Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Model-Based Mission Assurance”

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.

41 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2019

Method for Tracking and Communicating Aggregate Risk Through the Use of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Tools

Large, complex projects can identify a significant number and variety of risks, throughout the project life cycle. These risks are analyzed, mitigated, closed or accepted as independent uncertainties. Once closed or accepted, it is easy for projects to lose awareness of their impact. In reality, each of these risks contributes some amount to the overall risk posture of the project. The ability to track and effectively communicate this aggregate risk has represented a challenge to project management. There have been previous attempts to create a schema to communicate the aggregate effect of risks, without notable success. Most of these attempts have centered on some additive metric derived from the scoring of likelihood and consequence values. This, in and of itself, is a logical approach, but all too often the scores were then aggregated to a level where all context was lost. One weakness has been a lack of attempt to create linkages or logical groups of the risks upon which useful aggregation could then occur. The overall move to model-based (systems) engineering (MBSE) has opened up a vast frontier of opportunities to better integrate all project data. MBSE provides an underlying layer that links data items to each other. Objectives link to requirements, which then link to functions, functions to physical architecture items, and so on, as far down as projects want to model. While it started with a focus on modeling requirements based on things like use cases, efforts are now underway to integrate safety and mission assurance (S&MA) information and analyses, such as risks. This effort, called Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA), is yielding models that are more useful and are a more accurate representations of the systems. MBSE models, with this ability to link related items, provide a new means of tracking and communicating aggregate risks. In the proposed method, risks are added into the models as distinct items, having attributes that communicate a scoring derived from the likelihood and consequence values as charted on the standard NASA 5x5 risk matrix. Like earlier efforts, each box in the 5x5 has an associated scoring, which may include both a current score and potential post-mitigation/control score. The risk items are then linked to elements of the model, such as system objectives/goals, requirements, functions, or physical architecture items, with "Risk to" relationships. These risks will then be communicated by use of reports generated from the model, detailing all risks and/or hazards linked to model elements. These reports can include aggregate impacts, including a current scoring and potential future state scoring based on the planned mitigations and/or controls. These reports will show all risks, open, accepted, and closed, linked to project objectives or requirements. When run as part of an upcoming risk acceptance discussion, these reports will serve to remind the team of all previous risks that relate to the effected portion of the system. When included as part of periodic program or project reviews, risk reviews, and safety reviews, this method can improve the overall understanding of the system's true risk posture. This proposed method takes full advantage of the advances that modern modeling techniques provide, with a minimal investment of additional time. Utilizing the model environment also enables a near constant access to current state of aggregate risks.

model based mission assurance↗
NASA NTRS2019

Health Management and Prognostics for Electric Aircraft Powertrain

W and c Any air borne vehicle needs incorporating safety as key parameter of measure, and inclusion of autonomy raises the critical need for safety under autonomous operations. Management of faults and component degradation is key as complexity in autonomous operations grow over the period of time. Therefore, in addition to basic operational requirements, an autonomous electric vehicle should be able to make accurate estimates of its current system health and take the correct decisions to complete its mission successfully. Real-time safety and state-awareness tools are therefore essential for the vehicle to be able to reach its destination in a safe and successful manner. The need for safety assurance and health management capabilities is particularly relevant for aircraft electric propulsion systems, which are relatively new and with limited historical to learn. They are critical systems requiring high power density along with reliability, resilience, efficient management of weight, and operational costs. A model- based fault diagnosis and prognostics approach of complex critical systems can successfully accomplish the safety and state awareness goal for such electric propulsion systems, enabling autonomous decision making capability for safe and efficient operation. To identify critical components in the system a Qualitative Bayesian approach using FMECA is implemented. This requires the assessment of some quantities representing the state of the electric unmanned aerial systems (e-UAS), as well as look-ahead forecasts of such states during the entire flight, presented in form of safety metrics (SM). In-service data and performance data gathered from degraded components sup- ports diagnostic and prognostic methods for these systems, but this data can be difficult to obtain as weight and packaging restrictions reduce redundancy and instrumentation on-board the vehicle. Therefore, an model-based framework should be capable or operating with limited data. In addition to data scarcity, the variability of such complex critical systems re- quires the model-based framework to reason in the presence of uncertainty, such as sensor noise, and modeling imperfections. Quantification of errors and uncertainties in the measured states and quantities is therefore a fundamental step for a precise estimation of such SMs; un-modeled uncertainty may result in erroneous state assessment and un- reliable predictions of future states of e-UAVs. Typical, centralized model-based schemes suffer from inherent disadvantages such as computational complexity, single point of failure, and scalability issues, and therefore may fail in such a complex scenario. This paper presents a methodology for developing a system level diagnostics and prognostics approach using a Qualitative Bayesian FMECA approach along with a formal uncertainty management framework for an e-UAS. In this work we demonstrate the efficacy of the framework to predict effects of sub-system level degradation on vehicle operation incorporating uncertainty management to predict future behavior under different operating conditions.

Kulkarni, Chetan↗
NASA NTRS2019

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: Improved management of complex development, Reduced risk in the development process, Improved cost management, Improved design decisions. With appropriate modeling techniques the assurance community 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.

Evans, John W.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Realized Benefits from the Model-Based Systems Engineering Infusion and Modernization Initiative

Although Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) as a concept has existed for over a decade, overall acceptance within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been slow and is now growing. Since 2016, NASA’s MBSE Infusion And Modernization Initiative (MIAMI) has proven MBSE’s value to and increased its adoption at NASA. MBSE Pathfinder projects provided focused use cases that demonstrated both qualitative and quantitative benefits for systems engineering activities, and demonstrated the ability to connect MBSE models with discipline models such as structural loads and safety and mission assurance. MIAMI assisted NASA’s field centers to establish or enhance an MBSE presence. MIAMI partners with JAXA’s Systems Technology Unit to share lessons learned and demonstrate how MBSE can be used across organizations. Following its successful test cases, MIAMI is using design thinking, lean startup, and high technology marketing methodologies to implement a targeted deployment of its Community of Practice and other resources.

MBSE↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploring Digital Transformation for NASA Nuclear Flight Safety

The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA)’s Nuclear Flight Safety discipline is exploring opportunities to combine incremental advancements in many contributing areas in a way that produces a transformative change for how work is performed. More specifically, after providing some general NASA and space nuclear policy background, the authors will describe concepts and efforts that enable: (i) the use of objectives-d riven approaches (in concert with internal and external constraints) to establish a mission risk posture; (ii) the use of that risk posture in the planning process to risk-inform the selection of Safety and Mission Success (S&MS) methods and models; (iii) use of model-based and machine-assisted techniques to manage the complex and ponderous amount of information and interfaces that typify spaceflight efforts; (iv ) the means by which that infrastructure can directly feed an assurance case (including use of systems modelling language, ontological formulation, and semantic web technology) so as to address known weaknesses in our ability to communicate and manage that complexity; and (v) use of that case-assured framework to demonstrate that one did the adequate and sufficient S&MS work and that the S&MS work was done competently.

Donald Helton↗