Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “technical advisory meeting”

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.

28 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

Simulation Technology at NASA

NASA Ames Research Center is home to several high-fidelity research flight and air-traffic control simulation facilities which, together with an experienced workforce, produce high-quality research data and findings that have proven to be applicable in the real world. These assets include the Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS), Crew Vehicle Systems Research Facility (CVSRF), Future Flight Central (FFC) air traffic control tower simulator, and several air-traffic control (ATC) simulators. The VMS combines a high-fidelity simulation capability with an adaptable simulation environment, enabling customization for numerous human-in-the-loop research applications. The distinctive feature of the VMS is its unparalleled large amplitude, high-fidelity motion capability. In over 30 years of continuous operation, the VMS has contributed significantly to the body of knowledge in a range of disciplines directly benefiting several aerospace programs and flight safety, including the design and development of flight control systems for the Joint Strike Fighter, Space Shuttle Orbiter, and rotorcraft. It continues to be used for researching new vehicle configurations, vehicle control and safety, transfer-of-training, etc., by NASA, other government agencies, and Industry.The CVSRF includes two motion-based flight simulators: a Boeing 747-400 full flight simulator and the reconfigurable Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator (ACFS). These simulators are primarily used to research air-traffic management concepts and procedures, advanced navigation and avionics concepts, and cockpit human factors. FFC is a full-sized control tower simulator with a 360-degree external field-of-view display system and reconfigurable system architecture. FFC and the ATC simulators are used for testing air-traffic management automation and decision support tools and demonstrate their feasibility in a realistic environment prior to technology transfer for implementation in the National Airspace System (NAS).To support integrated simulations and flight-tests for NASA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project, NASA developed a distributed test environment incorporating Live, Virtual, Constructive, (LVC) concepts. Development of the software enabling the LVC is conducted primarily at the Distributed Simulation Research Lab (DSRL) at NASA Ames. The LVC components provide the core infrastructure supporting simulation of UAS operations by integrating live and virtual aircraft in a realistic air traffic environment. This provides the ability to conduct tests more efficiently by promoting the use of existing distributed assets. The LVC infrastructure was used in several human-in-the-loop simulations to evaluate acceptance of Detect and Avoid (DAA) advisories used by UAS pilots to maintain well clear of other virtual traffic and to negotiate maneuvers with air traffic control. It is currently being used to support testing of self-separation algorithms between unmanned and manned aircraft in live flight. Further simulations with more comprehensive air traffic scenarios mixing live and virtual aircraft is planned.In the current fiscal environment, maintaining and upgrading these high-fidelity simulation assets and retaining the skilled workforce necessary to meet future research needs is the primary non-technical challenge.

CVSRF↗
NASA NTRS1927

Nomenclature for Aeronautics

This nomenclature for aeronautics was prepared by a Special Conference on Aeronautical Nomenclature by the executive committee of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics at a meeting held on August 19, 1924, at which meeting Dr. Joseph S. Ames was appointed chairman of the conference. The conference was composed of representatives of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and specially appointed representatives officially designated by the Army Air Service, the Bureau of Aeronautics of the Navy Department, the Bureau of Standards, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Society of Automotive Engineers, and the Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce. The purpose of the committee in the preparation and publication of this report is to secure uniformity in the official documents of the government and, as far as possible, in technical and other commercial publications

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2021

Long Range Community Planning Process for Fusion Sciences and Plasma Physics (Final Technical Report)

This grant facilitated the APS-DPP Community Planning Process (DPP-CPP) which was a strategic planning process with the goals of identifying scientific and technological opportunities in the fields of Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Science, and making consensus recommendations for a strategy to address these opportunities to the DOE Office of Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee (FESAC). The DPP-CPP was initiated by the APS-DPP executive committee in order to help FESAC fulfill a charge from DOE to develop a strategic plan for the DOE Office of Fusion Energy Science (FES). In this charge, the DOE Deputy Director for Science, Dr. Stephen Binkley, requests “that the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) undertake a new long-range strategic planning activity for the Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program. The strategic planning activity - to encompass the entire FES research portfolio (namely, burning plasma science and discovery plasma science) - should identify and prioritize the research required to advance both the scientific foundation needed to develop a fusion energy source, as well as the broader FES mission to steward plasma science.” The process as set out in the proposal (and below) was successful in meeting all of its stated goals culminating in the final report to the FESAC subcommittee given the charge.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
NASA NTRS2016

Assessment of Delivery Accuracy in an Operational-Like Environment

In order to enable arrival management concepts and solutions in a Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) environment, ground-based sequencing and scheduling functions were developed to support metering operations in the National Airspace System. These sequencing and scheduling tools are designed to assist air traffic controllers in developing an overall arrival strategy, from enroute down to the terminal area boundary. NASA developed a ground system concept and protoype capability called Terminal Sequencing and Spacing (TSAS) to extend metering operations into the terminal area to the runway. To demonstrate the use of these scheduling and spacing tools in an operational-like environment, the FAA, NASA, and MITRE conducted an Operational Integration Assessment (OIA) of a prototype TSAS system at the FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC). This paper presents an analysis of the arrival management strategies utilized and delivery accuracy achieved during the OIA. The analysis demonstrates how en route preconditioning, in various forms, and schedule disruptions impact delivery accuracy. As the simulation spanned both enroute and terminal airspace, the use of Ground Interval Management - Spacing (GIM-S) enroute speed advisories was investigated. Delivery accuracy was measured as the difference between the Scheduled Time of Arrival (STA) and the Actual Time of Arrival (ATA). The delivery accuracy was computed across all runs conducted during the OIA, which included deviations from nominal operations which are known to commonly occur in real operations, such as schedule changes and missed approaches. Overall, 83% of all flights were delivered into the terminal airspace within +/- 30 seconds of their STA and 94% of flights were delivered within +/- 60 seconds. The meter fix delivery accuracy standard deviation was found to be between 36 and 55 seconds across all arrival procedures. The data also showed when schedule disruptions were excluded, the percentage of aircraft delivered within +/- 30 seconds was between 85 and 90% across the various arrival procedures at the meter fix. This paper illustrates the ability to meet new delivery accuracy requirements in an operational-like environment using operational systems and NATCA controller participants, while also including common events that might cause disruptions to the schedule and overall system.

Air Traffic Scheduling↗
DOE OSTI2022

Thermal Energy Grid Storage (TEGS) Using Multi-Junction Photovoltaics (MPV) (Final Technical Report)

The project aimed to develop a thermal energy storage battery that converts electricity to heat and stores heat at ultra-high temperatures (>2000°C) in graphite blocks. The thermal battery discharge uses TPV cells that directly convert thermal energy to electrical energy without any moving parts. All components of this technology were successfully demonstrated at the laboratory scale in this project. Development of extremely low cost (< $20/kWh) grid level energy storage is a crucial necessity to reach high penetrations of renewables. The thermal battery technology developed in this project is expected to meet the cost targets that would enable full renewable penetration. The project focused on four key aspects of this technology: Converting electricity to ultra-high temperature heat: This was done through development of graphite Joule heaters. Major issues related to arcing, heater evaporation and deterioration due to long term oxidation were addressed to ensure lifetime exceeding the service lifetime of the battery. Converting ultra-high temperature heat back to electricity: This was done through development of beyond state-of-the-art TPV cells. We demonstrated energy conversion efficiency of >40% that is a world record and exceeds the average energy conversion efficiency of turbines in the USA. The findings are peer-reviewed and published in Nature, and received a wide media attention globally. Protecting the TPV cells to ensure lifetime: Deposition of volatilized material, such as sublimated material or particles, on the TPV cell could greatly reduce the efficiency and lifetime of the TPV cells by blocking their view to the heat source and causing cell overheating. In this project we developed and demonstrated an approach that reduces the deposition rate, ensuring long > 30 year life. Technoeconomic feasibility and commercialization: In collaboration with the project’s technical advisory board, we developed a technoeconomic model. The model shows that, at large scales (> 1GWh) the thermal battery technology is projected to reach a cost of energy stored below $10/kWh-e, with a cost per unit power < $0.5/W-e and a roundtrip efficiency of 50%. These results, along with the technical achievements in the project led to the creation of a startup company (i.e., Fourth Power) that is pursuing commercialization of the technology.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2023

Cyberguardians and STEM Warriors (Final Technical Report (FTR))

In the past decade, solar power, with and without energy storage has become the fastest growing source of energy generation in the world. In the U.S., solar employment more than doubled from 105,145 jobs in 2011 to 255,037 jobs in 2021, four times faster than the U.S. job growth rate overall. These factors, combined with technology advancements, creates a skills gap that puts tremendous stress on society to deliver the workers to fill the open job requisitions. The Cyberguardians and STEM Warriors project (Cyberguardians) was designed to address the trained-worker shortage in the energy industry in three ways: 1) by developing educational curriculum that addresses DER technology changes; 2) by delivering curriculum to prospective workers, including military veterans and their families, via universities, community colleges, and vocational training outlets; and 3) introducing individuals who have completed training to employers that can hire them. Cyberguardians exceeded its curriculum goals by producing 27 academic units of university-accredited material (12 total courses) covering energy fundamentals, smart inverters, Distributed Energy Resource (DER) data communication, cybersecurity, standardization, certification, data analytics, and IEEE 1547 standard topics. The North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP) also accredited the material for use in their credential program. Seven instructors were recruited and trained, and six academic institutions (University of California San Diego, State University of New York, North Carolina State University, Harper Community College, Green Village Academy, and the SunSpec Alliance) were enlisted, meeting program goals. All course material was published under the Creative Commons license and made available royalty free, thus providing a long-lasting public benefit. The program’s outreach program vastly exceeded program goals and incorporated the efforts of 13 outreach partners (11 of which are veteran focused), an advisory board representing 15 companies, webinars and 10’s of thousands of email messages sent to prospective students and hiring managers. Despite these efforts, the global pandemic depressed anticipated program participation by about a third. Still, a total of 396 students enrolled and 289 completed the courses and were accredited. The job applicant task achieved similar results (111 realized vs a 174 goal) but reported job placement was weaker at (9 realized vs. a 51 goal). The Cyberguardians program fills a critical void for cost-effective, royalty-free curriculum and training pertaining to DER technologies and cybersecurity that prospective energy workers must possess to be effective in the 21 st century. On this basis alone, the investment of taxpayer funds will pay dividends for years to come.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2011

Report on the Global Data Assembly Center (GDAC) to the 12th GHRSST Science Team Meeting

In 2010/2011 the Global Data Assembly Center (GDAC) at NASA's Physical Oceanography Distributed Active Archive Center (PO.DAAC) continued its role as the primary clearinghouse and access node for operational Group for High Resolution Sea Surface Temperature (GHRSST) datastreams, as well as its collaborative role with the NOAA Long Term Stewardship and Reanalysis Facility (LTSRF) for archiving. Here we report on our data management activities and infrastructure improvements since the last science team meeting in June 2010.These include the implementation of all GHRSST datastreams in the new PO.DAAC Data Management and Archive System (DMAS) for more reliable and timely data access. GHRSST dataset metadata are now stored in a new database that has made the maintenance and quality improvement of metadata fields more straightforward. A content management system for a revised suite of PO.DAAC web pages allows dynamic access to a subset of these metadata fields for enhanced dataset description as well as discovery through a faceted search mechanism from the perspective of the user. From the discovery and metadata standpoint the GDAC has also implemented the NASA version of the OpenSearch protocol for searching for GHRSST granules and developed a web service to generate ISO 19115-2 compliant metadata records. Furthermore, the GDAC has continued to implement a new suite of tools and services for GHRSST datastreams including a Level 2 subsetter known as Dataminer, a revised POET Level 3/4 subsetter and visualization tool, a Google Earth interface to selected daily global Level 2 and Level 4 data, and experimented with a THREDDS catalog of GHRSST data collections. Finally we will summarize the expanding user and data statistics, and other metrics that we have collected over the last year demonstrating the broad user community and applications that the GHRSST project continues to serve via the GDAC distribution mechanisms. This report also serves by extension to summarize the activities of the GHRSST Data Assembly and Systems Technical Advisory Group (DAS-TAG).

sea surface temperature (SST)↗
DOE OSTI2024

2019 Budget Request for the DOE Computational Science Graduate Fellowship (CSGF) Grant

The Department of Energy Computational Science Graduate Fellowship (DOE CSGF) is necessary to meet the continual challenging national workforce needs that arise as computational science and engineering problems continue to grow in scope and complexity. Computational science and engineering (CSE) is a multidisciplinary approach that uses scientific computing to solve practical problems methods and to supply technical tools across the scientific discovery spectrum. In particular, the DOE CSGF emphasizes high-performance computing (HPC) that enables CSE that advances science and engineering in directions important to the DOE and the economy in general. Over the past half-century, HPC has been an essential tool for DOE’s success. During this period, important missions, such as nuclear stockpile stewardship, have turned to HPC as an essential technology. Entire science disciplines, such as biology and cosmology, have been transformed through the augmentation of scientific observation via HPC. At government laboratories and in industry, DOE CSGF alumni are helping push traditional HPC boundaries while contributing to discoveries in high-energy physics, renewable energy, fusion-reactor design, additive manufacturing, nanomaterials for next-generation batteries and transistors, and turbine and advanced nuclear reactor modeling. In addition, HPC is used to address national health needs that will eventually point to cures both by helping cancer researchers manage and analyze huge troves of data, by simulating biological mechanisms, and by accelerating drug development — including continuing to rise to the challenge of pandemic-related research. A 2023 report from the ASCAC Subcommittee on American Competitiveness and Innovation to the ASCR office, “Can the United States Maintain Its Leadership in High-Performance Computing?” says of the Program, “The CSGF program provides a barometer for disciplines that will be of interest to future DOE computing.” An explosion in scientific and technological data has driven the need for increasingly sophisticated HPC to transform those data into scientific understanding. With access to more and more data and the proliferation of HPC, Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence are experiencing a renaissance, complementing the now well-established use of computational simulation. Indeed, in its September 2020 subcommittee report on “AI/ML, Data Intensive Science and High-Performance Computing”, the DOE Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC) explicitly called for a fellowship program to train computational and data scientists to tackle exascale and data-intensive computing challenges. This collaboration of empirical and theory-based modeling will increasingly inform federal policymakers whose decisions affect American society and future generations, and it requires highly skilled and intellectually agile computational scientists who can support the fast-moving DOE National Laboratory research environment. In fact, the DOE CSGF program has explicitly and consistently addressed this need.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA System Safety Handbook: System Safety Framework and Concepts for Implementation - Volume 1

System safety assessment is defined in NPR 8715.3C, NASA General Safety Program Requirements as a disciplined, systematic approach to the analysis of risks resulting from hazards that can affect humans, the environment, and mission assets. Achievement of the highest practicable degree of system safety is one of NASA's highest priorities. Traditionally, system safety assessment at NASA and elsewhere has focused on the application of a set of safety analysis tools to identify safety risks and formulate effective controls.1 Familiar tools used for this purpose include various forms of hazard analyses, failure modes and effects analyses, and probabilistic safety assessment (commonly also referred to as probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)). In the past, it has been assumed that to show that a system is safe, it is sufficient to provide assurance that the process for identifying the hazards has been as comprehensive as possible and that each identified hazard has one or more associated controls. The NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) has made several statements in its annual reports supporting a more holistic approach. In 2006, it recommended that "... a comprehensive risk assessment, communication and acceptance process be implemented to ensure that overall launch risk is considered in an integrated and consistent manner." In 2009, it advocated for "... a process for using a risk-informed design approach to produce a design that is optimally and sufficiently safe." As a rationale for the latter advocacy, it stated that "... the ASAP applauds switching to a performance-based approach because it emphasizes early risk identification to guide designs, thus enabling creative design approaches that might be more efficient, safer, or both." For purposes of this preface, it is worth mentioning three areas where the handbook emphasizes a more holistic type of thinking. First, the handbook takes the position that it is important to not just focus on risk on an individual basis but to consider measures of aggregate safety risk and to ensure wherever possible that there be quantitative measures for evaluating how effective the controls are in reducing these aggregate risks. The term aggregate risk, when used in this handbook, refers to the accumulation of risks from individual scenarios that lead to a shortfall in safety performance at a high level: e.g., an excessively high probability of loss of crew, loss of mission, planetary contamination, etc. Without aggregated quantitative measures such as these, it is not reasonable to expect that safety has been optimized with respect to other technical and programmatic objectives. At the same time, it is fully recognized that not all sources of risk are amenable to precise quantitative analysis and that the use of qualitative approaches and bounding estimates may be appropriate for those risk sources. Second, the handbook stresses the necessity of developing confidence that the controls derived for the purpose of achieving system safety not only handle risks that have been identified and properly characterized but also provide a general, more holistic means for protecting against unidentified or uncharacterized risks. For example, while it is not possible to be assured that all credible causes of risk have been identified, there are defenses that can provide protection against broad categories of risks and thereby increase the chances that individual causes are contained. Third, the handbook strives at all times to treat uncertainties as an integral aspect of risk and as a part of making decisions. The term "uncertainty" here does not refer to an actuarial type of data analysis, but rather to a characterization of our state of knowledge regarding results from logical and physical models that approximate reality. Uncertainty analysis finds how the output parameters of the models are related to plausible variations in the input parameters and in the modeling assumptions. The evaluation of unrtainties represents a method of probabilistic thinking wherein the analyst and decision makers recognize possible outcomes other than the outcome perceived to be "most likely." Without this type of analysis, it is not possible to determine the worth of an analysis product as a basis for making decisions related to safety and mission success. In line with these considerations the handbook does not take a hazard-analysis-centric approach to system safety. Hazard analysis remains a useful tool to facilitate brainstorming but does not substitute for a more holistic approach geared to a comprehensive identification and understanding of individual risk issues and their contributions to aggregate safety risks. The handbook strives to emphasize the importance of identifying the most critical scenarios that contribute to the risk of not meeting the agreed-upon safety objectives and requirements using all appropriate tools (including but not limited to hazard analysis). Thereafter, emphasis shifts to identifying the risk drivers that cause these scenarios to be critical and ensuring that there are controls directed toward preventing or mitigating the risk drivers. To address these and other areas, the handbook advocates a proactive, analytic-deliberative, risk-informed approach to system safety, enabling the integration of system safety activities with systems engineering and risk management processes. It emphasizes how one can systematically provide the necessary evidence to substantiate the claim that a system is safe to within an acceptable risk tolerance, and that safety has been achieved in a cost-effective manner. The methodology discussed in this handbook is part of a systems engineering process and is intended to be integral to the system safety practices being conducted by the NASA safety and mission assurance and systems engineering organizations. The handbook posits that to conclude that a system is adequately safe, it is necessary to consider a set of safety claims that derive from the safety objectives of the organization. The safety claims are developed from a hierarchy of safety objectives and are therefore hierarchical themselves. Assurance that all the claims are true within acceptable risk tolerance limits implies that all of the safety objectives have been satisfied, and therefore that the system is safe. The acceptable risk tolerance limits are provided by the authority who must make the decision whether or not to proceed to the next step in the life cycle. These tolerances are therefore referred to as the decision maker's risk tolerances. In general, the safety claims address two fundamental facets of safety: 1) whether required safety thresholds or goals have been achieved, and 2) whether the safety risk is as low as possible within reasonable impacts on cost, schedule, and performance. The latter facet includes consideration of controls that are collective in nature (i.e., apply generically to broad categories of risks) and thereby provide protection against unidentified or uncharacterized risks.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗