SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
In Volume 3 of Phase 3 of the Space Shuttle Probabilistic Risk Assessment, the basic events database and minimal cutsets are presented, along with their predicted probability in tabular form.
A key component in the development of NASA Human Research Programs (HRP) next generation risk model, the Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) intends to deliver a means to quantify how HRP products impact astronaut medical and health risks. MEDPRAT is extensible to the majority of exploration missions. Similar to other risk models, the tool utilizes the available space and terrestrial medical data. MEDPRAT is designed to be extended with additional human health research information, medical equipment, space and terrestrial standards and practices to assess space flight medical risk in a manner consistent with other risk measures used in spacecraft and mission design. This tool provides risk-based medical system design information necessary to evaluate new technologies, procedures, research insights and mission plans.
This study examines three different methodologies for producing loss-of-mission (LOM) and loss-of-crew (LOC) risks estimates for probabilistic risk assessments (PRA) of crewed spacecraft. The three bottom-up, component-based PRA approaches examined are a traditional static fault tree, a dynamic Monte Carlo simulation, and a fault tree hybrid that incorporates some dynamic elements. These approaches were used to model the reaction control system thruster pod of a generic crewed spacecraft and mission, and a comparative analysis of the methods is presented. The methodologies are assessed in terms of the process of modeling a system, the actionable information produced for the design team, and the overall fidelity of the quantitative risk evaluation generated. The system modeling process is compared in terms of the effort required to generate the initial model, update the model in response to design changes, and support mass-versus-risk trade studies. The results are compared by examining the top-level LOM/LOC estimates and the relative risk driver rankings at the failure mode level. The fidelity of each modeling methodology is discussed in terms of its capability to handle real-world system dynamics such as cold-sparing, changes in mission operations due to loss of redundancy, and common cause failure modes. The paper also discusses the applicability of each methodology to different phases of system development and shows that a single methodology may not be suitable for all of the many purposes of a spacecraft PRA. The fault tree hybrid approach is shown to be best suited to the needs of early assessments during conceptual design phases. As the design begins to mature, the level of detail represented in the risk model must go beyond redundancy and nominal mission operations to include dynamic, time- and state-dependent system responses as well as diverse system capabilities. This is best accomplished using the dynamic simulation approach, since these phenomena are not easily captured by static methods. Ultimately, once the design has been finalized and the goal of the PRA is to provide design validation and requirement verification, more traditional, static fault tree approaches may become as appropriate as the simulation method.
The International Space Station (ISS) end‐of‐life (EOL) cycle is currently scheduled for 2020, although there are ongoing efforts to extend ISS life cycle through 2028. The EOL for the ISS will require deorbiting the ISS. This will be the largest manmade object ever to be de‐orbited therefore safely deorbiting the station will be a very complex problem. This process is being planned by NASA and its international partners. Numerous factors will need to be considered to accomplish this such as target corridors, orbits, altitude, drag, maneuvering capabilities etc. The ISS EOL Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) will play a part in this process by estimating the reliability of the hardware supplying the maneuvering capabilities. The PRA will model the probability of failure of the systems supplying and controlling the thrust needed to aid in the de‐orbit maneuvering.
Although there are ongoing efforts to extend the ISS life cycle through 2028, the International Space Station (ISS) end-of-life (EOL) cycle is currently scheduled for 2020. The EOL for the ISS will require de-orbiting the ISS. This will be the largest manmade object ever to be de-orbited, therefore safely de-orbiting the station will be a very complex problem. This process is being planned by NASA and its international partners. Numerous factors will need to be considered to accomplish this such as target corridors, orbits, altitude, drag, maneuvering capabilities, debris mapping etc. The ISS EOL Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) will play a part in this process by estimating the reliability of the hardware supplying the maneuvering capabilities. The PRA will model the probability of failure of the systems supplying and controlling the thrust needed to aid in the de-orbit maneuvering.
A standard tool of reliability analysis used at NASA-JSC is the event tree. An event tree is simply a probability tree, with the probabilities determining the next step through the tree specified at each node. The nodal probabilities are determined by a reliability study of the physical system at work for a particular node. The reliability study performed at a node is typically referred to as a fault tree analysis, with the potential of a fault tree existing.for each node on the event tree. When examining an event tree it is obvious why the event tree/fault tree approach has been adopted. Typical event trees are quite complex in nature, and the event tree/fault tree approach provides a systematic and organized approach to reliability analysis. The purpose of this study was two fold. Firstly, we wanted to explore the possibility that a semi-Markov process can create dependencies between sojourn times (the times it takes to transition from one state to the next) that can decrease the uncertainty when estimating time to failures. Using a generalized semi-Markov model, we studied a four element reliability model and were able to demonstrate such sojourn time dependencies. Secondly, we wanted to study the use of semi-Markov processes to introduce a time variable into the event tree diagrams that are commonly developed in PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessment) analyses. Event tree end states which change with time are more representative of failure scenarios than are the usual static probability-derived end states.
At NASA, the Crew Health and Performance (CHP) system represents the span of countermeasures, capabilities, interventions, and tested processes and procedures that in combination work to mitigate the human component of spaceflight mission risk. Across the varying NASA mental models of the CHP system, the different functionalities needed to meet human flight systems standards can be broken down into specific categories (i.e. medical capability, environmental health, behavioral health). These categories can be further broken down into specific subgroups generally associated with the CHP functionalities meant to mitigate or buy down individual human system risks. Taking a similar development approach we seek to leverage dynamic probabilistic risk assessment as a means to quantify and relatively assess the human risk state within the crew health and performance domain. By utilizing existing tools as integrators, we propose a rapid development strategy for incorporating research and operational data that represent the influence of the CHP system functionalities, in order to provide order of magnitudes estimates of the influence on most human system risks outcomes. The model system utilizes a modest cumulative risk approach and that limits the scope to primary paths of influence between the CHP functionalities and human system risks, thus enabling quick prototypes of the integrative effects of CHP functional combinations to solicit valuable feedback from stakeholders and customers on the data, relationship, and structure of the integration.
The crew health and performance (CHP) system represents the span of technological interventions and tested processes and procedures that in combination address the human risk to space flight. The Human Research Program (HRP) mental model of the CHP system breaks the capabilities needed to meet NASA human flight systems standards into specific categories (i.e., countermeasures, behavioral health, medical intervention). These categories are further broken down into specific sub-groups generally associated with the human system risks that these capabilities seek to mitigate. Like the approach used to develop the Integrated Medical Model (IMM) and the Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Analysis Tool (MEDPRAT), HRP tasked NASA GRC’s Cross-Cutting Computational Modeling Project with developing a CHP probabilistic risk assessment tool, the CHP-PRA. The CHP-PRA model seeks to quantify and relatively assess the human risk state within the crew health and performance domain, using a combination of knowledge about human system risks and technology and practices likely to be applied during space flight missions. This modeling system will incorporate customer and stakeholder feedback and be flexible enough to address multiple different questions about important low-level mission-specific parameters. This presentation will introduce the initial concept and development timeline for this tool and demonstrate proof-of-concept through an application addressing a specific human risk question posed within the Artemis program.
Decisions made during the operational phase of a space mission often have significant and immediate consequences. Without the explicit consideration of the risks involved and their representation in a solid model, it is very likely that these risks are not considered systematically in trade studies. Wrong decisions during the operational phase of a space mission can lead to immediate system failure whereas correct decisions can help recover the system even from faulty conditions. A problem of special interest is the determination of the system fault protection strategies upon the occurrence of faults within the system. Decisions regarding the fault protection strategy also heavily rely on a correct understanding of the state of the system and an integrated risk model that represents the various possible scenarios and their respective likelihoods. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) modeling is applicable to the full lifecycle of a space mission project, from concept development to preliminary design, detailed design, development and operations. The benefits and utilities of the model, however, depend on the phase of the mission for which it is used. This is because of the difference in the key strategic decisions that support each mission phase. The focus of this paper is on describing the particular methods used for PRA modeling during the operational phase of a spacecraft by gleaning insight from recently conducted case studies on two operational Mars orbiters. During operations, the key decisions relate to the commands sent to the spacecraft for any kind of diagnostics, anomaly resolution, trajectory changes, or planning. Often, faults and failures occur in the parts of the spacecraft but are contained or mitigated before they can cause serious damage. The failure behavior of the system during operations provides valuable data for updating and adjusting the related PRA models that are built primarily based on historical failure data. The PRA models, in turn, provide insight into the effect of various faults or failures on the risk and failure drivers of the system and the likelihood of possible end case scenarios, thereby facilitating the decision making process during operations. This paper describes the process of adjusting PRA models based on observed spacecraft data, on one hand, and utilizing the models for insight into the future system behavior on the other hand. While PRA models are typically used as a decision aid during the design phase of a space mission, we advocate adjusting them based on the observed behavior of the spacecraft and utilizing them for decision support during the operations phase.
PRA methodology is one of the probabilistic analysis methods that NASA brought from the nuclear industry to assess the risk of LOM, LOV and LOC for launch vehicles. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment that uses a combination of fault trees, event trees, event sequence diagrams, and probability and statistical data to analyze the risk of a system, a process, or an activity. It is a process designed to answer three basic questions: What can go wrong? How likely is it? What is the severity of the degradation? Since 1986, NASA, along with industry partners, has conducted a number of PRA studies to predict the overall launch vehicles risks. Planning Research Corporation conducted the first of these studies in 1988. In 1995, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) conducted a comprehensive PRA study. In July 1996, NASA conducted a two-year study (October 1996 - September 1998) to develop a model that provided the overall Space Shuttle risk and estimates of risk changes due to proposed Space Shuttle upgrades. After the Columbia accident, NASA conducted a PRA on the Shuttle External Tank (ET) foam. This study was the most focused and extensive risk assessment that NASA has conducted in recent years. It used a dynamic, physics-based, integrated system analysis approach to understand the integrated system risk due to ET foam loss in flight. Most recently, a PRA for Ares I launch vehicle has been performed in support of the Constellation program. Reliability, on the other hand, addresses the loss of functions. In a broader sense, reliability engineering is a discipline that involves the application of engineering principles to the design and processing of products, both hardware and software, for meeting product reliability requirements or goals. It is a very broad design-support discipline. It has important interfaces with many other engineering disciplines. Reliability as a figure of merit (i.e. the metric) is the probability that an item will perform its intended function(s) for a specified mission profile. In general, the reliability metric can be calculated through the analyses using reliability demonstration and reliability prediction methodologies. Reliability analysis is very critical for understanding component failure mechanisms and in identifying reliability critical design and process drivers. The following sections discuss the PRA process and reliability engineering in detail and provide an application where reliability analysis and PRA were jointly used in a complementary manner to support a Space Shuttle flight risk assessment.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) operates approximately 300 aging layered pressure vessels that were designed and manufactured prior to ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) code requirements. In order to make decisions regarding the continued fitness-for-service of these non-code carbon steel vessels, it is necessary to perform a relative risk of failure assessment for each vessel. However, risk assessment of these vessels is confounded by uncertainties and variabilities related to the use of proprietary materials in fabrication, missing construction records, geometric discontinuities, weld residual stresses, and complex service stress gradients in and around the welds. Therefore, a probabilistic framework that can capture these uncertainties and variabilities has been developed to assess the fracture risk of flaws in regions of interest, such as longitudinal and circumferential welds, using the NESSUS® probabilistic modeling software and NASGRO® fracture mechanics software. In this study, the probabilistic framework was used to predict variability in the stress intensity factor associated with different reference flaws located in the head-to-shell circumferential welds of a 4-layer and 14-layer pressure vessel. The probabilistic studies predict variability in flaw behavior and the important uncertain parameters for each reference flaw location.
NASA is expanding its capability to perform PRA. This capability gives insight into the links of a suggested design and drives the refinement of the design by identifying optimal areas for investments. Clearly, it is more viable and less expensive to refine a design at the time that it is being conceived. Hence the utility of conducting PRA at the conceptual design phase. Concurrent engineering teams greatly reduce the design time and costs. However, there is currently no standardized means for building probabilistic risk models to assess risks associated with a design produced by such teams. The capability to produce a consistent and valid risk metric associated with such designs would greatly enhance the value of such design teams. This paper explains the experimental results obtained to date from building probabilistic risk models for sample studies conducted at the concurrent engineering design team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (TeamX).
Managed by NASA's Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, a pilot probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) of the NASA Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) was performed in early 2006. The PRA methods used follow the general guidance provided in the NASA PRA Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners'. Phased-mission based event trees and fault trees are used to model a lunar sortie mission of the CEV - involving the following phases: launch of a cargo vessel and a crew vessel; rendezvous of these two vessels in low Earth orbit; transit to th$: moon; lunar surface activities; ascension &om the lunar surface; and return to Earth. The analysis is based upon assumptions, preliminary system diagrams, and failure data that may involve large uncertainties or may lack formal validation. Furthermore, some of the data used were based upon expert judgment or extrapolated from similar components~systemsT. his paper includes a discussion of the system-level models and provides an overview of the analysis results used to identify insights into CEV risk drivers, and trade and sensitivity studies. Lastly, the PRA model was used to determine changes in risk as the system configurations or key parameters are modified.
In order to enable the future of long-duration deep space exploration we must confront the uncertainty in medical risk. Limitations of communication, resupply, and evacuation in deep space will require a high degree of crew autonomy and accurate risk assessment will be critical to ensure adequate crew training and medical system design. To address this, NASA’s Human Research Program Exploration Medical Capability Element has developed the Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces Tool (IMPACT). IMPACT is a suite of tools that can provide evidence-based, data-driven trade space assessments between available medical resources in the mass- and volume-constrained environment of a deep space exploration vehicle. In the current model, medical conditions either can or cannot be treated based on the availability of medical system resources and equipment. However, medical outcomes often depend just as much on the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) of the provider operating the system. This paper presents a method for modeling and quantifying the effect of medical officer KSA on medically relevant mission risk outcomes during spaceflight.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Introduction: Space flight potentially reduces the loading that bone can resist before fracture. This reduction in bone integrity may result from a combination of factors, the most common reported as reduction in astronaut BMD. Although evaluating the condition of bones continues to be a critical aspect of understanding space flight fracture risk, defining the loading regime, whether on earth, in microgravity, or in reduced gravity on a planetary surface, remains a significant component of estimating the fracture risks to astronauts. This presentation summarizes the concepts, development, and application of NASA's Bone Fracture Risk Module (BFxRM) to understanding pre-, post, and in mission astronaut bone fracture risk. The overview includes an assessment of contributing factors utilized in the BFxRM and illustrates how new information, such as biomechanics of space suit design or better understanding of post flight activities may influence astronaut fracture risk. Opportunities for the bone mineral research community to contribute to future model development are also discussed. Methods: To investigate the conditions in which spaceflight induced changes to bone plays a critical role in post-flight fracture probability, we implement a modified version of the NASA Bone Fracture Risk Model (BFxRM). Modifications included incorporation of variations in physiological characteristics, post-flight recovery rate, and variations in lateral fall conditions within the probabilistic simulation parameter space. The modeled fracture probability estimates for different loading scenarios at preflight and at 0 and 365 days post-flight time periods are compared. Results: For simple lateral side falls, mean post-flight fracture probability is elevated over mean preflight fracture probability due to spaceflight induced BMD loss and is not fully recovered at 365 days post-flight. In the case of more energetic falls, such as from elevated heights or with the addition of lateral movement, the contribution of space flight quality changes is much less clear, indicating more granular assessments, such as Finite Element modeling, may be needed to further assess the risks in these scenarios.
In 2007 NASA was preparing to send two new visiting vehicles carrying logistics and propellant to the International Space Station (ISS). These new vehicles were the European Space Agency s (ESA) Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), the Jules Verne, and the Japanese Aerospace and Explorations Agency s (JAXA) H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV). The ISS Program wanted to quantify the increased risk to the ISS from these visiting vehicles. At the time, only the Shuttle, the Soyuz, and the Progress vehicles rendezvoused and docked to the ISS. The increased risk to the ISS was from an increase in vehicle traffic, thereby, increasing the potential catastrophic collision during the rendezvous and the docking or berthing of the spacecraft to the ISS. A universal method of evaluating the risk of rendezvous and docking or berthing was created by the ISS s Risk Team to accommodate the increasing number of rendezvous and docking or berthing operations due to the increasing number of different spacecraft, as well as the future arrival of commercial spacecraft. Before the first docking attempt of ESA's ATV and JAXA's HTV to the ISS, a probabilistic risk model was developed to quantitatively calculate the risk of collision of each spacecraft with the ISS. The 5 rendezvous and docking risk models (Soyuz, Progress, Shuttle, ATV, and HTV) have been used to build and refine the modeling methodology for rendezvous and docking of spacecrafts. This risk modeling methodology will be NASA s basis for evaluating the addition of future ISS visiting spacecrafts hazards, including SpaceX s Dragon, Orbital Science s Cygnus, and NASA s own Orion spacecraft. This paper will describe the methodology used for developing a visiting vehicle risk model.
In this volume, volume 4 (of five volumes), the discussion is focussed on the system models and related data references and has the following subsections: space shuttle main engine, integrated solid rocket booster, orbiter auxiliary power units/hydraulics, and electrical power system.