Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Risk mitigation”

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.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2023

Extravehicular Activity on the Lunar Surface: Mapping Mitigation Risk Consequence for Crew Needing Assistance or Rescue

The lunar environment offers unique challenges for human health and safety over the course of performing Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) during early Artemis missions. Driver medical conditions leading to an injured EVA crewmember needing assistance or rescue were analyzed and correlated to established, defined consequence categories. Catastrophic Drivers were identified, and three mitigation strategies were analyzed to determine if there was a potential change in consequence with their application. Risk consequence across the mitigations were compared with each other and the original risk without mitigations. Mitigations were further evaluated in a broader context with prospective preventions to understand the design and risk trade space associated with an early Artemis EVA.

Risk↗
NASA NTRS2023

Extravehicular Activity on the Lunar Surface: Mapping Mitigation Risk Consequence for Crew Needing Assistance or Rescue

The lunar environment offers unique challenges for human health and safety over the course of performing Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) during early Artemis missions. Driver medical conditions leading to an injured EVA crewmember needing assistance or rescue were analyzed and correlated to established, defined consequence categories. Catastrophic Drivers were identified, and three mitigation strategies were analyzed to determine if there was a potential change in consequence with their application. Risk consequence across the mitigations were compared with each other and the original risk without mitigations. Mitigations were further evaluated in a broader context with prospective preventions to understand the design and risk trade space associated with an early Artemis EVA.

Risk↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mapping Mitigation Risk Consequence for Crew Needing Assistance or Rescue on the Lunar Surface

Extravehicular activity (EVA) on the lunar surface presents unique risks to crew with possibility for injury. Without appropriate assistance or rescue capability, inability to nominally ambulate and return to a lander, especially during early Artemis missions, could have catastrophic consequences. Mapping likelihood and consequence safety risk associated with identified injury scenarios establishes a baseline from which to assess potential mitigation solutions to ensure crew health and safety.

lunar surface↗
NASA NTRS2014

How HRP Research Results Contribute to Human Space Exploration Risk Mitigation

In addition to the scientific value of publications derived from research, results from Human Research Program (HRP) research also support HRP’s goals of mitigating crew health and performance risks in space flight. Research results are used to build the evidence base characterizing crew health and performance risks, to support risk research plan development, to inform crew health and performance standards, and to provide technologies to programs for meeting those standards and optimizing crew health and performance in space. This talk will describe examples of how research results support these efforts. For example, HRP research results are used to revise or even create new standards for human space flight, which have been established to protect crew health and performance during flight, and prevent negative long-term health consequences due to space flight. These standards are based on the best available clinical and scientific evidence, as well as operational experience from previous space flight missions, and are reviewed as new evidence emerges. Research results are also used to update the HRP evidence base, which is comprised of a set of reports that provide a current record of the state of knowledge from research and operations for each of the defined human health and performance risks for future NASA exploration missions. A discussion of the role of evidence within the HRP architecture will also be presented. The scope of HRP research results extends well beyond publications, as they are used in several capacities to support HRP deliverables and, ultimately, the advancement of human space exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.

Lumpkins, S. B.↗
NASA NTRS2014

How HRP Research Results Contribute to Human Space Exploration Risk Mitigation

In addition to the scientific value of publications derived from research, results from Human Research Program (HRP) research also support HRP's goals of mitigating crew health and performance risks in space flight. Research results are used to build the evidence base characterizing crew health and performance risks, to support risk research plan development, to inform crew health and performance standards, and to provide technologies to programs for meeting those standards and optimizing crew health and performance in space. This talk will describe examples of how research results support these efforts. For example, HRP research results are used to revise or even create new standards for human space flight, which have been established to protect crew health and performance during flight, and prevent negative long-term health consequences due to space flight. These standards are based on the best available clinical and scientific evidence, as well as operational experience from previous space flight missions, and are reviewed as new evidence emerges. Research results are also used to update the HRP evidence base, which is comprised of a set of reports that provide a current record of the state of knowledge from research and operations for each of the defined human health and performance risks for future NASA exploration missions. A discussion of the role of evidence within the HRP architecture will also be presented. The scope of HRP research results extends well beyond publications, as they are used in several capacities to support HRP deliverables and, ultimately, the advancement of human space exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.

Lumpkins, Sarah↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Extravehicular Activity on the Lunar Surface: Mapping Mitigation Risk Consequence for Crew Needing Assistance or Rescue

Extravehicular activity (EVA) on the lunar surface presents unique risks to crew with possibility for injury. Without appropriate assistance or rescue capability, inability to nominally ambulate and return to a lander, especially during early Artemis missions, could have catastrophic consequences. Mapping likelihood and consequence safety risk associated with identified injury scenarios establishes a baseline from which to assess potential mitigation solutions to ensure crew health and safety. Causes leading to the need for incapacitated crew rescue (ICR) during EVA on the lunar surface were previously identified and classified using an ICR/Acute Injury scenario spectrum. Severe scenarios are those when the affected astronaut requires either partial or full continuous assistance from the rescuer. Evaluation of these continual reliance conditions included calculating event probabilities (likelihoods) associated with an early Artemis mission and mapping them to established Exploration System Directorate (ESD) probability thresholds; safety consequences were analyzed and correlated to defined ESD personnel safety categories. These resulting likelihood and consequence values served as a baseline for assessing risk reduction of three mitigation capabilities: crew assistance (rescuer crew) only, walking assist devices, and a wheeled transport device. Of the twenty-five continual reliance conditions, ten were evaluated as “catastrophic” (Level 5, loss of life) during EVA on the lunar surface with probabilities ranging from moderate to very low during an early Artemis mission. Crew assistance only and walking assist devices showed similar potential for risk reduction, with four of the ten causes decreasing to Level 4. A wheeled transport device further increased risk reduction with six of the ten conditions decreasing to Level 4. Given the catastrophic consequence of several identified conditions, assessments should be performed to determine the feasibility of mitigation capabilities. It is currently unknown whether a rescuer astronaut could effectively provide continuous assistance to enable both crew to return safely to the lander from the standpoint of both suit geometry and human performance. Although resulting in an increase in resources, providing a wheeled transport provides the highest risk reduction potential, and walking assist devices may have prevention as well as mitigation benefits.

lunar surface↗
NASA NTRS2024

Quantifying Food Security and Mitigation Risks Consequential to Climate Change Impacts on Crop Yields

Climate change is expected to impact crop yields globally, with some regions benefiting from favorable conditions and CO2 fertilization, while others face adverse effects from altered precipitation and higher temperatures. Changes in crop yields can destabilize the global food system and pose challenges to food security. Moreover, crop production is crucial, as biofuels are becoming increasingly important contributors to climate change mitigation measures aimed at limiting global warming. This study uses the Integrated Model to Assess the Global Environment integrated assessment model framework to analyze different indicators related to food security and climate change mitigation under varying climate change impacts on crop yields. Twelve spatially explicit crop productivity projections were taken from the full archive of the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison of 120 climate-crop model combinations, forced by CMIP6-based climate scenarios. The selection includes two average-performing climate-crop model combinations, two pessimistic combinations that perform one standard deviation below the mean, and two optimistic model combinations that perform one standard deviation above the mean. To single out the effect of climate change on productivity changes, we drew samples from two representative concentration pathways (RCP2.6 and RCP8.5). These productivity projections were applied within an otherwise uniform scenario (SSP2) and analyzed for their effect on total calorie demand, crop prices, and number of people at risk of undernourishment to quantify food security. Risks to climate change mitigation targets were explored by modeling the total bioenergy supply, emissions, and global mean temperature. The results revealed significant differences in the risk of food security and mitigation potential between different regions and climate change scenarios. Across scenarios, the crop area extent can vary up to 2 million km2 due to changing crop yields. The projected change in global hunger ranges from 60 to 160 million undernourished people, indicating uncertainty between climate and crop model combinations. Low-income regions are especially impacted because of their high sensitivity to changes in food prices. Global climate change mitigation ambitions can also deviate by the latter part of the 21st century, as changes in yields will impact biofuel production as well as agriculture, forestry and other land use emissions. The quantitative insights generated by this study highlight the need for global policy efforts to make the agricultural system more adaptive to climate change to handle potential negative impacts.

crop yields↗
NASA NTRS2006

Experiences using Visualization Techniques to Present Requirements, Risks to Them, and Options for Risk Mitigation

For several years we have been employing a risk-based decision process to guide development and application of advanced technologies, and for research and technology portfolio planning. The process is supported by custom software, in which visualization plays an important role. During requirements gathering, visualization is used to help scrutinize the status (completeness, extent) of the information. During decision making based on the gathered information, visualization is used to help decisionmakers understand the space of options and their consequences. In this paper we summarize the visualization capabilities that we have employed, indicating when and how they have proven useful.

requirements↗
NASA NTRS2011

Space Shuttle Systems Engineering Processes for Liftoff Debris Risk Mitigation

This slide presentation reviews the systems engineering process designed to reduce the risk from debris during Space Shuttle Launching. This process begins the day of launch from the tanking to the vehicle tower clearance. Other debris risks (i.e., Ascent, and micrometeoroid orbital debit) are mentioned) but are not the subject of this presentation. The Liftoff debris systems engineering process and an example of how it works are reviewed (i.e.,STS-119 revealed a bolt liberation trend on the Fixed Service Structure (FSS) 275 level elevator room). The process includes preparation of a Certification of Flight Readiness (CoFR) that includes (1) Lift-off debris from previous mission dispositioned, (2) Flight acceptance rationale has been provided for Lift-off debris sources/causes (3) Lift-off debris mission support documentation, processes and tools are in place for the up-coming mission. The process includes a liftoff debris data collection that occurs after each launch. This includes a post launch walkdown, that records each liftoff debris, and the entry of the debris into a database, it also includes a review of the imagery from the launch, and a review of the instrumentation data. There is also a review of the debris transport analysis process, that includes temporal and spatial framework and a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis. which incorporates a debris transport analyses (DTA), debris materials and impact tests, and impact analyses.

Mitchell, Michael↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using Systems Engineering to Develop an Integrated Crew Health and Performance System to Mitigate Risk for Human Exploration Missions

New space exploration missions are currently being designed to take humanity beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) to cis-lunar space, the lunar surface, and eventually to Mars. These missions carry increased risks due to a number of factors, including distance from Earth, exposure to deep space hazards, reduced capacity and ability to resupply and evacuate, and increased communication delays. As distance from Earth grows and mission length increases, a growing proportion of mission risk can be attributed to the “human system.” Almost twenty years ago, the Institute of Medicine in the United States recommended the early and complete integration of the human system into the spacecraft and mission design process to mitigate this increased risk inherent in exploration missions. Exploration missions will require increasing levels of crew self-sufficiency that will challenge the current operational paradigms established in LEO. Enabling progressive Earth independence requires management of the increasingly complex interactions among spacecraft systems and integration of all the data and functions that affect human health and performance into one coordinated system –the Crew Health and Performance (CHP) system. This system is a critical spacecraft system that is analogous to other systems such as propulsion, guidance and navigation, or avionics. Design and integration of the CHP system requires the evidence-based merger of typically disparate disciplines such as medicine, human factors, and life support system design, using systems engineering (SE) practices. SE provides traceability of spacecraft requirements and enables reliable and repeatable trade space analysis of the many competing options for hardware and software to be included in the mission architecture. The approach described here enables spacecraft and mission designers to align the scope of a CHP system with mission specific requirements, decrease risk to the crew, and increase the probability of mission success.

Kerry McGuire↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using Systems Engineering to Develop an Integrated Crew Health and Performance System to Mitigate Risk for Human Exploration Missions

New space exploration missions are currently being designed to take humanity beyond Low EarthOrbit (LEO) to cis-lunar space, the lunar surface, and eventually to Mars. These missions carryincreased risks due to a number of factors, including distance from Earth, exposure to deep spacehazards, reduced capacity and ability to resupply and evacuate, and increased communication delays.As distance from Earth grows and mission length increases, a growing proportion of overall missionrisk can be attributed to the “human system.” Almost twenty years ago, the Institute of Medicine in theUnited States recommended the early and complete integration of the human system into thespacecraft and mission design process to mitigate this increased risk inherent in exploration missions.Exploration missions will require increasing levels of crew self-sufficiency that will challenge thecurrent operational paradigms established in LEO. Enabling progressive Earth independence requiresmanagement of the increasingly complex interactions among spacecraft systems and integration of allthe data and functions that affect human health and performance into one coordinated system – theCrew Health and Performance (CHP) system. This system is a critical spacecraft system that isanalogous to other systems such as propulsion, guidance and navigation, or avionics. Design andintegration of the CHP system requires the evidence-based merger of typically disparate disciplinessuch as medicine, human factors, and physiological support system design, using systems engineering(SE) practices. The approach described here enables spacecraft and mission designers to align thescope of a CHP system with mission specific requirements, decrease risk to the crew, and increase theprobability of mission success.

Kerry Mcguire↗
NASA NTRS2010

Use of a Pathfinder Optical Telescope Element for James Webb Space Telescope Risk Mitigation

A Pathfmder of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) Optical Telescope Element is being developed to check out critical ground support equipment and to rehearse integration and testing procedures. This paper provides a summary of the baseline Pathfmder configuration and architecture, objectives of this effort, limitations of Pathfinder, status of its development, and future plans. Special attention is paid to risks that will be mitigated by Pathfmder.

Feinberg, Lee D.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Decompression Sickness Risk Mitigation Protocols for Planetary Spaceflight Missions

BACKGROUND: Apollo missions used a 100% O2 cabin atmosphere which effectively eliminated the risk of decompression sickness (DCS) during extravehicular activity (EVA) on the moon. NASA’s future missions to the moon and Mars are expected to use nitrox gas mixtures of up to 34% O2, 66% N2, which will reduce flammability risk compared with Apollo, but will necessitate Oxygen prebreathe prior to EVA to reduce DCS risk to acceptable levels. Prebreathe protocols used on the space shuttle and International Space Station are validated for microgravity EVAs, but the significantly increased risk of DCS during equivalent ambulatory EVAs make these protocols inapplicable to planetary EVA. An “exploration atmosphere” of 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, 66% N2 has been recommended by NASA as a compromise that balances prebreathe duration, hypoxia, and flammability risk, assuming a 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi) spacesuit. However, this atmosphere may not be used for vehicles that do not support frequent EVA, and with commercial providers and international providers expected to provide landers, pressurized rovers, habitats, and spacesuits, different combinations of vehicle and spacesuit atmospheres are possible and will each require validated prebreathe protocols. OVERVIEW: Key components of a multi-year strategic roadmap include: 1) Establish hypobaric chamber facility capable of supporting 8-person EVA prebreathe validation tests at saturation atmospheres up to 36% O2; 2) validate an EVA physical workload simulation for use during prebreathe validation testing; 3) validate the recommended “exploration atmosphere” prebreathe protocol; 4) validate prebreathe protocols for additional atmospheric combinations that bound the most likely potential operating ranges of future vehicles and spacesuits; and 5) update DCS risk estimation models based on results of prebreathe validation studies. DISCUSSION: Details and data from completion of the first two steps of the strategic roadmap will be presented; the third step is currently underway, with pilot results provided in a companion presentation. Steps four and five will require a multi-year series of chamber tests; collaborations are being pursued.

Andrew F. J. Abercromby↗
DOE OSTI2024

Security constrained optimal power shutoff for wildfire risk mitigation

Abstract Electric grid faults are increasingly the source of ignition for major wildfires. To reduce the likelihood of such ignitions in high risk situations, utilities use preemptive de‐energization of power lines, commonly referred to as Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS). Besides raising challenging trade‐offs between power outages and wildfire safety, PSPS removes redundancy from the network at a time when component faults are likely to happen. This may leave the network particularly vulnerable to unexpected line faults that may occur while the PSPS is in place. Previous works have not explicitly considered the impacts of these outages. To address this gap, the Security Constrained Optimal Power Shutoff problem is proposed which uses post‐contingency security constraints to model the impact of unexpected line faults when planning a PSPS. This model enables, for the first time, the exploration of a wide range of trade‐offs between both wildfire risk and pre‐ and post‐contingency load shedding when designing PSPS plans, providing useful insights for utilities and policy makers considering different approaches to PSPS. The efficacy of the model is demonstrated using the EPRI 39‐bus system as a case study. The results highlight the potential risks of not considering security constraints when planning PSPS and show that incorporating security constraints into the PSPS design process improves the resilience of current PSPS plans.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
NASA NTRS2003

Addressing software security risk mitigations in the life cycle

The NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) has funded the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with a Center Initiative, 'Reducing Software Security Risk through an Integrated Approach' (RSSR), to address this need. The Initiative is a formal approach to addressing software security in the life cycle through the instantiation of a Software Security Assessment Instrument (SSAI) for the development and maintenance life cycles.

software tools↗