Results for “standards and best practice” — Page 2

NASA NTRS2017

Managing Cyber Risk: from the Ground to the Air and Beyond Out There

Experts from the aerospace sector with the focus of presenting current state-of-the-art in aviation cyber security and discussing major challenges, requirements, and developments. A variety of topics will be addressed by the panel, including: Aviation cyber security regulations, standards, and best practices Aviation information sharing and analysis challenges Aircraft systems and avionics cyber security challenges Airline and airport stakeholder cyber perspectives CNSATM cyber security challenges UAS cyber security and privacy requirements Military aviation cyber security issues in the NAS

Davis, Jerry L.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dust Mitigation Technology to Enable Survive the Night Capabilities

Introduction: As we return to the Moon, the lunar regolith (i.e. lunar dust) covering the surface will be an obstacle to nominal operations. Accounts from Apollo astronauts and analysis of hardware returned from the surface illustrate just how deleterious the dust can be [1]. During Apollo missions, the lunar dust adhered to hardware mechanically and electrostatically [2]. Surviving the Night: Mitigating the lunar dust will be critical to surviving the night. Going hand-in-hand with other extreme environment considerations, dust mitigation is critical to mission success. Dust Impacts on Other Systems: The lunar dust can have negative implications for power, thermal, mechanisms, and several other systems or sub-systems. For example, Apollo encountered marked degradation of performance in heat rejection systems for the lunar roving vehicle, science packages, and other components because of the lunar dust [1]. For power alone, dust can cause internal clogging for power connectors, heat rejection issues, excessive dust on reflective surfaces, reduced power output for solar arrays, and so on. Dust Mitigation Strategy: In addition to considering technology solutions, it is important for hardware, systems, and or components to have a dust mitigation strategy. At a high level, hardware that will encounter the lunar dust should consider these things when defining a dust mitigation strategy: • Understand Natural Environment • Understand Induced Environment • Understand Tolerance to Dust • Write Dust Requirements • Select Dust Mitigation Solutions • Test Hardware in Dusty Environment More information on each of these can be provided to hardware owners. Dust Mitigation Technology Development: NASA has a series of technologies that may be available for hardware that needs to survive the lunar night. Many of these solutions are leveraging dust mitigation technology development efforts from NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), as well as efforts from ESDMD programs, industry, and academia. Through a series of STMD programs (both internal to NASA and through partnerships), there are several technologies in development as considerations as dust mitigation solutions for hardware. Within STMD, the Game Changing Development Program (GCD) has funded several internal dust mitigation projects including low to mid TRL development, demonstrations on CLPS landers of high TRL solutions, and creating standards and best practices for dust mitigation. STMD dust mitigation efforts also include a series of partnerships for developing technologies and advancing the state of dust mitigation at NASA. This includes the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC), Small Business Innovation Research, Early Stage Innovations (ESI), Space Technology Research Grants (STRG), Announcement of Collaboration Opportunities (ACOs) and Tipping Points (TPs), and Challenges and Crowdsourcing, among others. There are also a series of dust mitigation solutions that have been widely used terrestrially, or during Apollo. In recent years, several studies have produced more data on the efficacy of these potential solutions in the lunar environment. Dust Mitigation Solutions: Dust mitigation solutions generally fall into four categories: • Dust Tolerant Mechanisms • Passive Dust Mitigation Capabilities • Active Dust Mitigation Capabilities • Dust Measurement Capabilities There are a series of solutions that may prove beneficial for hardware that needs to survive the lunar night, including new technology development as well as proven, terrestrial solutions. This presentation will discuss in more detail what some of these solutions are for payloads going to the surface. References: [1] J. R. Gaier, NASA/TM—2005-213610, The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions [2] T. J. Stubbs, et al. Impact of Dust on Lunar Exploration, 2005

dust mitigation↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Explore Earth Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition (CSDA) Program

The European Space Agency (ESA), our international partner in the ESA-NASA Earth Science & Observation Joint Program Planning Group (JPPG), is hosting the VH-RODA (Very High-resolution Radar and Optical Data Assessment Workshop) at ESA/ European Space Research Institute (ERSIN) in Frascati, Italy from November 7-10, 2022. The objective of the VH-RODA workshop is to provide an open forum (for the new space, commercial and institutional space sectors) for presenting and discussing about the current status and future developments related to Earth Observation (EO) data quality, calibration and validation of space-borne very high-resolution Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and Optical sensors and data products, with a dedicated focus on commercial EO data providers and related Calibration/Validation activities, synergies between optical and SAR communities, presentation of standards and best practices for data quality. Additionally, the ESA-NASA Joint Program Planning Group (JPPG) Third Party Mission component will meet to further develop non-binding practices on evaluation, identify common guard rails for comparison of data, and coordinate future schedules to leverage shared knowledge. I serve as the Project Manager for the NASA’s Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition (CSDA) Program and will participate in the VHRODA workshop on behalf of the program.

Commercial Remote Sensing↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Survive the Dust: Dust Mitigation Technology to Enable Survive the Night Capabilities

Introduction: As we return to the Moon, the lunar regolith (i.e. lunar dust) covering the surface will be an obstacle to nominal operations. Accounts from Apollo astronauts and analysis of hardware returned from the surface illustrate just how deleterious the dust can be [1]. During Apollo missions, the lunar dust adhered to hardware mechanically and electrostatically [2]. Surviving the Night: Mitigating the lunar dust will be critical to surviving the night. Going hand-in-hand with other extreme environment considerations, dust mitigation is critical to mission success. Dust Impacts on Other Systems: The lunar dust can have negative implications for power, thermal, mechanisms, and several other systems or sub-systems. For example, Apollo encountered marked degradation of performance in heat rejection systems for the lunar roving vehicle, science packages, and other components because of the lunar dust [1]. For power alone, dust can cause internal clogging for power connectors, heat rejection issues, excessive dust on reflective surfaces, reduced power output for solar arrays, and so on. Dust Mitigation Strategy: In addition to considering technology solutions, it is important for hardware, systems, and or components to have a dust mitigation strategy. At a high level, hardware that will encounter the lunar dust should consider these things when defining a dust mitigation strategy: • Understand Natural Environment • Understand Induced Environment • Understand Tolerance to Dust • Write Dust Requirements • Select Dust Mitigation Solutions • Test Hardware in Dusty Environment More information on each of these can be provided to hardware owners. Dust Mitigation Technology Development: NASA has a series of technologies that may be available for hardware that needs to survive the lunar night. Many of these solutions are leveraging dust mitigation technology development efforts from NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), as well as efforts from ESDMD programs, industry, and academia. Through a series of STMD programs (both internal to NASA and through partnerships), there are several technologies in development as considerations as dust mitigation solutions for hardware. Within STMD, the Game Changing Development Program (GCD) has funded several internal dust mitigation projects including low to mid TRL development, demonstrations on CLPS landers of high TRL solutions, and creating standards and best practices for dust mitigation. STMD dust mitigation efforts also include a series of partnerships for developing technologies and advancing the state of dust mitigation at NASA. This includes the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC), Small Business Innovation Research, Early Stage Innovations (ESI), Space Technology Research Grants (STRG), Announcement of Collaboration Opportunities (ACOs) and Tipping Points (TPs), and Challenges and Crowdsourcing, among others. There are also a series of dust mitigation solutions that have been widely used terrestrially, or during Apollo. In recent years, several studies have produced more data on the efficacy of these potential solutions in the lunar environment. Dust Mitigation Solutions: Dust mitigation solutions generally fall into four categories: • Dust Tolerant Mechanisms • Passive Dust Mitigation Capabilities • Active Dust Mitigation Capabilities • Dust Measurement Capabilities There are a series of solutions that may prove beneficial for hardware that needs to survive the lunar night, including new technology development as well as proven, terrestrial solutions. This presentation will discuss in more detail what some of these solutions are for payloads going to the surface. References: [1] J. R. Gaier, NASA/TM—2005-213610, The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions [2] T. J. Stubbs, et al. Impact of Dust on Lunar Exploration, 2005

dust mitigation↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Data Quality Challenges for Analysis Ready Data (ARD)

Data quality plays a critical role in research and applications. The Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP) Information Quality Cluster (IQC) defines four aspects of information quality: Science, Product, Stewardship, and Services. The ESIP IQC has become internationally recognized as an authoritative and responsive resource of information and guidance to data producers and distributors on how to implement data quality standards and best practices for their science data systems, datasets, and data/metadata dissemination services. In recent years, cloud computing environments have provided scale-up capabilities such as data archives and services, enabling interdisciplinary science and applications. More value-added products are expected from data service providers, including Analysis Ready Data (ARD). ARD refers to data that has been preprocessed into a form that allows immediate analysis by the end user, processed to a minimum set of requirements and provides interoperability over time and across multiple datasets. Once a dataset has been developed from its original form to produce ARD, what quality characteristics should the derived dataset or ARD possess? Also, is it safe to assume that the quality of the ARD is consistent with the quality of the source data, or are there special attributes to an ARD that would warrant a secondary, independent quality assessment? What provenance (also called “data lineage”) information needs to be included in ARD? It is important to answer these questions, especially given the ease of use of ARD, and the consequent temptation by users to trust ARD without understanding the limitations or possible variations in quality compared to the source data. In this presentation, we will discuss data quality challenges for ARD products and services and introduce IQC for participation.

data quality↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Non-Interference of Lunar Activities

As dozens of countries and private sector companies have expressed interest in establishing lunar operations by the end of the decade, it will be critical to determine how to minimize interference in lunar activities. Although lunar interference concerns have been broadly identified, and deconfliction has been identified as an area of further work in Section 11 of the Artemis Accords, there is not broad consensus in the lunar scientific or technical community on key questions such as standards and best practices for non-interference or mechanisms for mitigation. This paper seeks feedback from the scientific and technical community to determine the breadth of interference concerns and clarify community usage of the terms “interference” and “contamination”.

Lunar↗

NASA NTRS2024

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Lunar Rover Design Concepts Assessments

Mass is a significant risk to programs and projects as they transition from formulation to implementation, especially in larger human space systems where delivery mass or volume can be a constrained commodity. • Concepts developed without an adequate systems-engineering basis, including design and operations experience, may miss significant functionality and subsequent mass required for integration or operations. • Further uncertainty can be associated with not fully understanding design best practices and standards that drive mass, such as design for minimum risk or fault tolerance.1 • Finally, the appropriate systems engineering mass properties management rigor and technical discipline insight are required to set the mass baseline, including appropriate mass growth allowance (MGA) to ensure program success. Mass is a key quantity that should be constantly monitored by the systems engineer and the program/project management stakeholder to ensure mission compatibility throughout the project life cycle. In addition, mass is a key programmatic performance metric monitored by the NASA Chief Financial Officer for current and future program cost estimating. NASA Exploration Systems sought an assessment of reasonableness with respect to different potential rover concepts that balances mass needs and human-class cargo lander capabilities. Appropriate systems engineering mass properties management rigor and technical discipline insight were used, and are required to set the mass baseline, including appropriate MGA to ensure program success. Two independent Lunar rover concepts were evaluated, with a goal to understand concept credibility and the Lunar rover designs potential extensibility for Mars surface operations. A notional generic rover concept is shown in Figure 1.

Systems Engineering↗

NASA NTRS2022

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Technical Bulletin No. 22-05: Launch Vehicle Flight Control Stability Margin Reduction Considerations

Launch vehicle ascent stability analyses typically rely on a combination of frequency and time domain analyses. Frequency domain analysis uses a sequence of high-fidelity linear models with constant parameters spanning the ascent trajectory. Complementary time domain analysis is performed using high-fidelity, nonlinear 6-DOF simulations. Analyses are typically dispersed to verify robustness to parameter variations by showing the vehicle meets frequency domain stability margin requirements and time domain performance metrics. This Technical Bulletin outlines standard stability margin best practices and provides recommendations for treatment of deviations from industry-standard launch vehicle stability margins due to vehicle flexibility, slosh dynamics, aerodynamics, other offending dynamics, or coupling thereof.

Launch Vehicle↗

NASA NTRS2016

Assessment of the Orion-SLS Interface Management Process in Achieving the EIA 731.1 Systems Engineering Capability Model Generic Practices Level 3 Criteria

NASA is currently developing the next generation crewed spacecraft and launch vehicle for exploration beyond earth orbit including returning to the Moon and making the transit to Mars. Managing the design integration of major hardware elements of a space transportation system is critical for overcoming both the technical and programmatic challenges in taking a complex system from concept to space operations. An established method of accomplishing this is formal interface management. In this paper we set forth an argument that the interface management process implemented by NASA between the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and the Space Launch System (SLS) achieves the Level 3 tier of the EIA 731.1 System Engineering Capability Model (SECM) for Generic Practices. We describe the relevant NASA systems and associated organizations, and define the EIA SECM Level 3 Generic Practices. We then provide evidence for our compliance with those practices. This evidence includes discussions of: NASA Systems Engineering Interface (SE) Management standard process and best practices; the tailoring of that process for implementation on the Orion to SLS interface; changes made over time to improve the tailored process, and; the opportunities to take the resulting lessons learned and propose improvements to our institutional processes and best practices. We compare this evidence against the practices to form the rationale for the declared SECM maturity level.

Jellicorse, John J.↗

NASA NTRS2016

OpenSearch Status

We will present an overview of our OpenSearch efforts over the past 6 months. We will discuss our Best Practices and those of CEOS concentrating on the compatibility issues between the two. We will also discuss the state of earth data OpenSearch implementations and their adherence to the standards, extensions and best practices available.

OpenSearch↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Objective Structured Clinical Evaluation (OSCE) of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) Tool

BACKGROUND Objective Structured Clinical Evaluations (OSCEs) have long been established as a robust methodology for summative assessment of clinical skills and decision-making during medical education. The recent integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into clinical decision-making processes has prompted the need for novel evaluation frameworks to assess the efficacy and reliability of AI clinical decision support system (CDSS) tools. This abstract outlines the process of quantitatively evaluating a novel CDSS (“Doc in a Box” Google 2024) trained on curated medical spaceflight data in the psychomotor domain as it interfaces with a human volunteer acting as the crew medical officer (CMO). PURPOSE The AI CDSS under review was developed as part of the Lunar Command and Control Interoperability (LuCCI) project, which is intended to address a gap in how Lunar Surface Systems (LSS) would interoperate across multiple programs, commercial partners, and international partners. The project objective is to define, prototype, integrate, and evaluate an interoperable lunar command, control, data, and software reference architecture to enable autonomy and informatics capability through common standards across LSS. A multi-modal AI-based CDSS compatible with Federated LSS will assist clinicians in diagnosing and managing complex medical conditions by providing evidence-based recommendations through predictive analytics. Given the critical role of decision-support as NASA continues to evolve its Earth-independent medical operations (EIMO), it is imperative to ensure that such AI tools perform reliably and align with clinical standards during progressive lunar and Martian exploration class missions. METHODS The OSCE framework, traditionally used for evaluating human clinicians, was adapted to assess the AI tool's decision-making capabilities in simulated clinical scenarios. In this adapted OSCE, the AI CDSS was tested across a series of structured clinical scenarios designed to mimic real-life spaceflight patient cases. These scenarios included a range of conditions and complexities, allowing for comprehensive assessment of the tool's performance. Key evaluation metrics included accuracy of diagnosis, timeliness of decision-making, and appropriate recommendations for therapies. The OSCE was scored by human physician evaluators who assessed the AI's recommendations in comparison with expert clinicians' medical decision making to ensure alignment with best practices and the standard of care. RESULTS Preliminary results indicate that the AI CDSS demonstrated high accuracy in diagnostic recommendations and decision support across various scenarios. However, certain limitations were noted, such as occasional discrepancies in handling complex or nuanced cases that required a more contextual understanding. Additionally, the tool scored higher on the diagnostic portion of the rubric, with lower scores in the therapeutic recommendations. These findings highlight the importance of continuous refinement and validation of AI tools through rigorous evaluation frameworks like the OSCE. The adaptation of OSCEs for AI tools presents several advantages, including a structured and reproducible approach to evaluation, the ability to test AI systems in diverse clinical scenarios, and the opportunity to benchmark AI performance against established clinical standards to permit charting of future progress as aerospace medicine evolves as a discipline. Remaining challenges include ensuring that these evaluations capture the full spectrum of clinical decision-making scenarios that will be confronted by CMOs during missions and adequately reflecting real-world variability of the austere spaceflight environment. CONCLUSION Employing OSCEs to evaluate AI clinical decision support tools offers a promising approach to validating their clinical utility and efficacy. This methodology not only provides insights into the tool's performance but also fosters ongoing improvement and alignment with standard of care practices. Future research should focus on refining these evaluation processes and addressing limitations to enhance the integration of AI tools in clinical spaceflight settings. REFERENCES Scott S, Hearns V, Barker MA. Testing Clinical Skills: A Look at the OSCE and USMLE Clinical Skills Exams. S D Med. 2019 Oct;72(10):451-453. Majumder MAA, Kumar A, Krishnamurthy K, Ojeh N, Adams OP, Sa B. An evaluative study of objective structured clinical examination (OSCE): students and examiners perspectives. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019 Jun 5;10:387-397. Karam VY, Park YS, Tekian A, Youssef N. Evaluating the validity evidence of an OSCE: results from a new medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2018 Dec 20;18(1):313.

Ariana M Nelson↗

NASA NTRS2011

Putting the Power of Configuration in the Hands of the Users

Goal was to reduce the overall cost of human space flight while maintaining the most demanding standards for safety and mission success. In support of this goal, a project team was chartered to replace 18 legacy Space Shuttle nonconformance processes and systems with one fully integrated system Problem Reporting and Corrective Action (PRACA) processes provide a closed-loop system for the identification, disposition, resolution, closure, and reporting of all Space Shuttle hardware/software problems PRACA processes are integrated throughout the Space Shuttle organizational processes and are critical to assuring a safe and successful program Primary Project Objectives Develop a fully integrated system that provides an automated workflow with electronic signatures Support multiple NASA programs and contracts with a single "system" architecture Define standard processes, implement best practices, and minimize process variations

Al-Shihabi, Mary-Jo↗

NASA NTRS2019

Human Systems Integration (HSI) for Safety- Critical Range Operations at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF)

The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) Human Factors (HF) Technical Discipline Team (TDT) funded a preliminary study in 2017 that was narrowly focused within the Range Data Display System (RDDS) scope of display design requirements based on schedule and resources. Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) personnel involved in the previous study asked for a broader Human Systems Integration (HSI) involvement that would span both the RDDS and Flight Termination System (FTS) projects and assist with identifying HSI best practices, via appropriate standards and guidelines, that if properly implemented should result in a more effective and efficient Range Safety Operations. WFF Range Safety Operations has expressed a need to assess the roles, responsibilities, and functions of the various personnel on console during launches to identify existing and potential efficiencies and incorporate them in the new system design. This assessment addresses that need.

Cynthia H Null↗

NASA NTRS2021

Wire Rope Inspection Report Safety Division, Code 360

The purpose of this report is to review Federal Regulations, Voluntary Consensus Standards (VCS), and best practices associated with WRI requirements within the government and industry. This report provides an analysis to NASA Headquarters regarding the limited risks that wire ropes present to the Agency based on the interpretation of Section 29 CFR 1910.179 (m) of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements that allow inspections of OHC wire rope based on the operational status of the crane. This report also provides details and recommendations for the reduction of personnel exposure to safety risk associated with working at heights while inspecting wire rope on inactive lifting devices.

Wire Rope↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-17867-DND

In response to the exponential growth in science data analysis and visualization capabilities, data centers have been developing new processes to package and deliver large volumes of aggregated subsets of archived data. New standards are evolving to help data providers and application programmers manage the growing needs of the science community. These standards evolve from the best practices gleaned from new products and capabilities. The NASA Atmospheric Sciences Data Center (ASDC) has developed and deployed production provider-specific search and subset web applications for the CALIPSO, CERES, TES, and MOPITT missions. This presentation explores a CERES CCCM (CALIPSO, CloudSat, CERES, MODIS) data validation use case that leverages aggregated subset results from CERES CCCM (Level2), CERES SSF (Level2), and CALIPSO LIDAR (Level) datasets. Additionally, it examines the standards and formats that ASDC developers have applied to the delivered files as well as the implementation strategies for subsetting and processing the aggregated products.

Walter E Baskin↗

NASA NTRS2025

NASA Planetary Protection Handbook

This handbook provides guidance to mission providers and Planetary Protection (PP) practitioners on implementing PP measures for both robotic and crewed space missions. This handbook represents major updates to PP practices since a previously drafted handbook from 2010. In 2017, NASA reorganized the Office of Planetary Protection (OPP) from the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) to a Technical Authority (TA) within the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA). With this organizational change came a complete overhaul of NASA’s PP policy and technical standards. This handbook reflects the latest NASA PP policy updates in NPR 8715.24, Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions and technical requirements of NASA-STD-8719.27, Implementing Planetary Protection Requirements for Space Flight. This handbook is a companion document to the NPR and technical standard and provides guidance, best practices, background information, and advice for practitioners to consider when implementing PP on NASA missions and NASA-partnered missions.

Nick Benardini↗

NASA NTRS2000

Conference Summary

Celebrations and special events were in order this year as the Minority University-Space Interdisciplinary Network (MU-SPIN) Program and NASA's Minority University Research and Education Division (MURED) both reached their 10th anniversaries. In honor of this occasion, the 2000 Annual Users' Conference held at Morris Brown College (MBC) in Atlanta, Georgia, September 11-15, 2000, was the first to be jointly hosted by MU-SPIN and MURED. It was particularly fitting that this anniversary should fall in the year 2000. The start of the new millennium propelled us to push bold new ideas and renew our commitment to minority university participation in all areas of NASA. With the theme 'Celebrating Our Tenth Year With Our Eyes on the Prize,' the conference provided a national forum for showcasing successful MU-SPIN and MURED Program (MUREP) experiences to enhance faculty/student development in areas of scientific and technical research and education. Our NASA-relevant conference agenda resulted in a record-breaking 220 registered attendees. Using feedback from past participants, we designed a track of student activities closely tailored to their interests. The resulting showcase of technical assistance and best practices set a new standard for our conferences in the years to come. This year's poster session was our largest ever, with over 50 presentations from students, faculty, and teachers. Posters covered a broad range of NASA activities from 'A Study of the Spiral Galaxy M101' to 'Network Cabling Characteristics.'

Harrington, James L., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Standards for Radiation Effects Testing: Ensuring Scientific Rigor in the Face of Budget Realities and Modern Device Challenges

An overview is presented of the space radiation environment and its effects on electrical, electronic, and electromechanical parts. Relevant test standards and guidelines are listed. Test standards and guidelines are necessary to ensure best practices, minimize and bound systematic and random errors, and to ensure comparable results from different testers and vendors. Test standards are by their nature static but exist in a dynamic environment of advancing technology and radiation effects research. New technologies, failure mechanisms, and advancement in our understanding of known failure mechanisms drive the revision or development of test standards. Changes to standards must be weighed against their impact on cost and existing part qualifications. There must be consensus on new best practices. The complexity of some new technologies exceeds the scope of existing test standards and may require development of a guideline specific to the technology. Examples are given to illuminate the value and limitations of key radiation test standards as well as the challenges in keeping these standards up to date.

Test Standard↗