regions of endemicity.
Bunyavirus↗
NASA Lunar Lander Reference Design
With increased emphasis on lunar exploration and scientific investigation, there is a desire to deliver a wide variety of payloads to the lunar surface. Many of these payloads will require the use of surface mobility capability such as a rover. NASA has combined spacecraft and subsystem engineers from across the Agency to develop a ‘pallet’ lander design intended to deliver and easily deploy a medium-sized payload (~300 kg) to the polar regions of the Moon. The lander provides power to the payload from transit soon after lunar landing. The lander is not intended to survive the lunar night. The design of the lander was based on a minimum set of level 1 requirements where traditional risk, mass, and performance trade parameters were weighed lower than cost. In other words, the team did not sacrifice ‘good enough’ for ‘better’ or ‘best.’ As a NASA class D spacecraft (as defined in NPR 8705.4, Risk Classification for NASA Payloads, the lander employs single-string (i.e., zero-fault-tolerant) systems as a baseline. The design utilizes existing technologies and components where possible, though some enhancements have been targeted in areas such as precision autonomous landing and low-cost structural design/fabrication. It is important to note that these and other derived technologies are extensible to other lander designs and missions. This TP describes the requirements and approaches upon which the lander design is based; discusses key design decisions, analyses, and trades used to derive the design; provides a snapshot of each major subsystem; and identifies open items, issues, and challenges for which work is continuing.
L D Kennedy↗
Recommendations on Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions
The NASA Electronic Parts & Packaging Program Manager, requested a NASA Engineering and Safety Center independent assessment to summarize Commercial Crew Program and NASA Centers’ current and best practices, and lessons learned, on use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) for all mission risk classifications, and provide recommendations that could lead to future NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging Program and/or Agency guidance on COTS parts. This document contains the outcome of the assessment.
Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗
NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) Assessment – Recommendations on Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Parts for NASA Missions
This presentation is to provide an update on the NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) Assessment of "Recommendations on Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Parts for NASA Missions". Phase I was a published report and Phase II is on-going. Phase I captured the current NASA center practices on using COTS parts while Phase II provides updated NESC recommendation of using COTS parts for NASA missions with different risk classifications.
EEE parts↗
Modeling NASA’s Procedural Requirement Processes - Implications for Digital Future
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has an ongoing Digital Transformation effort and to leverage and showcase the power of Digital Transformation, an effort is underway to develop an integrated, datacentric, model representing NASA’s key process requirements. The task was divided into three phases: As Is modeling, Analysis, and To Be Planning. As part of this effort, a team has completed the first Phase I of the modeling task and is nearing completion of the second phase. This effort will capture the key elements as requirements, responsibilities, allocations, roles, products, and associated lifecycle elements. The scope of modeling included NASA’s NPR 7120.5 (Project and Program Management), NPR 7123.1 (Systems Engineering) and NPRs 8705.2 (Risk classification for Robotic Missions) and 8705.4 (Human-Rating Requirements for Space Missions). This paper will summarize the approach, scope, parsing patterns applied, metamodel, and associated workflows for the As-Is modeling. It will also summarize the results and insights gleaned during that phase, including the review process. These insights have informed the analysis and will be discussed. The analysis modeling phase will also be summarized including how the stakeholders were engaged, how the common elements were handled and dispositioned, and will also describe some of the plans for the future of NASA NPDs and NPRs.
Systems Engineering↗
Modeling NASA’s Procedural Requirement Processes – Implications for a Digital Future
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has an ongoing Digital Transformation effort and to leverage and showcase the power of Digital Transformation, an effort is underway to develop an integrated, datacentric, model representing NASA’s key process requirements. The task was divided into three phases: As Is modeling, Analysis, and To Be Planning. As part of this effort, a team has completed the first Phase I of the modeling task and is nearing completion of the second phase. This effort will capture the key elements as requirements, responsibilities, allocations, roles, products, and associated lifecycle elements. The scope of modeling included NASA’s NPR 7120.5 (Project and Program Management), NPR 7123.1 (Systems Engineering) and NPRs 8705.2 (Risk classification for Robotic Missions) and 8705.4 (Human-Rating Requirements for Space Missions).
NPR↗
Identification and Classification of Common Risks in Space Science Missions
Due to the highly constrained schedules and budgets that NASA missions must contend with, the identification and management of cost, schedule and risks in the earliest stages of the lifecycle is critical. At the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) it is the concurrent engineering teams that first address these items in a systematic manner. Foremost of these concurrent engineering teams is Team X. Started in 1995, Team X has carried out over 1000 studies, dramatically reducing the time and cost involved, and has been the model for other concurrent engineering teams both within NASA and throughout the larger aerospace community. The ability to do integrated risk identification and assessment was first introduced into Team X in 2001. Since that time the mission risks identified in each study have been kept in a database. In this paper we will describe how the Team X risk process is evolving highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches. The paper will especially focus on the identification and classification of common risks that have arisen during Team X studies of space based science missions.
Risk Identification↗
ORCHID: Orchestrated Retrieval-Augmented Classification of High-Risk Property with Intelligent Decision-Making
High-Risk Property (HRP) classification is critical at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites, where inventories include sensitive and often dual-use equipment. Compliance must track evolving rules designated by various export control policies to make transparent and auditable decisions. Traditional expert-only workflows are time-consuming, backlog-prone, and struggle to keep pace with shifting regulatory boundaries. We propose ORCHID, a modular agentic framework for HRP classification that pairs retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with human oversight to produce policy based outputs that can be audited. Small cooperating agents—retrieval, description refiner, classifier, validator, and feedback logger—coordinate via agent-to-agent messaging and invoke tools through the Model Context Protocol (MCP) for model-agnostic on-premise operation. The interface follows an "Item to Evidence to Decision" loop with step-by-step reasoning, on-policy citations, and append-only audit bundles (run-cards, prompts, evidence). In preliminary tests on real HRP cases, ORCHID improves accuracy and traceability over a non-agentic baseline while deferring uncertain items to Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). The demonstration shows single item submission, grounded citations, SME feedback capture, and exportable audit artifacts—illustrating a practical path to trustworthy LLM assistance in sensitive DOE compliance workflows.
Das, Sanjay [ORNL] (ORCID:0009000542591915)↗
A knowledge-informed large language model framework for U.S. nuclear power plant shutdown initiating event classification for probabilistic risk assessment
Identifying and classifying shutdown initiating events (SDIEs) is critical for developing shutdown probabilistic risk assessment for nuclear power plants. Existing computational approaches cannot achieve satisfactory performance due to the challenges of unavailable large, labeled datasets, imbalanced event types, and label noise. To address these challenges, we propose a hybrid pipeline that integrates a knowledge-informed machine learning model to prescreen non-SDIEs and a large language model (LLM) to classify SDIEs into four types. In the prescreening stage, we proposed a set of 44 SDIE text patterns that consist of the most salient keywords and phrases from six SDIE types. Text vectorization based on the SDIE patterns generates feature vectors that are highly separable by using a simple binary classifier. The second stage builds Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT)-based LLM, which learns generic English language representations from self-supervised pretraining on a large dataset and adapts to SDIE classification by fine-tuning it on an SDIE dataset. The proposed approaches are evaluated on a dataset with 10,928 events using precision, recall ratio, F 1 score, and average accuracy. In conclusion, the results demonstrate that the prescreening stage can exclude more than 97% non-SDIEs, and the LLM achieves an average accuracy of 95.1% for SDIE classification.
99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Crash Risks Evaluation of Urban Expressways: A Case Study in Shanghai
We report that proactive traffic safety management systems can reduce crashes by identifying crash precursors, evaluating real-time crash risks, and implementing suitable interventions. The basic prerequisite for developing such a system is to propose a reliable crash risk evaluation model that takes real-time traffic flow data as input. Previous studies have primarily focused on real-time crash prediction using some statistical or machine-learning methods. However, further quantitative evaluation and classification of crash risks have been ignored. In this study, we conduct a systematic crash risk evaluation workflow, including crash risk prediction, crash risk quantification, and crash risk classification. Specifically, the crash risk prediction using an extended logit model is proposed, from which CAS, CSD, UAS, DAS, DTV are identified to be contributing factors of crash risks. Then a crash risk quantification model based on the parameter evaluation of the extended logit model is developed. The crash risks of urban expressways and their spatial-temporal evolution trends are quantified. Finally, the crash risks are classified into high crash risk level, moderate crash risk level, and low crash risk level by the k-means cluster algorithm. Then the threshold boundaries of different crash risk levels are determined. The research results provide a proactive guidance for traffic safety management of urban expressways.
33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
Considerations of Unmanned Aircraft Classification for Civil Airworthiness Standards
The use of unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS) has been characterized as the next great step forward in the evolution of civil aviation. Although use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in military and public service operations is proliferating, civil use of UAS remains limited in the United States today. This report focuses on one particular regulatory challenge: classifying UAS to assign airworthiness standards. Classification is useful for ensuring that meaningful differences in design are accommodated by certification to different standards, and that aircraft with similar risk profiles are held to similar standards. This paper provides observations related to how the current regulations for classifying manned aircraft, based on dimensions of aircraft class and operational aircraft categories, could apply to UAS. This report finds that existing aircraft classes are well aligned with the types of UAS that currently exist; however, the operational categories are more difficult to align to proposed UAS use in the NAS. Specifically, the factors used to group manned aircraft into similar risk profiles do not necessarily capture all relevant UAS risks. UAS classification is investigated through gathering approaches to classification from a broad spectrum of organizations, and then identifying and evaluating the classification factors from these approaches. This initial investigation concludes that factors in addition to those currently used today to group manned aircraft for the purpose of assigning airworthiness standards will be needed to adequately capture risks associated with UAS and their operations.
Maddalon, Jeffrey M.↗