Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “risk identification”

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 NTRS2020

Artemis III Neutron Surface Science

This paper highlights lunar neutron science that can be performed in support of the Artemis 2024 mission within 6 degrees of the lunar south pole. There are two primary science goals: the characterization of the radiation environment, and secondly, inference of regolith composition including the presence of water. Characterizing the surface radiation environment is important for risk identification and mitigation during crewed lunar missions. The lunar surface radiation environment includes a unique neutron contribution. The relative contribution from neutrons is higher outside the shielding effects of Earth’s magnetic field, which the Moon experiences ~25% of its orbit. To evaluate the radiation risk to astronauts at the lunar surface, fast neutron measurements are needed. Neutrons are generated when galactic cosmic rays (GCR) collide with the lunar regolith and provide valuable elemental composition information about the near surface (< 1m). For the characterization of regolith composition, a low energy neutron spectrometer or counter can determine surface composition. This provides ground truth for orbital neutron data from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and Lunar Prospector missions.

Lunar science, Moon, geology, geophysics, neutron ↗
NASA NTRS2009

An Effective Health and Medical Technical Authority

The NASA Governance model directed the formation of three Technical Authorities, Engineering; Safety and Mission Assurance; and Health and Medical, to ensure that risks are identified and adjudicated efficiently and transparently in concert with the spaceflight programs and projects. The Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) has been implemented at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) and consists of the Chief Medical Office (CMO), the Deputy CMO, and HMTA Delegates. The JSC HMTA achieves the goals of risk identification and adjudication through the discharge of the appropriate technical expertise to human space flight programs and projects and the escalation of issues within program and technical authority boards. The JSC HMTA relies on subject matter experts (SMEs) in the Space Life Sciences Directorate at JSC as well as experts from other Centers to work crew health and performance issues at the technical level, develop requirements, oversee implementation and validation of requirements, and identify risks and non-compliances. Once a risk or potential noncompliance has been identified and reported to the programs or projects, the JSC HMTA begins to track it and closely monitor the program's or project's response. As a risk is developed or a non-compliance negotiated, positions from various levels of decision makers are sought at the program and project control boards. The HMTA may support a program or project position if it is satisfied with the decision making and vetting processes (ex. the subject matter expert voiced his/her concerns and all dissenting opinions were documented) and finds that the position both acknowledges the risk and cost of the mitigation and resolves the issue without changing NASA risk posture. The HMTA may disagree with a program or project position if the NASA risk posture has been elevated or obfuscated. If the HMTA does disagree with the program or project position, it will appeal to successively higher levels of authority so that risk acceptance and risk trades will be acknowledged and sanctioned at the highest appropriate level; this includes Program Managers, Mission Directorate Associate Administrators and the Agency Administrator.

Fogarty, Jennifer A.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Towards a Rigorous Basis for Specific Operations Risk Assessment of UAS

The Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) guidance represents the consensus of various national aviation authorities on a common process to identify, qualitatively assess, and manage the safety risk posed by unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), when preparing the safety case required for regulatory approval to conduct certain types of operations. As such, it can be considered a de facto standard, being increasingly adopted by various relevant stakeholders. This paper first gives an overview of the SORA process and associated methods, identifying a number of inconsistencies in risk identification and assessment, also discussing plausible strategies to close the associated gaps. Then, we give a well-founded basis for the applicable concepts, such as barrier integrity, assurance, and robustness, following which we present a preliminary and simple probabilistic formalization of the underpinning barrier-based safety model. We illustrate our overall approach through a worked example, also discussing how a Bayesian framework can facilitate extending and enhancing our initial formalization. We conclude with a discussion of the opportunities afforded by our approach, such as a well-founded basis for barrier selection, whilst addressing the associated challenges. The main objective of this work is to complement the current SORA guidance through a principled, mathematicallybased approach to risk assessment, particularly when it is applied to higher-risk operational concepts that warrant greater rigor in safety assessment and assurance.

Safety Cases↗
NASA NTRS2008

GIDEP Batching Tool

This software provides internal, automated search mechanics of GIDEP (Government- Industry Data Exchange Program) Alert data imported from the GIDEP government Web site. The batching tool allows the import of a single parts list in tab-delimited text format into the local JPL GIDEP database. Delimiters from every part number are removed. The original part numbers with delimiters are compared, as well as the newly generated list without the delimiters. The two lists run against the GIDEP imports, and output any matches. This feature only works with Netscape 2.0 or greater, or Internet Explorer 4.0 or greater. The user selects the browser button to choose a text file to import. When the submit button is pressed, this script will import alerts from the text file into the local JPL GIDEP database. This batch tool provides complete in-house control over exported material and data for automated batch match abilities. The batching tool has the ability to match capabilities of the parts list to tables, and yields results that aid further research and analysis. This provides more control over GIDEP information for metrics and reports information not provided by the government site. This software yields results quickly and gives more control over external data from the government site in order to generate other reports not available from the external source. There is enough space to store years of data. The program relates to risk identification and management with regard to projects and GIDEP alert information encompassing flight parts for space exploration.

Fong, Danny↗
NASA NTRS2011

Juggling Act: Re-Planning and Building on Observatory...Simultaneously!

SOFIA (Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy) is a major SMD program that has been required to meet several requirements and implement major planning and business initiatives overthe past 1 1/2 years, in the midst of system development and flight test phases. The program was required to implementing JCL and EVM simultaneously, as well as undergo a major replan and Standing Review Board - and all without impacting technical schedule progress. The team developed innovative processes that met all the requirements, and improved Program Management process toolsets. The SOFIA team, being subject to all the typical budget constraints, found ways to leverage existing roles in new ways to meet the requirements without creating unmanageable overhead. The team developed strategies and value added processes - such as improved risk identification, structured reserves management, cost/risk integration - so that the effort expended resulted in a positive return to the program.

Zavala, Eddie↗
NASA NTRS2011

QuEST: Qualifying Environmentally Sustainable Technologies

QuEST is a publication of the NASA Technology Evaluation for Environmental Risk Mitigation Principal Center (TEERM). This issue contains brief articles on: Risk Identification and Mitigation, Material Management and Substitution Efforts--Hexavalent Chrome-free Coatings and Low volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Coatings, Lead-Free Electronics, Corn-Based Depainting Media; Alternative Energy Efforts Hydrogen Sensors and Solar Air Conditioning. Other TEERM Efforts include: Energy and Water Management and Remediation Technology Collaboration.

Lewis, Pattie↗
NASA NTRS2012

SURF IA Conflict Detection and Resolution Algorithm Evaluation

The Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness on the Airport Surface with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA) algorithm was evaluated in a fast-time batch simulation study at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center. SURF IA is designed to increase flight crew situation awareness of the runway environment and facilitate an appropriate and timely response to potential conflict situations. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the performance of the SURF IA algorithm under various runway scenarios, multiple levels of conflict detection and resolution (CD&R) system equipage, and various levels of horizontal position accuracy. This paper gives an overview of the SURF IA concept, simulation study, and results. Runway incursions are a serious aviation safety hazard. As such, the FAA is committed to reducing the severity, number, and rate of runway incursions by implementing a combination of guidance, education, outreach, training, technology, infrastructure, and risk identification and mitigation initiatives [1]. Progress has been made in reducing the number of serious incursions - from a high of 67 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 to 6 in FY2010. However, the rate of all incursions has risen steadily over recent years - from a rate of 12.3 incursions per million operations in FY2005 to a rate of 18.9 incursions per million operations in FY2010 [1, 2]. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) also considers runway incursions to be a serious aviation safety hazard, listing runway incursion prevention as one of their most wanted transportation safety improvements [3]. The NTSB recommends that immediate warning of probable collisions/incursions be given directly to flight crews in the cockpit [4].

Jones, Denise R.↗
NASA NTRS2012

EPOXI and Stardust NExT: The Management Challenges of Two Comet Flybys in Three Months

The EPOXI and Stardust NExT missions were missions of opportunity utilizing the Deep Impact and Stardust spacecraft, respectively. These new missions took advantage of the cost savings of utilizing spacecraft that were already flying for new science investigations. Both were retargeted to fly by an additional comet. EPOXI visited Hartley 2, significantly smaller than the other Jupiter family comets visited previously. Stardust NExT flew by Tempel 1, providing a second look at the comet previously studied by Deep Impact in 2005. Both projects were part of NASA's Discovery Program. In order to further save costs, the projects were combined into a single project office at JPL. This provided some efficiencies due to the similarity of the missions, but having the flybys space only three months apart posed challenges for the project management team to ensure each project was ready for its critical event and ensuring each received the proper support from the management team. The project office relied on an integrated calendar for tracking and scheduling meetings, reviews, and other key events. The project management team also coordinated their availability for both projects to maintain involvement with each team to ensure effective risk identification and management.

NExT (New Exploration of Tempel 1)↗
NASA NTRS2018

Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) of a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Dynamic Positioning System (DPS)

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) has been utilized by NASA in a variety of space oriented projects. It has served as one of the primary risk identification and ranking tools. Recent developments in the oil and gas industry have presented opportunities for NASA to lend their PRA expertise to both ongoing and developmental projects within the industry. As a result, NASA has entered into an agreement with Anadarko Petroleum Company (APC) to collaboratively develop PRAs for different aspects of the subsea drilling and completion process of well development. This paper documents how PRA was applied to estimate the probability that a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) equipped with a generically configured Dynamic Positioning System (DPS) loses location and needs to initiate an emergency disconnect. Since this project was in essence a pilot project, the PRA described in this paper is intended to be generic such that the vessel meets the general requirements of an International Maritime Organization (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC)/Circ. 645 Class 3 dynamically positioned vessel. The results of this analysis are not intended to be applied to any specific drilling vessel, although provisions were made to allow the analysis to be configured to a specific vessel if required.

Thigpen, Eric B.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Identification and Classification of Common Risks in Space Science Missions

Due to the highly constrained schedules and budgets that NASA missions must contend with, the identification and management of cost, schedule and risks in the earliest stages of the lifecycle is critical. At the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) it is the concurrent engineering teams that first address these items in a systematic manner. Foremost of these concurrent engineering teams is Team X. Started in 1995, Team X has carried out over 1000 studies, dramatically reducing the time and cost involved, and has been the model for other concurrent engineering teams both within NASA and throughout the larger aerospace community. The ability to do integrated risk identification and assessment was first introduced into Team X in 2001. Since that time the mission risks identified in each study have been kept in a database. In this paper we will describe how the Team X risk process is evolving highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches. The paper will especially focus on the identification and classification of common risks that have arisen during Team X studies of space based science missions.

Risk Identification↗
NASA NTRS2010

Heritage and Advanced Technology Systems Engineering Lessons Learned from NASA Space Missions

Use of heritage and new technology is necessary/enabling to implementing small, low cost missions, yet overruns decrease the ability to sustain future mission flight rates The majority of the cost growth drivers seen in the D&NF study were embedded early during formulation phase and later realized during the development and I&T phases Cost drivers can be avoided or significantly decreased by project management and SE emphasis on early identification of risks and realistic analyses SE processes that emphasize an assessment of technology within the mission system to identify technical issues in the design or operational use of the technology. Realistic assessment of new and heritage spacecraft technology assumptions , identification of risks and mitigation strategies. Realistic estimates of effort required to inherit existing or qualify new technology, identification of risks to estimates and develop mitigation strategies. Allocation of project reserves for risk-based mitigation strategies of each individual area of heritage or new technology. Careful tailoring of inheritance processes to ensure due diligence.

Barley, Bryan↗
NASA NTRS1998

Risk Management

This presentation focuses on the identification of risk management, risk management processes such as: quantification and prioritization; mitigation planning; implementation of risk reduction; and tracking process. It develops examples and answers questions about Risk Management.

Lloyd Thomas↗
NASA NTRS2015

Using Risk Assessment Methodologies to Meet Management Objectives

Current decision making involves numerous possible combinations of technology elements, safety and health issues, operational aspects and process considerations to satisfy program goals. Identifying potential risk considerations as part of the management decision making process provides additional tools to make more informed management decision. Adapting and using risk assessment methodologies can generate new perspectives on various risk and safety concerns that are not immediately apparent. Safety and operational risks can be identified and final decisions can balance these considerations with cost and schedule risks. Additional assessments can also show likelihood of event occurrence and event consequence to provide a more informed basis for decision making, as well as cost effective mitigation strategies. Methodologies available to perform Risk Assessments range from qualitative identification of risk potential, to detailed assessments where quantitative probabilities are calculated. Methodology used should be based on factors that include: 1) type of industry and industry standards, 2) tasks, tools, and environment 3) type and availability of data and 4) industry views and requirements regarding risk & reliability. Risk Assessments are a tool for decision makers to understand potential consequences and be in a position to reduce, mitigate or eliminate costly mistakes or catastrophic failures.

DeMott, D. L.↗
NASA NTRS1974

Utility company views of geothermal development

The views of geothermal development from a utility company standpoint are presented. The impediments associated with such developments as required reliability and identification of risks are discussed. The utility industry historically is not a risk-taking industry. Support of rapid geothermal development by the utility industry requires identification and elimination of risks or absorption of the risks by other agencies. Suggestions as to the identification and minimization of risks are made.

Hinrichs, T. C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) suit is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared to the current EMU and Apollo era suits and additional features will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS suit progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury. History has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight; therefore, currently planned training events to prepare for lunar missions and tasks during lunar surface EVAs were considered. Each scenario is ranked with likelihood and consequence scorings based on our current understanding of suit and application of Artemis design reference missions. The scoring allowed identification of the high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Mechanisms of injury, injury outcomes, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team; ergonomists; suit engineers; safety engineers; the flight operations directorate; flight doctors; astronauts; astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS); and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using these, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/longdistance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Teresa Reiber↗
DOE OSTI2021

Parallel Multi-Omics in High-Risk Subjects for the Identification of Integrated Biomarker Signatures of Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Biomarkers are crucial for detecting early type-1 diabetes (T1D) and preventing significant β-cell loss before the onset of clinical symptoms. Here, we present proof-of-concept studies to demonstrate the potential for identifying integrated biomarker signature(s) of T1D using parallel multi-omics. Methods: Blood from human subjects at high risk for T1D (and healthy controls; n = 4 + 4) was subjected to parallel unlabeled proteomics, metabolomics, lipidomics, and transcriptomics. The integrated dataset was analyzed using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) software for disturbances in the at-risk subjects compared to controls. Results: The final quadra-omics dataset contained 2292 proteins, 328 miRNAs, 75 metabolites, and 41 lipids that were detected in all samples without exception. Disease/function enrichment analyses consistently indicated increased activation, proliferation, and migration of CD4 T-lymphocytes and macrophages. Integrated molecular network predictions highlighted central involvement and activation of NF-κB, TGF-β, VEGF, arachidonic acid, and arginase, and inhibition of miRNA Let-7a-5p. IPA-predicted candidate biomarkers were used to construct a putative integrated signature containing several miRNAs and metabolite/lipid features in the at-risk subjects. Conclusions: Preliminary parallel quadra-omics provided a comprehensive picture of disturbances in high-risk T1D subjects and highlighted the potential for identifying associated integrated biomarker signatures. With further development and validation in larger cohorts, parallel multi-omics could ultimately facilitate the classification of T1D progressors from non-progressors.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗