Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Safety 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.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2005

Safety and Mission Assurance Performance Metric

The safety and mission assurance (S&MA) performance metric is a method that provides a process through which the managers of a large, complex program can readily understand and assess the accepted risk, the problems, and the associated reliability of the program. Conceived for original use in helping to assure the safety and success of the International Space Station (ISS) program, the S&MA performance metric also can be applied to other large and complex programs and projects. The S&MA-performance-metric data products comprise one or more tables (possibly also one or more graphs) that succinctly display all of the information relevant (and no information that is irrelevant) to management decisions that must be made to assure the safety and success of a program or project, thereby facilitating such decisions.

Holsomback, Jerry↗
NASA NTRS2019

Trends in Human Spaceflight: Failure Tolerance, High Reliability and Correlated Failure History

In a half century of human spaceflight, NASA has continuously refined agency safety and reliability requirements in response to mission demands, critical failures, and technology development. Early spacecraft, including Mercury, Gemini and Apollo vehicles, were highly reliant on dissimilar redundancy and demonstrated test margins. Later programs, such as the reusable Space Transportation System (STS) and International Space Station (ISS), introduced probabilistic studies and isolated two-failure tolerance to improve robustness at the expense of added complexity. More recently, the Orion Multi-Program Crew Vehicle (MPCV) program adopted universal single-failure tolerance with two categorical exceptions; Zero-Failure Tolerant (0FT) and Design for Minimum Risk (DFMR) hardware. Failure tolerance variances are defined and managed in accordance with agency human-rating requirements, and require concurrence from program Technical Authorities (TA) as well as the MPCV Safety and Mission Assurance Safety and Engineering Review Panel (MSERP). To understand and reaffirm standards applied to Apollo, Space Shuttle and Orion vehicles, Orion and Deep Space Gateway Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) representatives conducted accelerated research to compare unique safety and reliability criteria against ground and flight anomalies, based on information contained in post-mission reports and the Problem Reporting and Corrective Action (PRACA) database. In some cases, high-profile failures and narrow escapes have reinforced decisions to maintain or adapt safety requirements. In others, empirical trends have highlighted the need for vigilance and innovative safety guidelines. Given the inability to achieve absolute compliance with evolving safety and reliability requirements, the team conducted a targeted review of DFMR and 0FT propulsion elements within the framework of changing system design, inspection, materials and process developments to formulate conclusions on technological maturity, failure density, and net changes in safety risk. Based on the aggregate performance of high-reliability and failure-tolerant systems, the authors have attempted to establish best practices and guidelines to inform future program decisions. On a somewhat cautionary note, this study is not intended to direct a universal set of requirements for future missions based on prior lessons learned. Spacecraft safety is a multi-variable problem, and attempts to mitigate past failures will not guarantee future success. However, this assessment offers a retrospective review of policy changes, implementation and effectiveness. In the future, NASA, European Space Agency (ESA) and industry partners may benefit from a more robust correlation between requirements and performance, as space-faring nations work toward more challenging, complex and long-duration commercial and deep-space ventures.

Green, Carrie↗
NASA NTRS1990

Software safety - A user's practical perspective

Software safety assurance philosophy and practices at the NASA Ames are discussed. It is shown that, to be safe, software must be error-free. Software developments on two digital flight control systems and two ground facility systems are examined, including the overall system and software organization and function, the software-safety issues, and their resolution. The effectiveness of safety assurance methods is discussed, including conventional life-cycle practices, verification and validation testing, software safety analysis, and formal design methods. It is concluded (1) that a practical software safety technology does not yet exist, (2) that it is unlikely that a set of general-purpose analytical techniques can be developed for proving that software is safe, and (3) that successful software safety-assurance practices will have to take into account the detailed design processes employed and show that the software will execute correctly under all possible conditions.

Dunn, William R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Ontological Approach to Integrate Commercial Space Operations with an In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS)

The emergence of commercial space operations (CSO) is one of many Advanced Air Mobility domains that pose major challenges to in-time safety assurance because of the different architectures used by the operators and other agents. The National Academies recognized the need to improve integration of disparate architectures and recommended that an In-time Aviation Safety Management System(IASMS) be developed to provide seamless connectivity across interacting architectures and enable in-time safety assurance. An ontological approach to integrating CSO with IASMS involves in-time Services, Functions, and Capabilities design to manage operational risks and inform changes to design. The resulting integrated architecture provides a common basis for risk management and in-time safety assurance.

K Ellis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Safety & Mission Assurance (SMA) Activities in Support of Artemis I and Plans for Artemis II

The Artemis I mission in 2022 accomplished humanity’s first venture beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) with a human-rated spacecraft in over fifty years. Artemis comprises several key Program elements – Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Orion Crew Module, Service Module, Launch Abort System; the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Exploration Ground System (EGS). Much of our human spaceflight experience with crewed lunar missions is captured in historical program documents, but first-hand knowledge is limited to a few spaceflight veterans. Missions to LEO have offered the opportunity of direct, near-instantaneous communications and assistance, and the ability to return to Earth within a matter of hours in case of emergency. Outward-bound missions do not have these features and will require a more autonomous and reliable spacecraft. The assessment of compliance with applicable safety requirements and adequacy of hazard controls and verifications is the responsibility of the MPCV Safety and Engineering Review Panel (MSERP), along with a Joint [NASA/ESA] Safety and Engineering Review Panel (JSERP) for the review of the European Service Module (ESM). The MSERP has two features that are relatively unique amongst NASA safety panels. First, NASA Engineering was added as a Panel co-chair, which enhanced the Engineering organization’s engagement and level of understanding of hazard analysis methodology and results. The MSERP has representation from each office, including Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) and Health and Medical Technical Authority, supporting the Orion Program in addition to the Engineering and Safety Technical Authority co-chairs. Second, the JSERP has a second set of co-chairs from ESA Engineering and ESA Product Assurance and Safety organizations, which recognizes the international arrangement as one of partnership. This paper will focus on SMA processes, activities, and plans for the Orion element and explore unique challenges associated with Artemis II as we approach the flight of the first crewed Orion vehicle.

Paul J. Collier↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Concept of Operations (ConOps) of an In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM)

The growth of new emerging operations involving Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) necessitates developing a perspective for an In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS). This perspective advances from the National Academies report on IASMS and its recommendation for developing a Concept of Operations (ConOps) for IASMS. A ConOps has been developed for In-time System-Wide Safety Assurance (ISSA) from which the IASMS ConOps pivots to provide a robust scope commensurate with the broad vision defined by the National Academies. The IASMS ConOps focuses on emerging operations and spans innovations in Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) and an increasingly complex ecosystem comprised of a widening mix of vehicles and technologies, Urban Air Mobility (UAM) with industry-federated services, traditional operations, as well as new supersonic aircraft and space launch systems.The challenge for the IASMS ConOps is to be broad to encompass innovations in the coming years and decades while agile to ensure levels of safety compatible with operational and certification requirements of the National Airspace System (NAS). The IASMS ConOps interweaves increasing complexity of operational safety capabilities and unlocking UAS Maturity Levels (UMLs). The relationships between increased complexity of automation and automated systems, fewer operators who are not as traditionally higher skilled, more complex operational environments, and aviation operations management with mixed aircraft and equipage pose a multi-dimensional space for IASMS capabilities essential for safety assurance and risk management. Instantiating IASMS capabilities and how they would be integral to AAM operations and increasing maturity of UAM could be accomplished through a series of Safety Demonstrators. These Safety Demonstrators could provide increased understanding and insight into use of controls for risk mitigation, means of compliance for certification, and operational experience with safety services such as in relation to contingency management. The IASMS capabilities can be viewed as initially residing with the vehicle, airspace, and Supplemental Data Service Provider (SDSP). For example, vehicle capabilities include communications including the command and control link, Remote Identification (ID), conflict advisory/alerting, and UAS system monitoring. These capabilities monitor and assess data such as battery health, aircraft state, and human performance. Complexity of ISAMS capabilities depends on a number of factors. These factors are intendedonly as a notional categorization with the purpose being to reflect the complexity of the AAM ecosystem that would drive up the complexity of ISSA capabilities including systems, sensors, models, standards, and controls. Factors could include the Vehicle Flight Management, Environment, Airspace, and Contingency Management. Each of these factors can be comprised of multiple sub-factors that contribute to increasing complexity. For example, Airspace at a lower level of complexity could be dedicated to UTM operations that are unmonitored, and at a higher level of complexity could involve mixed UTM and ATM operations. The IASMS concept includes safety services that provide data and information to different participants in AAM. The roles and responsibilities of participants can be defined using the Responsible-Accountable-Consulted-Informed (RACI) analysis. For example, for the safety service involving the Remote ID, the Operator would be accountable for providing the data, the Vehicle would be responsible for transmitting it, and the USS, SDSP, Vertiports, FIMS (FAA), and Public Entities such as safety services would be informed by receiving the data. The IASMS ConOps identifies the capabilities needed for risk mitigation and safety assurance in the increasingly complex national airspace. The ConOps serves as a pathway for engaging with industry to gain operational experience including through the Safety Demonstrator series, the RACI analysis, and operational complexity factors. The ConOps serves to integrate these different perspectives to build a cohesive and cogent approach to an AAM safety management system.

In-Time Aviation Safety Management System↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Future of Safety Management

As the pace of aviation evolution accelerates, our approach to safety and risk management needs to evolve to cover expanded current day operations as well as participants not traditionally included in the airspace. To assure safety of an increasingly complex aviation system it is essential to leverage new processes and techniques that can more quickly identify and respond to emerging risks. The concept of an In-Time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) presents an advanced SMS framework designed to enable integrated safety management and assurance. To assure safety of future aviation operations and technologies, advanced SMS concepts must be designed such that they can evolve to keep pace as aviation continues to change and as new safety and risk management tools and techniques emerge.

safety↗
NASA NTRS2016

Early Engagement of Safety and Mission Assurance Expertise Using Systems Engineering Tools: A Risk-Based Approach to Early Identification of Safety and Assurance Requirements

Decades of systems engineering practice have demonstrated that the earlier the identification of requirements occurs, the lower the chance that costly redesigns will needed later in the project life cycle. A better understanding of all requirements can also improve the likelihood of a design's success. Significant effort has been put into developing tools and practices that facilitate requirements determination, including those that are part of the model-based systems engineering (MBSE) paradigm. These efforts have yielded improvements in requirements definition, but have thus far focused on a design's performance needs. The identification of safety & mission assurance (S&MA) related requirements, in comparison, can occur after preliminary designs are already established, yielding forced redesigns. Engaging S&MA expertise at an earlier stage, facilitated by the use of MBSE tools, and focused on actual project risk, can yield the same type of design life cycle improvements that have been realized in technical and performance requirements.

Requirement↗
NASA NTRS2011

Safety and Mission Assurance: A NASA Perspective

Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) consists of the safety, reliability, maintainability, software assurance and quality disciplines, which are applied to reduce the probability of mishaps and ensure mission success. NASA uses a risk management process which requires various organizations to identify, analyze and mitigate/control risks associated with operations and decision making processes.

Higginbotham, Scott Alan↗
NASA NTRS2017

Comprehensive Lifecycle for Assuring System Safety

CLASS is a novel approach to the enhancement of system safety in which the system safety case becomes the focus of safety engineering throughout the system lifecycle. CLASS also expands the role of the safety case across all phases of the system's lifetime, from concept formation to decommissioning. As CLASS has been developed, the concept has been generalized to a more comprehensive notion of assurance becoming the driving goal, where safety is an important special case. This report summarizes major aspects of CLASS and contains a bibliography of papers that provide additional details.

Knight, John C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The In-time Aviation Safety Management System Concept for Part 135 Operators

Transformations of the National Airspace System, such as envisioned with Advanced Air Mobility, will enable improvements for managing and assuring safety for Part 135 transportation of passengers and cargo. The purpose of this paper is to describe the In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) Concept of Operations (ConOps) and how its innovations such as using predictive analytics could benefit operators for risk management and safety assurance. The National Academies recommended development of an IASMS ConOps to secure a safe future NAS. Part 135 operators are currently not required to have a formal safety management system.

Kyle K. Ellis↗
NASA NTRS2009

Formal Methods Applications in Air Transportation

The U.S. air transportation system is the most productive in the world, moving far more people and goods than any other. It is also the safest system in the world, thanks in part to its venerable air traffic control system. But as demand for air travel continues to grow, the air traffic control system s aging infrastructure and labor-intensive procedures are impinging on its ability to keep pace with demand. And that impinges on the growth of our economy. Air traffic control modernization has long held the promise of a more efficient air transportation system. Part of NASA s current mission is to develop advanced automation and operational concepts that will expand the capacity of our national airspace system while still maintaining its excellent record for safety. It is a challenging mission, as efforts to modernize have, for decades, been hamstrung by the inability to assure safety to the satisfaction of system operators, system regulators, and/or the traveling public. In this talk, we ll provide a brief history of air traffic control, focusing on the tension between efficiency and safety assurance, and the promise of formal methods going forward.

Farley, Todd↗
NASA NTRS2012

Air Traffic Management Research at NASA

The U.S. air transportation system is the most productive in the world, moving far more people and goods than any other. It is also the safest system in the world, thanks in part to its venerable air traffic control system. But as demand for air travel continues to grow, the air traffic control systems aging infrastructure and labor-intensive procedures are impinging on its ability to keep pace with demand. And that impinges on the growth of our economy. Part of NASA's current mission in aeronautics research is to invent new technologies and procedures for ATC that will enable our national airspace system to accommodate the increasing demand for air transportation well into the next generation while still maintaining its excellent record for safety. It is a challenging mission, as efforts to modernize have, for decades, been hamstrung by the inability to assure safety to the satisfaction of system operators, system regulators, and/or the traveling public. In this talk, we'll provide a brief history of air traffic control, focusing on the tension between efficiency and safety assurance, and we'll highlight some new NASA technologies coming down the pike.

Farley, Todd↗
NASA NTRS2023

An In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) Concept of Operations for Vertiport Design and Operations

The National Airspace System is foreseen to undergo revolutionary change with Urban Air Mobility (UAM) and its use of vertiports to transport passengers and cargo. To assure safety with UAM and more broadly with Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), the National Academies recommended an In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) that is extensible to the design and operation of vertiports. Vertiport designs will scale in several dimensions including physical size and infrastructure depending upon location and in the Services, Functions, and Capabilities required for assuring safety with increasingly complex vertiport designs and operations. These operations will be enabled by evolving technologies including electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft for passenger-and cargo-carrying commercial transportation. Within this construct, safety hazards and risk mitigations involving predictive data analytics and modeling will be used. Use cases and future challenges are examined to guide maturation of the IASMS ConOps for vertiports.

K Ellis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Defining Services, Functions, and Capabilities for an Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS)

NASA’s vision for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Mission is to help emerging aviation markets to safely develop an air transportation system that moves people and cargo between places previously not served or underserved by aviation. The integration of new operational paradigms and vehicle classes in this system requires a transformation of the National Airspace System (NAS) that includes substantive changes critical for assuring safety. These changes are compelled by unique challenges posed by AAM to the safety management system (SMS). These challenges were assessed by committees of the National Academies in their reports on a vision for an In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) and a blueprint for AAM [1,2]. In their description of an IASMS, the top recommendation was development of a concept of operations (ConOps) for IASMS. This paper describes the high-priority recommendations from the National Academies for its IASMS vision and how they are addressed through a distributed system-of-systems architecture. The IASMS architecture is structured on the services, functions, and capabilities (SFCs) necessary for In-time System-wide Safety Assurance (ISSA)initially developed for urban air mobility (UAM). The paper then posits where these SFCs would reside across vehicles, airspace, or service suppliers such as Supplemental Data Service Providers (SDSPs), and how SFCs scale with increasing complexity in design and operations of AAM. SFCs are foundational building blocks for a system that targets an individual or family of risks using a Monitor-Assess-Mitigate risk paradigm for anomalies, precursors and trends. An IASMS could be conceived that uses a portfolio of SFCs for AAM in general or prioritizes SFCs for a specific domain or operation.

K Ellis↗
NASA NTRS2020

Architecture and Information Requirements to Assess and Predict Flight Safety Risks During Highly Autonomous Urban Flight Operations

As aviation adopts new and increasingly complex operational paradigms, vehicle types, and technologies to broaden airspace capability and efficiency, maintaining a safe system will require recognition and timely mitigation of new safety issues as they emerge and before significant consequences occur. A shift toward a more predictive risk mitigation capability becomes critical to meet this challenge. In-time safety assurance comprises monitoring, assessment, and mitigation functions that proactively reduce risk in complex operational environments where the interplay of hazards may not be known (and therefore not accounted for) during design. These functions can also help to understand and predict emergent effects caused by the increased use of automation or autonomous functions that may exhibit unexpected non-deterministic behaviors. The envisioned monitoring and assessment functions can look for precursors, anomalies, and trends (PATs) by applying model-based and data-driven methods. Outputs would then drive downstream mitigation(s) if needed to reduce risk. These mitigations may be accomplished using traditional design revision processes or via operational (and sometimes automated) mechanisms. The latter refers to the ‘in-time’ aspect of the system concept. This report comprises architecture and information requirements and considerations toward enabling such a capability within the domain of low altitude highly autonomous urban flight operations. This domain may span, for example, public-use surveillance missions flown by small unmanned aircraft (e.g., infrastructure inspection, facility management, emergency response, law enforcement, and/or security) to transportation missions flown by larger aircraft that may carry passengers or deliver products. Caveat: Any stated requirements in this report should be considered initial requirements that are intended to drive research and development (R&D). These initial requirements are likely to evolve based on R&D findings, refinement of operational concepts, industry advances, and new industry or regulatory policies or standards related to safety assurance.

Young, Steven↗