Results for “Assurance” — Page 3

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dynamic Assurance of Autonomous Systems Through Ground Control Software

Assurance cases have emerged as a way to build trust in complex autonomous systems. Many assurance case justifications for such systems need to be constantly reevaluated based on the current system context and performance. Autonomous systems, especially those deployed in remote environments, often have a ground control system that enables monitoring and remote operations. In this paper, we propose a dynamic assurance framework that aims at connecting the assurance case with the ground control system. We use the ground control system to facilitate dynamic evaluation of quantitative assurance measures that support various justifications in the assurance case. We demonstrate the proposed dynamic assurance framework on the NASA Ames Research Center project Troupe. We use a combination of in-house and external tools to identify the assurance measures, formalize the related requirements, and generate monitors that feed the data to the external ground control system.

dynamic assurance case↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Standards Roadmapping for Mission Assurance in Commercial Spaceflight

This paper explores the application of established roadmapping approaches in standards planning and roadmap development to support mission assurance objectives. Mission assurance requires proactive planning across multiple domains including technical, schedule, cost, organizational, and policy. The intersection of these domains happens at the enterprise level, and enterprise systems engineering processes can systematically guide mission assurance activities, including development of standards roadmaps. Standards planning and development is a critical contributor to an effective mission assurance strategy, although standards are often developed and adopted reactively. Technology and standards planning is a key Enterprise Process Management activity, as identified by the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge, and technology and standards roadmaps are strategic tools used to enable that process. Technology roadmapping has proven effective in guiding enterprise architecture and concept design, and standards planning supports enterprise requirements definition and management. However, there are limited methodologies to guide such standards planning activities. The application of technology roadmapping principles to standards planning formalizes the process and establishes a repeatable framework for standards development and integration. The framework development described in this paper fills a methodological gap by adapting proven roadmapping techniques to standards planning. Through a comparison of roadmapping methodologies and a case study analysis, this approach outlines a systematic process for anticipating and planning standards needs. In the case of developing a standards integration roadmap for NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA), technology roadmapping principles were adapted to develop a roadmap framework to allow NASA and OSMA to define an agency-wide standards integration plan for commercial and industry safety and mission assurance standards. The outcome highlights key adaptations required for roadmapping in a standards context and describes the process steps to formalize a standards planning activity. The roadmapping framework adapted for standards development and integration enables more strategic, forward-looking standards planning and allows for better alignment between evolving capabilities and mission assurance requirements. Beyond its application to mission assurance, this methodology can be transferred to other domains requiring standards development, providing a systematic approach that integrates systems engineering principles into policy strategy and decision-making processes.

Enterprise Systems Engineering↗

DOE OSTI2024

Implementing an Objectives-Driven, Risk-Informed, and Case-Assured Approach to Safety and Mission Success at NASA

NASA is developing a “Standard for Assurance of Space Flight Safety and Mission Success” that implements an objectives-driven, risk-informed, and case-assured approach to safety and mission success (S&MS) for NASA space flight programs and projects. The standard aligns with the philosophy of risk leadership that has recently been established in NASA policy to assure acceptable levels of flight crew safety and mission success risk. It is consistent with existing NASA risk management requirements and is compatible with NASA program management and systems engineering requirements. The methodology described in the standard is presented in terms of an S&MS assurance framework that is designed to allow substantial flexibility in the specific means by which programs and projects achieve acceptable mission S&MS risk. Such flexibility is necessary to accommodate the increasingly broad range of acquisition strategies employed by NASA, including commercial transportation services, as well as to accommodate the increasingly rapid evolution of space flight-related technologies and practices. A key feature of the S&MS assurance framework is the specification of S&MS success criteria for each life-cycle review (LCR). The S&MS assurance case is structured around these criteria, the satisfaction of which indicates that the program/project is adhering to the S&MS risk posture. This enables the evolving S&MS assurance case to be used as a fundamental program/project submittal at each LCR, where its inherent structure of argument, supported by evidence, directly supports the evaluation of the program/project with respect to the S&MS success criteria, and by extension, the S&MS risk posture. As such, the S&MS assurance case is integral to program/project systems engineering, risk management, and S&MS oversight activities, and provides the principal basis for S&MS risk acceptance by the Decision Authority throughout the program/project life cycle.

42 ENGINEERING↗

NASA NTRS2019

Agile Approach to Assuring the Safety-Critical Embedded Software for NASA's Orion Spacecraft

Human-rated missions like NASA's Exploration Mission - 1 (EM-1) and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle are becoming exceedingly complex in terms of software's contribution to achieving mission objectives. The increasing complexity and inherent safety critical nature of the embedded flight software imposes a unique resource challenge to assurance providers responsible for affirming that the mission is going to fly safely. Another challenge NASA and other Government agencies are facing is that more and more software is being developed using an agile development methodology, which is divergent from the typical waterfall, iterative, and incremental development methodologies assurance providers generally observe in the development of safety-critical embedded software. Orion Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) has addressed these challenges by providing focused assurance results of critical mission capabilities prioritized by a dynamic assessment of risk level. Prior to this approach, Orion IV&V evaluated areas of risk in much broader, and more static, terms. Due to the agile software development life cycle that Orion follows, IV&V findings were often reported months out of phase with the developer thereby imposing increased rework costs. As a result of evolving the approach to adding assurance on Orion, IV&V is able to incrementally deliver high-priority assurance conclusions and more impactful issues more in phase with the developer activities, thereby increasing the value of the findings to the project. The agile IV&V approach employed by the Orion IV&V team strives to achieve a cadence of delivery that matches the pace of development. This agile approach provides increased flexibility for the assurance provider to become more efficient in reporting assurance conclusions and issues. This paper and presentation will discuss the principles which drive the design of our approach, results to date, and stimulate thinking for groups looking to add assurance to software being developed using an agile methodology.

Justin Smith↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dynamic Assurance of Autonomous Systems through Ground Control Software

Assurance cases are being increasingly acknowledged as a way to build trust in complex systems with autonomous capabilities [1]. An assurance case is a comprehensive, defensible, and valid justification that a system will function as intended for the specific mission and operating environment. Such justifications for systems with autonomous capabilities are often based on various probabilistic quantifications [2]. Due to the dynamic nature of the environmental conditions in which these systems operate, as well as the changing nature of the autonomous systems themselves, these probabilistic quantifications cannot be simply estimated once during design time. Rather, they need to be continually evaluated during systems operations to ensure that the assurance case justifications are valid. We refer to the assurance case that combines both the static and dynamic elements as a Dynamic Assurance Case (DAC). Such complex systems with autonomous capabilities are often deployed with a Ground Control Software (GCS) component to enable remote operation. Whether the system is composed of a single unit or a fleet of units, deployed distributed or in remote environments, GCS acts as a window into the behavior of the deployed system. It receives telemetry from the system, issues commands to the system and provides various functionalities to visualize the system performance. We propose a dynamic assurance framework where the GCS acts as a relay between the autonomous system and its DAC. GCS can be used to measure both unit-specific as well as system-wide probabilistic quantifications using the incoming telemetry. We embed these quantifications throughout the DAC as variables that can be updated by external sources. We use the GCS to periodically update these variables, which allows us to continually evaluate the formally defined assurance case justifications. We demonstrate our dynamic assurance framework in the NASA Ames project Troupe1 that aims at developing a fleet of rovers capable of au- tonomously mapping their environment. The rovers work cooperatively, each collecting data for different parts of the environment. Each rover runs an identical core Flight System (cFS) [4] application. Troupe1 uses OpenC3 Cosmos [5] as the ground system, and AdvoCATE [3] to capture the system DAC. We show how we can measure both rover-specific and system-wide quantifications in Cosmos using its Ruby scripting editor and pass them into the DAC modelled in AdvoCATE. Then, we show how these incoming variables can be embedded in different parts of the DAC and how effects of their updates can be observed

Irfan Sljivo↗

DOE OSTI2020

Waste Management Project Success - Regulatory Assurance Systems - 20118

Waste management (WM) and remediation projects are essential within a restorative environmental culture. Despite years of experience, challenges and obstacles associated with efficient and effective WM project execution remain. Although some obstacles are project specific, a common challenge is navigating the regulatory landscape from planning through execution, particularly with first of a kind (FOAK) and first in a while (FIAW) projects. The absence of a comprehensive regulatory assurance strategy places significant hurdles in the path of project success. To clear a path for the successful execution of increasingly complex WM projects, this paper focuses on development of a comprehensive regulatory assurance strategy and implementation plan that effectively engages stakeholders, agencies, and performers to produce project plans that fully and cost effectively integrate applicable regulatory requirements. The most reliable way to align regulatory processes and decisions needed for mission success is through a regulatory assurance system. This system establishes a healthy interface with regulatory decision makers, to work in a collaborative manner, to create a common vision for regulatory decisions on an agreed upon schedule. A regulatory assurance system consists of several elements. Although the mission may vary from cleanup to site closure to nuclear component production, the elements of a regulatory assurance system remain essentially constant and must include: 1) identifying a common vision or end state, 2) developing a long-term, integrated strategy and schedule, 3) establishing a regulatory partnering team consisting of key decision-makers, 4) regular and frequent communication with decision-makers, 5) ensuring consistent surveillance for early identification of issues and changes that may impact the project, 6) quick resolution of emerging issues to prevent schedule impact, 7) identifying core compliance functions, 8) periodically assessing progress of the project as it relates to regulatory assurance and, 9) providing constructive feedback to improve the process. A regulatory assurance system provides a living, multi-faceted approach to planning, visioning, communicating and tracking to avoid surprises and ensure smooth and timely progress to the project. The overall success measures will be whether the system produces common sense regulatory decisions supporting the vision on time without appeal. Effective regulatory frameworks rarely happen on their own. Balanced, common-sense regulatory decisions stem from teams that are trained to work together to achieve shared goals. In this paper, particular attention is placed on the importance of starting with a shared vision for a regulatory assurance and execution strategy that leverages experience to establish optimal approaches. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2022

Assurance Theory: A Strategic Imperative

A commonly stated goal of many US Military activities, especially in the strategic realm of nuclear weapons, is to “deter potential adversaries and assure allies.” However, sometimes the phrase “assure allies” seems to be an appendage to a larger deterrence objective. Yet, assurance is fundamentally different than deterrence, even extended deterrence, which aims to shape the decisions of potential adversaries. Assurance, on the other hand, seeks to influence the decisions of allies. As such, assurance must not be treated as an appendage to deterrence, but rather as the strategic imperative that it is. A proper understanding of assurance is critical in an age of renewed great power competition where alliances provide an asymmetric strategic advantage over potential adversaries. This paper provides a primer on assurance theory, to include its definition, variables, challenges, and measures of success.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗

NASA NTRS2020

Enabling Assurance in the MBSE Environment

A number of specific benefits that fit within the hallmarks of effective development are realized with implementation of model-based approaches to systems and assurance. Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) enabled by standardized modeling languages (e.g., SysML®) is at the core. These benefits in the context of spaceflight system challenges can include [1]: • Improved management of complex development • Reduced risk in the development process • Improved cost management • Improved design decisions With appropriate modeling techniques the assurance community also can improve early oversight and insight into project development. NASA has shown the basic constructs of SysML in an MBSE environment offer several key advantages, within a Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA) initiative [2, 3]. These include the following: • Model viewpoints that promote rapid and systematic assessment of requirements coverage, hazard tagging and risk management • Embedded safety assessments for launch vehicles • Deployment of model assisted development of reliability products - Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEAs) and Fault Trees • Test Planning • Validation and Verification of complex functions • Support of Assurance Case development for complex systems In addition, while there are benefits to be harvested, there is a realization that these do not come without effort and cost. Enabling model-based approaches requires structure, not only in an organizational context, but in a modeling context as well. There can be a steep learning curve and costs associated to train skilled modelers. But, on the other hand, not all of the assurance community need to be modelers. Models themselves must conform to ontologies that enable assurance. This places constraints upon the models and modelers. Optimums have yet to be developed where resources and constraints on modeling must be traded off in the organization and modeling efforts for projects. A number of barriers need to be overcome, as well, which pose challenges to the developers of the software that supports MBSE/MBMA. Information and data must be made to flow seamlessly through the life cycle. Because there is a wide variety of tools used in the community, to avoid the problems of the past of silos, delays, and diverging interests, information should flow among these tools to support the “single source of truth” paradigm of MBSE. This will greatly facilitate MBMA and advancement of assurance functions.

Evans, John W.↗

NASA NTRS2020

NASA Quality Assurance in an MBSE world

Over the past decade or so, the emergence of Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) has demonstrated its desirability and value in terms of 1) being a single source of truth, 2) unambiguous definitions and relationships, and 3) after representation, the ability to explore/extract any sets of data on demand. While much work has been done in showing the value to the system engineering discipline in these areas, how does that value translate to the Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) world? This paper provides a vision of a very desirable future of NASA S&MA after it is fully integrated into the MBSE framework. We explore the impact and consequences of the MBSE Value items discussed above and how they impact the disciplines of quality assurance, reliability and maintainability, system safety, and software assurance. We provide insight into how the MBSE modeling tools can be used to define S&MA processes (ideally as a result of Use Case [1] elaboration of processes represented in MagicDraw®), produce S&MA products (ViewEditor output of various items), and represent S&MA disciplines (S&MA inside of MagicDraw). We also provide insight into the degree to which some elements can be directly integrated into a SysML® model and when, as often happens, an interface to some external source must be provided. The desirability of this future is part of the reason for the NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance’s (OSMA) recent creation of a Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA) Program [2] and the MBMA annual workshops. We briefly summarize the efforts to date to generate S&MA Use Cases for eventual deployment into pilot and project efforts. Even simple use of the SysML modeling tools can be used to capture quality assurance tasks and integrate them with the systems engineering and produce products that are easy to use by quality practitioners that are unfamiliar with these methods. We anticipate finding opportunities to pilot and implement various Quality Assurance (QA) Use Cases in FY20. The MBMA Program is focused on implementation; the NASA Office of the Chief Engineer's Community of Practice, as well as the SmallSat communities, are very interested in the integration of S&MA. Finally, as projects move forward utilizing whatever efficiency increases they can find in a cost-constrained environment, the S&MA community cannot be caught unawares and needs to continue preparing for the ever-growing implementation of MBSE across NASA and our government and commercial partners.

Evans, John W↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Application of Objectives-Driven Assurance Cases to System Development in an Evolving Acquisition Model

System properties such as “safety” and “dependability” cannot, in practice, be proven, and must be argued in an “assurance case” aimed at supporting risk-acceptance decisions that have to be made by system acquirers and/or regulatory authorities. The paper is concerned with applications of the “assurance case” idea early in design and development of new systems, when (apart from dedicated testing) the only available operating experience information derives from previous (non-identical) systems. Much of the discussion is based on an evolving acquisition model at the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration; previously, most major systems were developed in-house, but some major systems will now be developed by and acquired from commercial providers. Key points discussed include the following. (1) By promoting a particular kind of focused discussion between acquirers and providers, the use of assurance cases should be particularly valuable under the new acquisition model. (2) In principle, objectives-driven (sometimes called “performance-based”) approaches to assurance of performance have significant advantages in cases where they are applicable. (3) For truly novel systems, completeness of the safety analysis is a significant issue; it is important for the assurance case to include a commitment by the provider (or applicant) to seriously pursue analysis of operating experience, so that previously unrecognized hazards can be identified and addressed. (4) Inquiries into major accidents often point to deficiencies in management oversight in all parts of the life cycle; management processes need to be addressed in the formulation and the implementation of an assurance case. Under the new acquisition model, these considerations imply a serious reconsideration of the way in which the development process is managed by both providers and acquirers.

Objectives-driven↗

NASA NTRS2016

Model Based Mission Assurance: Emerging Opportunities for Robotic Systems

The emergence of Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) in a Model Based Engineering framework has created new opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiencies across the assurance functions. The MBSE environment supports not only system architecture development, but provides for support of Systems Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis concurrently in the same framework. Linking to detailed design will further improve assurance capabilities to support failures avoidance and mitigation in flight systems. This also is leading new assurance functions including model assurance and management of uncertainty in the modeling environment. Further, the assurance cases, a structured hierarchal argument or model, are emerging as a basis for supporting a comprehensive viewpoint in which to support Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA).

Mission Assurance↗

NASA NTRS2016

The NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Mission Assurance Process

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

Commercial Crew Program↗

NASA NTRS2016

Final Report of the NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance Agile Benchmarking Team

To ensure that the NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) community remains in a position to perform reliable Software Assurance (SA) on NASAs critical software (SW) systems with the software industry rapidly transitioning from waterfall to Agile processes, Terry Wilcutt, Chief, Safety and Mission Assurance, Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) established the Agile Benchmarking Team (ABT). The Team's tasks were: 1. Research background literature on current Agile processes, 2. Perform benchmark activities with other organizations that are involved in software Agile processes to determine best practices, 3. Collect information on Agile-developed systems to enable improvements to the current NASA standards and processes to enhance their ability to perform reliable software assurance on NASA Agile-developed systems, 4. Suggest additional guidance and recommendations for updates to those standards and processes, as needed. The ABT's findings and recommendations for software management, engineering and software assurance are addressed herein.

Software Assurance↗

NASA NTRS2018

Agile Approach to Adding Assurance and Mitigating Overall Mission Risk for Orion Software on EM-1

Human-rated missions like Orion are becoming exceedingly complex in terms of software contribution to achieving mission objectives, and this creates a resource challenge for everyone whose job is to add assurance that the mission is going to fly safely. Orion IV&V has addressed this challenge by providing focused assurance results of critical mission capabilities prioritized by a dynamic assessment of risk level. Prior to this approach, Orion IV&V was evaluating areas of risk in much broader, and more static, terms. Due to the Agile software development cycle that Orion follows, IV&V findings were often reported months out of phase with the developer. As a result of evolving the approach to providing assurance on Orion, IV&V is able to incrementally deliver high-priority assurance data and more impactful issues more in phase with the developer activities, thereby increasing the value of the findings to the project. The agile IV&V approach employed by the Orion IV&V team strives to achieve a cadence of delivery that matches the pace of development. This agile approach provides increased flexibility for the assurance provider to become more efficient in reporting assurance conclusions and issues. This presentation will discuss the principles which drive the design of our approach, results to date, and aspirations for long-term performance.

Assurance↗

DOE OSTI2022

APPLICATION OF OBJECTIVES-DRIVEN ASSURANCE CASES TO SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IN AN EVOLVING ACQUISITION MODEL

System properties such as “safety” and “dependability” cannot, in practice, be proven, and must be argued in an “assurance case” aimed at supporting risk-acceptance decisions that have to be made by system acquirers and/or regulatory authorities. The paper is concerned with applications of the “assurance case” idea early in design and development of new systems, when (apart from dedicated testing) the only available operating experience information derives from previous (non-identical) systems. Much of the discussion is based on an evolving acquisition model at the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration; previously, most major systems were developed in-house, but some major systems will now be developed by and acquired from commercial providers. Key points discussed include the following. (1) By promoting a particular kind of focused discussion between acquirers and providers, the use of assurance cases should be particularly valuable under the new acquisition model. (2) In principle, objectives-driven (sometimes called “performance-based”) approaches to assurance of performance have significant advantages in cases where they are applicable. (3) For truly novel systems, completeness of the safety analysis is a significant issue; it is important for the assurance case to include a commitment by the provider (or applicant) to seriously pursue analysis of operating experience, so that previously unrecognized hazards can be identified and addressed. (4) Inquiries into major accidents often point to deficiencies in management oversight in all parts of the life cycle; management processes need to be addressed in the formulation and the implementation of an assurance case. Under the new acquisition model, these considerations imply a serious reconsideration of the way in which the development process is managed by both providers and acquirers.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Application of Objectives-Driven Assurance Cases to System Development in an Evolving Acquisition Model

System properties such as “safety” and “dependability” cannot, in practice, be proven, and must be argued in an “assurance case” aimed at supporting risk-acceptance decisions that have to be made by system acquirers and/or regulatory authorities. The paper is concerned with applications of the “assurance case” idea early in design and development of new systems, when (apart from dedicated testing) the only available operating experience information derives from previous (non-identical) systems. Much of the discussion is based on an evolving acquisition model at the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration; previously, most major systems were developed in-house, but some major systems will now be developed by and acquired from commercial providers. Key points discussed include the following. (1) By promoting a particular kind of focused discussion between acquirers and providers, the use of assurance cases should be particularly valuable under the new acquisition model. (2) In principle, objectives-driven (sometimes called “performance-based”) approaches to assurance of performance have significant advantages in cases where they are applicable. (3) For truly novel systems, completeness of the safety analysis is a significant issue; it is important for the assurance case to include a commitment by the provider (or applicant) to seriously pursue analysis of operating experience, so that previously unrecognized hazards can be identified and addressed. (4) Inquiries into major accidents often point to deficiencies in management oversight in all parts of the life cycle; management processes need to be addressed in the formulation and the implementation of an assurance case. Under the new acquisition model, these considerations imply a serious reconsideration of the way in which the development process is managed by both providers and acquirers.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

NASA NTRS1990

Software Quality Assurance Audits Guidebooks

The growth in cost and importance of software to NASA has caused NASA to address the improvement of software development across the agency. One of the products of this program is a series of guidebooks that define a NASA concept of the assurance processes that are used in software development. The Software Assurance Guidebook, NASA-GB-A201, issued in September, 1989, provides an overall picture of the NASA concepts and practices in software assurance. Second level guidebooks focus on specific activities that fall within the software assurance discipline, and provide more detailed information for the manager and/or practitioner. This is the second level Software Quality Assurance Audits Guidebook that describes software quality assurance audits in a way that is compatible with practices at NASA Centers.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2000

Assessment and Assurance of Microelectronics Packaging Technology of Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS)

Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) have shown a significant promise in the last decade for a variety of applications such as air-bag, pressure sensors, accelerometer, microgyro, etc. Standard semiconductor microelectronics packaging needs the integrated circuits to be protected from the harsh environment, and provide electrical communication with the other parts of the circuit, facilitate thermal dissipation efficiently, and impart mechanical strength to the silicon die. Microelectronics packaging involves wafer dicing, bonding, lead attachment, encapsulation to protect from the environment, electrical integrity, and package leak tests to assure the packaging technology. In the case of MEMS the microstructures (active elements) often interfaces with the hostile environment where packaging leak tests and testing of such devices using chemical and mechanical parameters will be very difficult and expensive. Packaging of MEMS is significantly complex as they serve to protect from the environment and microstructures interact with the same environment to measure or affect the desired physical or chemical parameters. The most of the silicon circuitry is sensitive to temperature, moisture, magnetic field, light, and electromagnetic interference. The package must then protect the on-board silicon circuitry while simultaneously exposing the microsensor to the effect it 'measures to assure the MEMS technology by lowering the risk to zero. MEMS technology has a major application in developing a microspacecraft for space systems provided assurance of MEMS technology is sufficiently addressed nondestructively. This technology would eventually miniaturize many of the components of the spacecraft to reach the NASA's safety and mission assurance goal by building faster, cheaper, better, smaller spacecraft to explore the space more effectively by teaming-up with the other NASA centers using the limited resources available. This paper discusses the latest developments in the MEMS technology and challenging issues in the packaging of hermetically sealed and non-hermetically sealed MEMS sensor devices based on silicon, poly-silicon, and other materials for microspacecraft applications considering the space environment and reliability assurance qualification guidelines in perspective. Acknowledgments: The above research work is supported by the NASA Electronics Parts and Packaging Program (NEPP) and performed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA under a contract with the NASA - Code Q for the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance Program 323-79.

Ramesham, Rajeshuni↗