SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “risk requirements architectures”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2010

Full Mission Astronaut Radiation Exposure Assessments for Long Duration Lunar Surface Missions

Risk to astronauts due to ionizing radiation exposure is a primary concern for missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and will drive mission architecture requirements, mission timelines, and operational practices. Both galactic cosmic ray (GCR) and solar particle event (SPE) environments pose a risk to astronauts for missions beyond LEO. The GCR environment, which is made up of protons and heavier ions covering a broad energy spectrum, is ever present but varies in intensity with the solar cycle, while SPEs are sporadic events, consisting primarily of protons moving outward through the solar system from the sun. The GCR environment is more penetrating and is more difficult to shield than SPE environments, but lacks the intensity to induce acute effects. Large SPEs are rare, but they could result in a lethal dose, if adequate shielding is not provided. For short missions, radiation risk is dominated by the possibility of a large SPE. Longer missions also require planning for large SPEs; adequate shielding must be provided and operational constraints must allow astronauts to move quickly to shielded locations. The dominant risk for longer missions, however, is GCR exposure, which accumulates over time and can lead to late effects such as cancer. SPE exposure, even low level SPE exposure received in heavily shielded locations, will increase this risk. In addition to GCR and SPE environments, the lunar neutron albedo resulting mainly from the interaction of GCRs with regolith will also contribute to astronaut risk. Full mission exposure assessments were performed for proposed long duration lunar surface mission scenarios. In order to accomplish these assessments, radiation shielding models were developed for a proposed lunar habitat and rover. End-to-End mission exposure assessments were performed by first calculating exposure rates for locations in the habitat, rover, and during extra-vehicular activities (EVA). Subsequently, total mission exposures were evaluated for proposed timelines. A number of computational tools and mathematical models, which have been incorporated into NASA's On-Line Tool for the Assessment of Radiation In Space (OLTARIS), were used for this study. These tools include GCR and SPE environment models, human body models, and the HZETRN space radiation transport code, which is used to calculate the transport of the charged particles and neutrons through shielding materials and human tissue. Mission exposure results, assessed in terms of effective dose, are presented for proposed timelines and recommendations are made for improved astronaut shielding and safer operational practice.

Adamczyk, Anne M.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Lunar Surface Habitat Configuration Assessment: Methodology and Observations

The Lunar Habitat Configuration Assessment evaluated the major habitat approaches that were conceptually developed during the Lunar Architecture Team II Study. The objective of the configuration assessment was to identify desired features, operational considerations, and risks to derive habitat requirements. This assessment only considered operations pertaining to the lunar surface and did not consider all habitat conceptual designs developed. To examine multiple architectures, the Habitation Focus Element Team defined several adequate concepts which warranted the need for a method to assess the various configurations. The fundamental requirement designed into each concept included the functional and operational capability to support a crew of four on a six-month lunar surface mission; however, other conceptual aspects were diverse in comparison. The methodology utilized for this assessment consisted of defining figure of merits, providing relevant information, and establishing a scoring system. In summary, the assessment considered the geometric configuration of each concept to determine the complexity of unloading, handling, mobility, leveling, aligning, mating to other elements, and the accessibility to the lunar surface. In theory, the assessment was designed to derive habitat requirements, potential technology development needs and identify risks associated with living and working on the lunar surface. Although the results were more subjective opposed to objective, the assessment provided insightful observations for further assessments and trade studies of lunar surface habitats. This overall methodology and resulting observations will be describe in detail and illustrative examples will be discussed.

Carpenter, Amanda↗

NASA NTRS2009

Austere Human Missions to Mars

The Design Reference Architecture 5 (DRA 5) is the most recent concept developed by NASA to send humans to Mars in the 2030 time frame using Constellation Program elements. DRA 5 is optimized to meet a specific set of requirements that would provide for a robust exploration program to deliver a new six-person crew at each biennial Mars opportunity and provide for power and infrastructure to maintain a highly capable continuing human presence on Mars. This paper examines an alternate architecture that is scaled back from DRA 5 and might offer lower development cost, lower flight cost, and lower development risk. It is recognized that a mission set using this approach would not meet all the current Constellation Mars mission requirements; however, this 'austere' architecture may represent a minimum mission set that would be acceptable from a science and exploration standpoint. The austere approach is driven by a philosophy of minimizing high risk or high cost technology development and maximizing development and production commonality in order to achieve a program that could be sustained in a flat-funded budget environment. Key features that would enable a lower technology implementation are as follows: using a blunt-body entry vehicle having no deployable decelerators, utilizing aerobraking rather than aerocapture for placing the crewed element into low Mars orbit, avoiding the use of liquid hydrogen with its low temperature and large volume issues, using standard bipropellant propulsion for the landers and ascent vehicle, and using radioisotope surface power systems rather than a nuclear reactor or large area deployable solar arrays. Flat funding within the expected NASA budget for a sustained program could be facilitated by alternating cargo and crew launches for the biennial Mars opportunities. This would result in two assembled vehicles leaving Earth orbit for Mars per Mars opportunity. The first opportunity would send two cargo landers to the Mars surface to preposition a habitat, supplies, and exploration equipment. The next opportunity, two years later, would send to Mars orbit 1) a lander with a Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) and 2) a crewed Mars Transit Habitat with an Orion CEV for Earth return. The following opportunity, two years after the first crew, would go back to cargo-only launches. This alternation of cargo and crew opportunities results in a sustainable launch rate of six Ares V launches every two years. It is notable that four of the six launches per Mars opportunity are identical, build-to-print, Tran-Mars Injection stages. This type of production rate could lend itself well to a COTStype service provider, and would make it feasible to have a live spare in place in the event of a single launch failure.

landers↗

NASA NTRS1998

The Passive Optical Sample Assembly (POSA): I Experiment: First Flight Results and Conclusions

The Passive Optical Sample Assembly-I (POSA-I), part of the Mir Environmental Effects Payload (MEEP), was designed to study the combined effects of contamination, atomic oxygen, ultraviolet radiation, vacuum, thermal cycling, and other constituents of the space environment on spacecraft materials. The MEEP program is a Phase 1 International Space Station Risk Mitigation Experiment. SSP 30258 "Thermal Control Architectural Control Document", section 3.1.2 requires that International Space Station (ISS) external materials meet performance requirements when exposed to the external environment as defined in SSP 30426, "Space Station External Contamination Control Requirements." Contamination control documents call for less than 3 x 10(exp -7) gm/sq cm/yr of molecular contamination on a surface at 300 K at the Prime Measurement Points during quiescent periods and less than 1 x 10(exp-6) gm/sq cm/yr during non-quiescent periods. Assuming a density of 1.0 g/cu cm for the contaminant, this is roughly equivalent to 30-100 A per year. A previous Mir flight experiment (Guillaumon et al. 1991) measured 321-716 A per year. Were this to happen on ISS, the radiators would reach end-of-life properties much sooner than the planned 10 years. Therefore, POSA was proposed to expose ISS-baselined materials (such as Z93 white thermal control paint and chromic acid anodized aluminum) to the Mir environment and determine not only the level of contamination from an orbiting, active space station but also the effect of contamination on thermal optical properties. POSA-I consisted of nearly 400 samples of various candidate materials for ISS. Paint samples flown included Z-93 and YB-71 white thermal control paints and a new inorganic bright yellow paint htat can be utilized for astronaut visual aids.

Zwiener, James M.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mars Surface Habitat Concept Design

An initial Mars Surface Habitat (MSH) concept design study was conducted as part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Habitation Systems Development Office’s effort to inform NASA crewed Mars architecture decisions. The study assessed the unique challenges, risks, and benefits of a surface habitation element within the Mars architecture trade space. The goal of the study was to identify unique functional capabilities necessary to support a crewed mission on the Martian surface, the unique challenges and risks associated with such an architecture, and the areas of further analysis required to make such a mission possible. Continuing NASA’s development and execution of the Moon to Mars lunar surface missions, attention will continue progressing toward the initial crewed Mars mission. To prepare for this, NASA’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD) has established a strategic analysis cycle (SAC) where an architectural trade space is identified and evaluated. Given that the Mars architecture and mission profile are still in this trade space, the architecture and mission considered for this study is SAC21. In addition, reference conceptual designs are being refined for the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) and MSH systems which will enable crew to safely travel to and inhabit the surface of Mars. The NASA Mars architectures trade space includes the use of a Pressurized Rover (PR) to address both crew habitation and mobility needs. This study assesses the use of a dedicated habitat via the MSH and an unpressurized terrain vehicle for crew mobility and exploration in lieu of the PR. Determining the optimum mission architecture will require continued analysis by ESDMD teams and this study is intended to support of such a study. The MSH concept design team aims to explore this area of the Mars habitation trade space, and in doing so, inform and highlight the considerations associated with a MSH in the surface architecture. It is not the intention of this study to make specific habitation or architecture decisions, but instead to provide a habitation element concept compatible with the Mars architecture trade space.

Mars Surface Habitat↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mars Surface Habitat (MSH) Concept Design

Ryan Hughes↗

NASA NTRS2016

Architectural and Behavioral Systems Design Methodology and Analysis for Optimal Habitation in a Volume-Limited Spacecraft for Long Duration Flights

As our human spaceflight missions change as we reach towards Mars, the risk of an adverse behavioral outcome increases, and requirements for crew health, safety, and performance, and the internal architecture, will need to change to accommodate unprecedented mission demands. Evidence shows that architectural arrangement and habitability elements impact behavior. Net habitable volume is the volume available to the crew after accounting for elements that decrease the functional volume of the spacecraft. Determination of minimum acceptable net habitable volume and associated architectural design elements, as mission duration and environment varies, is key to enabling, maintaining, andor enhancing human performance and psychological and behavioral health. Current NASA efforts to derive minimum acceptable net habitable volumes and study the interaction of covariates and stressors, such as sensory stimulation, communication, autonomy, and privacy, and application to internal architecture design layouts, attributes, and use of advanced accommodations will be presented. Furthermore, implications of crew adaptation to available volume as they transfer from Earth accommodations, to deep space travel, to planetary surface habitats, and return, will be discussed.

Human Space Flight↗

NASA NTRS2024

Terrestrial Proving Ground Capabilities Needed for Lunar In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) & Construction Concepts of Operation

Incorporating any new technology or system into a human exploration mission or architecture requires development well in advance of the mission to eliminate technology, cost, and schedule risk concerns. It is often stated that technologies need to be at a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 6, i.e. ‘system/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space)’, by Authority To Proceed (ATP) or by the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) for the mission at the latest. There are two game changing capabilities for sustained human exploration of space that can have a significant effect on the overall exploration architecture and the technologies and systems included in the architecture. The first game changing capability, known as In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), involves the search for, acquisition, and processing of resources on the Moon and Mars into mission consumables and usable products, and the second is the ability to utilize space resources in the construction of roads, structures, and surface infrastructure. ISRU and surface construction capabilities have the potential to greatly reduce the cost and risk of human exploration while enabling sustained lunar surface and commercial operations. However, ISRU and surface construction systems are complex and must operate in extremely harsh environments, with abrasive regolith and pervasive dust, for long-periods of time, with potentially limited opportunities for maintenance and repair by humans. The complexity of these capabilities and operations also means that there are a limited number of companies that can design, build, and operate end-to-end systems on their own. The majority of the technologies being developed for these systems are by small companies and at the component or subsystem level. With the overarching strategy of the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) to enable industry to implement ISRU and surface infrastructure for Artemis and space commercialization, it is therefore important to establish processes and capabilities to promote and foster collaborations among large and small companies involved in ISRU and surface infrastructure development. For ISRU and infrastructure systems and capabilities to be used in Artemis missions and future commercial lunar surface operations, a coordinated framework with virtual/physical integration and testing locations, or ‘Proving Grounds’, needs to be established and operated on a regular basis and open to all. This paper will discuss the ISRU and surface construction near and long-term concepts of operations, and review operations and lessons-learned from the previous ISRU analog field tests. From this information, requirements and capabilities will be proposed to support and enable the integration and testing of ISRU and construction systems with industry, academia, and international agencies, as well as what facilities and organizations could help establish these Proving Grounds.

ISRU↗

NASA NTRS2005

Technology Challenges for Deep-Throttle Cryogenic Engines for Space Exploration

Historically, cryogenic rocket engines have not been used for in-space applications due to their additional complexity, the mission need for high reliability, and the challenges of propellant boil-off. While the mission and vehicle architectures are not yet defined for the lunar and Martian robotic and human exploration objectives, cryogenic rocket engines offer the potential for higher performance and greater architecture/mission flexibility. In-situ cryogenic propellant production could enable a more robust exploration program by significantly reducing the propellant mass delivered to low earth orbit, thus warranting the evaluation of cryogenic rocket engines versus the hypergolic bi-propellant engines used in the Apollo program. A multi-use engine. one which can provide the functionality that separate engines provided in the Apollo mission architecture, is desirable for lunar and Mars exploration missions because it increases overall architecture effectiveness through commonality and modularity. The engine requirement derivation process must address each unique mission application and each unique phase within each mission. The resulting requirements, such as thrust level, performance, packaging, bum duration, number of operations; required impulses for each trajectory phase; operation after extended space or surface exposure; availability for inspection and maintenance; throttle range for planetary descent, ascent, acceleration limits and many more must be addressed. Within engine system studies, the system and component technology, capability, and risks must be evaluated and a balance between the appropriate amount of technology-push and technology-pull must be addressed. This paper will summarize many of the key technology challenges associated with using high-performance cryogenic liquid propellant rocket engine systems and components in the exploration program architectures. The paper is divided into two areas. The first area describes how the mission requirements affect the engine system requirements and create system level technology challenges. An engine system architecture for multiple applications or a family of engines based upon a set of core technologies, design, and fabrication approaches may reduce overall programmatic cost and risk. The engine system discussion will also address the characterization of engine cycle figures of merit, configurations, and design approaches for some in-space vehicle alternatives under consideration. The second area evaluates the component-level technology challenges induced from the system requirements. Component technology issues are discussed addressing injector, thrust chamber, ignition system, turbopump assembly, and valve design for the challenging requirements of high reliability, robustness, fault tolerance, deep throttling, reasonable performance (with respect to weight and specific impulse).

Brown, Kendall K.↗

NASA NTRS2001

2nd Generation RLV Risk Reduction Definition Program: Pratt & Whitney Propulsion Risk Reduction Requirements Program (TA-3 & TA-4)

This is the final report and addresses all of the work performed on this program. Specifically, it covers vehicle architecture background, definition of six baseline engine cycles, reliability baseline (space shuttle main engine QRAS), and component level reliability/performance/cost for the six baseline cycles, and selection of 3 cycles for further study. This report further addresses technology improvement selection and component level reliability/performance/cost for the three cycles selected for further study, as well as risk reduction plans, and recommendation for future studies.

Matlock, Steve↗

NASA NTRS2020

Medical Data Architecture Platform and Recommended Requirements for a Medical Data System for Exploration Missions

The Medical Data Architecture (MDA) project supports the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) risk to minimize or reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes and decrements in performance due to in-flight medical capabilities on human exploration missions. To mitigate this risk, the ExMC MDA project addresses the technical limitations identified in ExMC Gap Med 07: We do not have the capability to comprehensively process medically- relevant information to support medical operations during exploration missions. This gap identifies that the current in-flight medical data management includes a combination of data collection and distribution methods that are minimally integrated with on-board medical devices and systems. Furthermore, there are a variety of data sources and methods of data collection. For an exploration mission, the seamless management of such data will enable a more medically autonomous crew than the current paradigm of medical data management on the International Space Station. ExMC has recognized that in order to make informed decisions about a medical data architecture framework, current methods for medical data management must not only be understood, but an architecture must also be identified that provides the crew with actionable insight to medical conditions. This medical data architecture will provide the necessary functionality to address the challenges of executing a self-contained medical system that approaches crew health care delivery without assistance from ground support. Hence, the products derived from the third MDA prototype development will directly inform exploration medical system requirements for Level of Care IV in Gateway missions. In fiscal year 2019, the MDA project developed Test Bed 3, the third iteration in a series of prototypes, that featured integrations with cognition tool data, ultrasound image analytics and core Flight Software (cFS). Maintaining a layered architecture design, the framework implemented a plug-in, modular approach in the integration of these external data sources. An early version of MDA Test Bed 3 software was deployed and operated in a simulated analog environment that was part of the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) Gateway tests of multiple habitat prototypes. In addition, the MDA team participated in the Gateway Test and Verification Demonstration, where the MDA cFS applications was integrated with Gateway-in-a-Box software to send and receive medically relevant data over a simulated vehicle network. This software demonstration was given to ExMC and Gateway Program stakeholders at the NASA Johnson Space Center Integrated Power, Avionics and Software (iPAS) facility. Also, the integrated prototypes served as a vehicle to provide Level 5 requirements for the Crew Health and Performance Habitat Data System for Gateway Missions (Medical Level of Care IV). In the upcoming fiscal year, the MDA project will continue to provide systems engineering and vertical prototypes to refine requirements for medical Level of Care IV and inform requirements for Level of Care V.

Krihak, M.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Advancing the practice of systems engineering at JPL

In FY 2004, JPL launched an initiative to improve the way it practices systems engineering. The Lab's senior management formed the Systems Engineering Advancement (SEA) Project in order to "significantly advance the practice and organizational capabilities of systems engineering at JPL on flight projects and ground support tasks." The scope of the SEA Project includes the systems engineering work performed in all three dimensions of a program, project, or task: 1. the full life-cycle, i.e., concept through end of operations 2. the full depth, i.e., Program, Project, System, Subsystem, Element (SE Levels 1 to 5) 3. the full technical scope, e.g., the flight, ground and launch systems, avionics, power, propulsion, telecommunications, thermal, etc. The initial focus of their efforts defined the following basic systems engineering functions at JPL: systems architecture, requirements management, interface definition, technical resource management, system design and analysis, system verification and validation, risk management, technical peer reviews, design process management and systems engineering task management, They also developed a list of highly valued personal behaviors of systems engineers, and are working to inculcate those behaviors into members of their systems engineering community. The SEA Project is developing products, services, and training to support managers and practitioners throughout the entire system lifecycle. As these are developed, each one needs to be systematically deployed. Hence, the SEA Project developed a deployment process that includes four aspects: infrastructure and operations, communication and outreach, education and training, and consulting support. In addition, the SEA Project has taken a proactive approach to organizational change management and customer relationship management - both concepts and approaches not usually invoked in an engineering environment. This paper'3 describes JPL's approach to advancing the practice of systems engineering at the Lab. It describes the general approach used and how they addressed the three key aspects of change: people, process and technology. It highlights a list of highly valued personal behaviors of systems engineers, discusses the various products, services and training that were developed, describes the deployment approach used, and concludes with several lessons learned.

process improvement↗

NASA NTRS2018

Collaborative Systems Engineering in the Ascent Abort-2 Crew Module/Separation Ring Project

Generally speaking, systems engineering (SE) tool-sets face a dilemma balancing power and accessibility. High-powered SE tools (MagicDraw, Cradle, Core, etc.) tend to be specialized and are available only to highly trained Systems Engineers, and/or through the use of a 'back room' developer team making the output products available to the broader team. On the other hand, highly accessible tools (MS Word, Excel, etc.) do not have the power to implement SE in a rigorous manner. NASA has to test all aspects of the new human-rated Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle spacecraft prior to its first crewed mission. The test program includes uncrewed launch abort flight tests to demonstrate the capability to save the crew in the event that a launch failure occurs. Orion's second abort flight test will be a low-altitude flight test known as "Ascent Abort 2 (AA-2)." This test is currently scheduled to be carried out at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's Space Launch Complex 46 (SLC-46) in Florida in 2019. NASA's in-house AA-2 Crew Module and Separation Ring (CSR) Team is producing the crew module and separation ring. Operating jointly as both an Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Project and an Orion Project, the CSR project charter includes development of innovative, streamlined and generally more efficient practices for creation of flight hardware and software. One result of this tasking has been development of a collaborative and data-centric systems engineering environment within the team's shared web environment (Microsoft SharePoint). Through the use of built-in, 'out of the box capabilities' present in MS SharePoint, the CSR Systems Engineering team has created (with some limited developer support) a data-centric architecture for the project's SE implementation, including functional and interface analysis, requirements development and management, risk management, verification planning and management, test results, and end item management. Data elements are linked between data structures so as to define and control relationships between item types, link requirements to parents and children, and link tests to the requirements that they verify. The overall project team integration is increased by also linking SE content to project management content over the project life cycle, including team communication, action items, configuration management, decisional and meeting materials, and life cycle reviews. This presentation will provide an overview of the collaborative SE environment, showing how it provides the power for a number of SE tasks while still providing the accessibility and transparency to allow the full project team to collaborate and succeed. Given the project phase, we'll be able to present a nearly full lifecycle discussion, from concept through verification and approaching delivery.

Systems Engineering environments↗

NASA NTRS2020

Lunar Transient Accelerations White Paper

Recently, the United States announced a plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2024 [8]. Lunar landing (and subsequent Mars landing) architecture was not considered when the current NASA standards and vehicle design requirements for crew injury risk were developed. Therefore a gap exists in protecting the crew in planetary landing scenarios. One of the interesting aspects of this design reference mission (DRM)is the consideration of having the crew stand during dynamic phases of flight. Although this approach was contemplated for the Apollo Lunar Module, current NASA standards do not address design solutions that allow the crew to stand. Currently, NASA uses several tools and associated limits to mitigate crew injury because of dynamic loads. Some of these tools are the Brinkley Dynamic Response Criterion (BDRC) model and Hybrid III Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs) [10]; and these have several limitations for assessing spaceflight loading environments, as well as specific underlying assumptions that may not be applicable in planetary landing vehicles. The BDRC is a simple lumped mass parameter model developed by the U.S. military, and has been used primarily to evaluate injury risk associated with aircraft ejection systems. The model evaluates seat accelerations in each axis to determine injury risk. Because the model treats the human-seat-restraint system as a single system, it is contingent on a restraint system and seat with similar characteristics of the original test data underlying the model. In particular, the model requires a rigid seat with a minimum natural frequency of 15Hz, minimal seat pan padding, side supports, and multipoint harness. The BDRC model uses undamped natural frequency and damping coefficients based on these requirements and any deviations may render the model injury predictions void. In lunar landing, one expects that a minimal or even no seat with minimal restraints will be employed. In this case, the original model parameters are likely to not be applicable. For capsule-based spacecraft returning crew to Earth, the Hybrid III ATD in various sizes also is used to supplement the BDRC. This analytical tool was added to address limitations in the BDRC related to spacecraft landings while wearing a pressure garment and helmet. Although the Hybrid III ATD has additional measurement capability; head, neck,and lumbar spine responses were the only metrics included because of the limitations imposed by the model.Lunar landing acceleration limits must assume the crew is standing during landing, an orientation for which we have limited data.Although the Apollo missions did employ a standing orientation for the crew, much of the data is lost. Therefore data from othersources havebeen examined to inform lunar landing acceleration limits.

Jeffrey T Somers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance Integration - the Future of Safe Deep Space Human Exploration

As a foundational element of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Artemis Campaign, the Gateway is an incrementally built cislunar spacecraft that will serve as a platform for deep space human exploration, science, and technology demonstration. The Gateway will be a unifying catalyst for international partners around the world to establish sustained deep space scientific investigations, lunar surface access, and missions to Mars. As human exploration moves farther away from Earth, spacecraft designs must prioritize and optimize mass and volume allocations, while minimizing human and spacecraft risk. To accomplish this objective, the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance functions develop, implement, and ensure compliance with requirements, in concert with the accurate characterization and transparent communication of residual hazard risks, for integrated safety, reliability and maintainability and quality assurance. Safety and Mission Assurance was a key contributor during Gateway program pre-formulation and formulation activities where safety and reliability analysis was embedded in the Gateway Systems Engineering and Integration team. During these early program stages, a preliminary Gateway Integrated Hazard Analysis and Preliminary Gateway Probabilistic Risk Assessment assisted in Gateway architectural and operational definition as part of a risk-informed design process. As the deep space architecture has matured, the integrated Safety and Mission Assurance analyses have matured, new safety review processes have been developed, and requirements have been refined to ensure compliance with integrated safety and mission assurance objectives. The Gateway Program is currently concluding the preliminary design review informed milestone, where the primary objectives included: - Ensured completeness and consistency of the preliminary design, including the meeting of all requirements within appropriate margins and acceptable risk posture. - Identification of any major issues moving forward to the Critical Design phase. At this milestone, Safety and Mission Assurance provided numerous products, including Gateway Top Risks and Risk Mitigation Plans, updated integrated hazard analyses, updated probabilistic risk assessment, Crew Survival Analysis Report, and updated Safety and Mission Assurance Requirements and Plans. These products provide a many-faceted perspective on the inherent risk and available mitigations involved in flying the current proposed vehicle design and anticipated stack configurations. In addition, Safety and Mission Assurance identified top technical, process and workforce concerns to be addressed as the program progresses toward the critical design phase. This paper will detail the evolution of the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance integration functions, provide its current status and lessons learned for future human spaceflight programs. Throughout this paper the key tenets of the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance will be discussed: - Application of a risk-informed approach to identify and mitigate areas of highest risk. - Leverage of valuable processes and lessons learned from earlier spaceflight programs. - Development of Safety and Mission Assurance products to inform design risk trades. - Utilization of common Safety and Mission Assurance practices to identify safety risks for multiple perspectives: top-down, bottom-up, and across lines of integration. - Approval of safety hazards at the appropriate level of authority, keeping most deliberation closest to design expertise and elevating risks of greatest concern for program-level consideration. - Championing of Safety and Mission Assurance processes and forums to foster a pervasive safety culture that is transparent, inclusive, and collaborative between all partners. These tenets have allowed the Gateway Safety and Mission Assurance function to play a key role in optimized vehicle design evolution, and early identification and mitigation of Gateway program and Artemis mission risk.

Helen Vaccaro↗

NASA NTRS2002

Rocket Propellants Engine Design/Operations/Validation

Lockheed Martin Astronautics Operations (LMA) was competitively awarded a contract May 21, 2001 for next generation launch system architecture definition and technology maturation. The Second Generation Launch Vehicle Program objectives include reducing the technical and programmatic risk of proceeding to full scale development of the system by establishing requirements for the next generation launch system and maturing critical technologies needed by the system. LMA will conduct analyses and trades to optimize the architecture ETO elements including configuration, conceptual designs, and preliminary operations definition. To fully understand the engine and propellant trades were conducted by LMA to yield the optimized architecture system from the operability, reliability, safety, and cost perspectives. A government/industry team addressed the required trade studies, the parameters and weighting factors, and the most critical trades were addressed. This report summarizes the participation of JCM Consulting, Inc. in the propellant trade study.

Monk, Jan C.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Streamlining the Design Tradespace for Earth Imaging Constellations

Distributed Spacecraft Missions (DSMs) are gaining momentum in their application to Earth Observation (EO) missions owing to their unique ability to increase observation sampling in spatial, spectral, angular and temporal dimensions simultaneously. DSM design includes a much larger number of variables than its monolithic counterpart, therefore, Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) has been often used for preliminary mission concept designs, to understand the trade-offs and interdependencies among the variables. MBSE models are complex because the various objectives a DSM is expected to achieve are almost always conflicting, non-linear and rarely analytical. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center is developing a pre-Phase A tool called "Trade-space Analysis Tool for Constellations" (TAT-C) to initiate constellation mission design. The tool will allow users to explore the tradespace between various performance, cost and risk metrics (as a function of their science mission) and select Pareto optimal architectures that meet their requirements. This paper focuses on the tradespace search and how it can be streamlined by combining physical rules, as well as well-designed orbit and coverage computations, thus yielding significant speed-ups. Two use cases are shown as representative examples of the utility of TAT-C generated trades, and results are preliminarily validated against AGI's Systems Tool Kit.

Science Data Processing↗

NASA NTRS2018

Instrument Modeling Concepts for Tradespace Analysis of Satellite Constellations

Constellations are gaining popularity in government and commercial space-based missions for Earth Observation (EO) due to their risk tolerance and ability to improve observation sampling in space and time. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is developing a pre-Phase A tool called Tradespace Analysis Tool for Constellations (TAT-C) to initiate constellation mission design. The tool will allow users to explore the tradespace between various performance, cost and risk metrics (as a function of their science mission) and select Pareto optimal architectures that meet their requirements. This paper will describe the concept of modeling the primary science instruments within TAT-C, using a radar as an example, but extendable to imagers, occulters and lidars. The modularity of TAT-C's software architecture allows for crisply defining the interface between TAT-C's user defined or internal variables and the payload variables. The described module will inform TAT-C users of payload-dependent performance differences among thousands of constellation architectures (e.g. revisit time of the sensor swath, differential signal to noise ratio (SNR), spatial resolution of measurements) and allow them to pick an appropriate constellation architecture for detailed development. The module may also inform operational decisions of satellite modes, based on ground optimization or onboard autonomy.

Nag, Sreeja↗