Model-Based Mission Assurance
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Radiation Hardness Assurance↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Mission 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.
Systems Engineering and Assurance Modeling (SEAM): A Web-Based Solution for Integrated Mission Assurance
We present an overview of the Systems Engineering and Assurance Modeling (SEAM) platform, a web-browser-based tool which is designed to help engineers evaluate the radiation vulnerabilities and develop an assurance approach for electronic parts in space systems. The SEAM framework consists of three interconnected modeling tools, a SysML compatible system description tool, a Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) visual argument tool, and Bayesian Net and Fault Tree extraction and export tools. The SysML and GSN sections also have a coverage check application that ensures that every radiation fault identified on the SysML side is also addressed in the assurance case in GSN. The SEAM platform works on space systems of any degree of radiation hardness but is especially helpful for assessing radiation performance in systems with commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) electronic components.
SEAM↗
Adaptive Mission Assurance (AMA) for NASA High Risk Tolerant, Constraints-Driven Missions
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Vicky Hwa↗
Mission assurance at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
mission assurance↗
NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance
No abstract available
Office of Safety and Mission Assurance↗
Integrating Safety and Mission Assurance into Systems Engineering Modeling Practices
During the early development of products, flight, or experimental hardware, emphasis is often given to the identification of technical requirements, utilizing such tools as use case and activity diagrams. Designers and project teams focus on understanding physical and performance demands and challenges. It is typically only later, during the evaluation of preliminary designs that a first pass, if performed, is made to determine the process, safety, and mission quality assurance requirements. Evaluation early in the life cycle, though, can yield requirements that force a fundamental change in design. This paper discusses an alternate paradigm for using the concepts of use case or activity diagrams to identify safety hazard and mission quality assurance risks and concerns using the same systems engineering modeling tools being used to identify technical requirements. It contains two examples of how this process might be used in the development of a space flight experiment, and the design of a Human Powered Pizza Delivery Vehicle, along with the potential benefits to decrease development time, and provide stronger budget estimates.
Requirements↗
Technology and Tool Development to Support Safety and Mission Assurance
The Assurance Case approach is being adopted in a number of safety-mission-critical application domains in the U.S., e.g., medical devices, defense aviation, automotive systems, and, lately, civil aviation. This paradigm refocuses traditional, process-based approaches to assurance on demonstrating explicitly stated assurance goals, emphasizing the use of structured rationale, and concrete product-based evidence as the means for providing justified confidence that systems and software are fit for purpose in safely achieving mission objectives. NASA has also been embracing assurance cases through the concepts of Risk Informed Safety Cases (RISCs), as documented in the NASA System Safety Handbook, and Objective Hierarchies (OHs) as put forth by the Agency's Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA). This talk will give an overview of the work being performed by the SGT team located at NASA Ames Research Center, in developing technologies and tools to engineer and apply assurance cases in customer projects pertaining to aviation safety. We elaborate how our Assurance Case Automation Toolset (AdvoCATE) has not only extended the state-of-the-art in assurance case research, but also demonstrated its practical utility. We have successfully developed safety assurance cases for a number of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) operations, which underwent, and passed, scrutiny both by the aviation regulator, i.e., the FAA, as well as the applicable NASA boards for airworthiness and flight safety, flight readiness, and mission readiness. We discuss our efforts in expanding AdvoCATE capabilities to support RISCs and OHs under a project recently funded by OSMA under its Software Assurance Research Program. Finally, we speculate on the applicability of our innovations beyond aviation safety to such endeavors as robotic, and human spaceflight.
Mission Assuranc↗
Safety and Mission Assurance: A NASA Perspective
Manned spaceflight is an incredibly complex and inherently risky human endeavor. As the result of the lessons learned through years of triumph and tragedy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has embraced a comprehensive and integrated approach to the challenge of ensuring safety and mission success. This presentation will provide an overview of some of the techniques employed in this effort, with a focus on the processing operations performed at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC).
comprehensive↗
Human factors in mission assurance
Space projects rely completely on people for development and implementation - but project-related risk list rarely include human factors as significant sources of risk. The paper notes mitigation techniques for risks associated with the human factors - readers are encouraged to come up with as many mitigation strategies as possible, and share them with each other.
human factors mission assurance risk management↗
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↗
Risk Classification and Risk-based Safety and Mission Assurance
Recent activities to revamp and emphasize the need to streamline processes and activities for Class D missions across the agency have led to various interpretations of Class D, including the lumping of a variety of low-cost projects into Class D. Sometimes terms such as Class D minus are used. In this presentation, mission risk classifications will be traced to official requirements and definitions as a measure to ensure that projects and programs align with the guidance and requirements that are commensurate for their defined risk posture. As part of this, the full suite of risk classifications, formal and informal will be defined, followed by an introduction to the new GPR 8705.4 that is currently under review.GPR 8705.4 lays out guidance for the mission success activities performed at the Classes A-D for NPR 7120.5 projects as well as for projects not under NPR 7120.5. Furthermore, the trends in stepping from Class A into higher risk posture classifications will be discussed. The talk will conclude with a discussion about risk-based safety and mission assuranceat GSFC.
Risk Management↗
Space Launch System (SLS) Safety, Mission Assurance, and Risk Mitigation
SLS Driving Objectives: I. Safe: a) Human-rated to provide safe and reliable systems for human missions. b) Protecting the public, NASA workforce, high-value equipment and property, and the environment from potential harm. II. Affordable: a) Maximum use of common elements and existing assets, infrastructure, and workforce. b) Constrained budget environment. c) Competitive opportunities for affordability on-ramps. III. Sustainable: a) Initial capability: 70 metric tons (t), 2017-2021. 1) Serves as primary transportation for Orion and exploration missions. 2) Provides back-up capability for crew/cargo to ISS. b) Evolved capability: 105 t and 130 t, post-2021. 1) Offers large volume for science missions and payloads. 2) Modular and flexible, right-sized for mission requirements.
May, Todd↗
Mission Assurance and Residual Risk: The Performance Verification Challenge for Technology Infusion
This poster to the IPPW-14 addresses the challenges in mission infusion of new technology and provides recommendations.
Risk↗
Lunar Regenerative Fuel Cell (RFC) Reliability Testing for Assured Mission Success
NASA's Constellation program has selected the closed cycle hydrogen oxygen Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) Regenerative Fuel Cell (RFC) as its baseline solar energy storage system for the lunar outpost and manned rover vehicles. Since the outpost and manned rovers are "human-rated," these energy storage systems will have to be of proven reliability exceeding 99 percent over the length of the mission. Because of the low (TRL=5) development state of the closed cycle hydrogen oxygen PEM RFC at present, and because there is no equivalent technology base in the commercial sector from which to draw or infer reliability information from, NASA will have to spend significant resources developing this technology from TRL 5 to TRL 9, and will have to embark upon an ambitious reliability development program to make this technology ready for a manned mission. Because NASA would be the first user of this new technology, NASA will likely have to bear all the costs associated with its development.When well-known reliability estimation techniques are applied to the hydrogen oxygen RFC to determine the amount of testing that will be required to assure RFC unit reliability over life of the mission, the analysis indicates the reliability testing phase by itself will take at least 2 yr, and could take up to 6 yr depending on the number of QA units that are built and tested and the individual unit reliability that is desired. The cost and schedule impacts of reliability development need to be considered in NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) plans, since life cycle testing to build meaningful reliability data is the only way to assure "return to the moon, this time to stay, then on to Mars" mission success.
Bents, David J.↗
Lunar RFC Reliability Testing for Assured Mission Success
NASA's Constellation program has selected the closed cycle hydrogen oxygen Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) regenerative Fuel Cell (RFC) as its baseline solar energy storage system for the lunar outpost and manned rover vehicles. Since the outpost and manned rovers are "human-rated", these energy storage systems will have to be of proven reliability exceeding 99 percent over the length of the mission. Because of the low (TRL=5) development state of the closed cycle hydrogen oxygen PEM RFC at present, and because there is no equivalent technology base in the commercial sector from which to draw or infer reliability information from, NASA will have to spend significant resources developing this technology from TRL 5 to TRL 9, and will have to embark upon an ambitious reliability development program to make this technology ready for a manned mission. Because NASA would be the first user of this new technology, NASA will likely have to bear all the costs associated with its development. When well-known reliability estimation techniques are applied to the hydrogen oxygen RFC to determine the amount of testing that will be required to assure RFC unit reliability over life of the mission, the analysis indicates the reliability testing phase by itself will take at least 2 yr, and could take up to 6 yr depending on the number of QA units that are built and tested and the individual unit reliability that is desired. The cost and schedule impacts of reliability development need to be considered in NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) plans, since life cycle testing to build meaningful reliability data is the only way to assure "return to the moon, this time to stay, then on to Mars" mission success.
Bents, David J.↗
Reliability analysis in the Office of Safety, Environmental, and Mission Assurance (OSEMA)
The technical personnel in the SEMA office are working to provide the highest degree of value-added activities to their support of the NASA Langley Research Center mission. Management perceives that reliability analysis tools and an understanding of a comprehensive systems approach to reliability will be a foundation of this change process. Since the office is involved in a broad range of activities supporting space mission projects and operating activities (such as wind tunnels and facilities), it was not clear what reliability tools the office should be familiar with and how these tools could serve as a flexible knowledge base for organizational growth. Interviews and discussions with the office personnel (both technicians and engineers) revealed that job responsibilities ranged from incoming inspection to component or system analysis to safety and risk. It was apparent that a broad base in applied probability and reliability along with tools for practical application was required by the office. A series of ten class sessions with a duration of two hours each was organized and scheduled. Hand-out materials were developed and practical examples based on the type of work performed by the office personnel were included. Topics covered were: Reliability Systems - a broad system oriented approach to reliability; Probability Distributions - discrete and continuous distributions; Sampling and Confidence Intervals - random sampling and sampling plans; Data Analysis and Estimation - Model selection and parameter estimates; and Reliability Tools - block diagrams, fault trees, event trees, FMEA. In the future, this information will be used to review and assess existing equipment and processes from a reliability system perspective. An analysis of incoming materials sampling plans was also completed. This study looked at the issues associated with Mil Std 105 and changes for a zero defect acceptance sampling plan.
Kauffmann, Paul J.↗