Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Mission Assurance Management”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2012

Improving operations: Metrics to Results

As a result of the mission failure of the Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) spacecraft in 1999, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) initiated the development of a Mission Operations Assurance (MOA) program to be implemented across all flight projects managed by JPL. One of the initiatives undertaken in 2001 was the collection of data on command file errors occurring in the operational phase of the mission. This paper defines command file errors and how and where they occur in the operations process. It also describes the problem reporting system (PRS) in use for mission operations at JPL. We examine the recent modifications to the PRS that enable the collection of metrics, specifically on command file errors. This paper discusses what the data show us since metrics have been collected for the operational missions conducted by JPL. We examine the evolution of an operational working group initiative to evaluate proximate, contributing, and root causes for the errors. As part of this discussion we see what the metrics have indicated over a decade. At the macro level, we can say that the aggregate command file error rate has been cut to roughly one third of the initial 2001 level by the end of 2011. Additionally, we explore efficient and innovative means to continually integrate the findings and recommendations from the working group back into the flight operations environment.

command file errors↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Implementing an Objectives-Driven, Risk-Informed, and Case-Assured Approach to Safety and Mission Success at NASA

NASA is developing a “Standard for Assurance of Space Flight Safety and Mission Success” that implements an objectives-driven, risk-informed, and case-assured approach to safety and mission success (S&MS) for NASA space flight programs and projects. The standard aligns with the philosophy of risk leadership that has recently been established in NASA policy to assure acceptable levels of flight crew safety and mission success risk. It is consistent with existing NASA risk management requirements and is compatible with NASA program management and systems engineering requirements. The methodology described in the standard is presented in terms of an S&MS assurance framework that is designed to allow substantial flexibility in the specific means by which programs and projects achieve acceptable mission S&MS risk. Such flexibility is necessary to accommodate the increasingly broad range of acquisition strategies employed by NASA, including commercial transportation services, as well as to accommodate the increasingly rapid evolution of space flight-related technologies and practices. A key feature of the S&MS assurance framework is the specification of S&MS success criteria for each life-cycle review (LCR). The S&MS assurance case is structured around these criteria, the satisfaction of which indicates that the program/project is adhering to the S&MS risk posture. This enables the evolving S&MS assurance case to be used as a fundamental program/project submittal at each LCR, where its inherent structure of argument, supported by evidence, directly supports the evaluation of the program/project with respect to the S&MS success criteria, and by extension, the S&MS risk posture. As such, the S&MS assurance case is integral to program/project systems engineering, risk management, and S&MS oversight activities, and provides the principal basis for S&MS risk acceptance by the Decision Authority throughout the program/project life cycle.

Risk Posture↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportunities for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamination, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR community will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Planetary Protection↗
NASA NTRS2022

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportunities for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamination, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR community will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Elaine Seasly↗
NASA NTRS2022

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportuni-ties for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Oÿce of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamina-tion, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR com-munity will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Elaine Seasly↗
NASA NTRS2004

Comparing NASA and ESA Cost Estimating Methods for Human Missions to Mars

To compare working methodologies between the cost engineering functions in NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and ESA European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC), as well as to set-up cost engineering capabilities for future manned Mars projects and other studies which involve similar subsystem technologies in MSFC and ESTEC, a demonstration cost estimate exercise was organized. This exercise was a direct way of enhancing not only cooperation between agencies but also both agencies commitment to credible cost analyses. Cost engineers in MSFC and ESTEC independently prepared life-cycle cost estimates for a reference human Mars project and subsequently compared the results and estimate methods in detail. As a non-sensitive, public domain reference case for human Mars projects, the Mars Direct concept was chosen. In this paper the results of the exercise are shown; the differences and similarities in estimate methodologies, philosophies, and databases between MSFC and ESTEC, as well as the estimate results for the Mars Direct concept. The most significant differences are explained and possible estimate improvements identified. In addition, the Mars Direct plan and the extensive cost breakdown structure jointly set-up by MSFC and ESTEC for this concept are presented. It was found that NASA applied estimate models mainly based on historic Apollo and Space Shuttle cost data, taking into account the changes in technology since then. ESA used models mostly based on European satellite and launcher cost data, taking into account the higher equipment and testing standards for human space flight. Most of NASA's and ESA s estimates for the Mars Direct case are comparable, but there are some important, consistent differences in the estimates for: 1) Large Structures and Thermal Control subsystems; 2) System Level Management, Engineering, Product Assurance and Assembly, Integration and Test/Verification activities; 3) Mission Control; 4) Space Agency Program Level activities.

Hunt, Charles D.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Fault Management Architectures and the Challenges of Providing Software Assurance

Fault Management (FM) is focused on safety, the preservation of assets, and maintaining the desired functionality of the system. How FM is implemented varies among missions. Common to most missions is system complexity due to a need to establish a multi-dimensional structure across hardware, software and spacecraft operations. FM is necessary to identify and respond to system faults, mitigate technical risks and ensure operational continuity. Generally, FM architecture, implementation, and software assurance efforts increase with mission complexity. Because FM is a systems engineering discipline with a distributed implementation, providing efficient and effective verification and validation (V&V) is challenging. A breakout session at the 2012 NASA Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) Annual Workshop titled "V&V of Fault Management: Challenges and Successes" exposed this issue in terms of V&V for a representative set of architectures. NASA's Software Assurance Research Program (SARP) has provided funds to NASA IV&V to extend the work performed at the Workshop session in partnership with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). NASA IV&V will extract FM architectures across the IV&V portfolio and evaluate the data set, assess visibility for validation and test, and define software assurance methods that could be applied to the various architectures and designs. This SARP initiative focuses efforts on FM architectures from critical and complex projects within NASA. The identification of particular FM architectures and associated V&V/IV&V techniques provides a data set that can enable improved assurance that a system will adequately detect and respond to adverse conditions. Ultimately, results from this activity will be incorporated into the NASA Fault Management Handbook providing dissemination across NASA, other agencies and the space community. This paper discusses the approach taken to perform the evaluations and preliminary findings from the research.

Fault Management↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

EXCAP-LR: Exploration Capabilities Logistics Reduction

All human space missions require substantial logistical mass and volume. As our exploration missions increase in distance and duration, reduction of these logistics requirements becomes more important. The movement and tracking of logistics between vehicle elements are increasingly recognized as critical to crew efficiency and on-orbit mission assurance. This project targets the best opportunities to demonstrate logistics reduction, repurposing, and efficient tracking and management of logistics. These technologies and innovations will make future exploration missions more affordable. - REALM-3 (RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) Enabled Autonomous Logistics Management) – Hydra (HYper-Distributed RFID Antenna) Smart Stow: receives RFID signal from readers, use very small % of signal to self-power on-board microcontroller and RF switch, multiplex RFID signal to other nodes in a chain or to a multitude of antennas. ISS HYDRA Smart Stow is over-instrumented to allow evaluation of a branched network HYDRA chain. - UWMS (Universal Waste Management System) – provides a compact, lower mass/volume toilet for exploration missions - ACS (Advanced Clothing Systems) – investigates ways to reduce clothing mass and volume directly or through efficiently cleaning them for reuse.

Patrick Fink↗
NASA NTRS1988

Liquid rocket booster study. Volume 2, book 3, appendices 2-5: PPIP, transition plan, AMOS plan, and environmental analysis

This Preliminary Project Implementation Plan (PPIP) was used to examine the feasibility of replacing the current Solid Rocket Boosters on the Space Shuttle with Liquid Rocket Boosters (LRBs). The need has determined the implications of integrating the LRB with the Space Transportation System as the earliest practical date. The purpose was to identify and define all elements required in a full scale development program for the LRB. This will be a reference guide for management of the LRB program, addressing such requirement as design and development, configuration management, performance measurement, manufacturing, product assurance and verification, launch operations, and mission operations support.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2016

Assurance of Fault Management: Risk-Significant Adverse Condition Awareness

Fault Management (FM) systems are ranked high in risk-based assessment of criticality within flight software, emphasizing the importance of establishing highly competent domain expertise to provide assurance for NASA projects, especially as spaceflight systems continue to increase in complexity. Insight into specific characteristics of FM architectures seen embedded within safety- and mission-critical software systems analyzed by the NASA Independent Verification Validation (IVV) Program has been enhanced with an FM Technical Reference (TR) suite. Benefits are aimed beyond the IVV community to those that seek ways to efficiently and effectively provide software assurance to reduce the FM risk posture of NASA and other space missions. The identification of particular FM architectures, visibility, and associated IVV techniques provides a TR suite that enables greater assurance that critical software systems will adequately protect against faults and respond to adverse conditions. The role FM has with regard to overall asset protection of flight software systems is being addressed with the development of an adverse condition (AC) database encompassing flight software vulnerabilities.Identification of potential off-nominal conditions and analysis to determine how a system responds to these conditions are important aspects of hazard analysis and fault management. Understanding what ACs the mission may face, and ensuring they are prevented or addressed is the responsibility of the assurance team, which necessarily should have insight into ACs beyond those defined by the project itself. Research efforts sponsored by NASAs Office of Safety and Mission Assurance defined terminology, categorized data fields, and designed a baseline repository that centralizes and compiles a comprehensive listing of ACs and correlated data relevant across many NASA missions. This prototype tool helps projects improve analysis by tracking ACs, and allowing queries based on project, mission type, domain component, causal fault, and other key characteristics. The repository has a firm structure, initial collection of data, and an interface established for informational queries, with plans for integration within the Enterprise Architecture at NASA IVV, enabling support and accessibility across the Agency. The development of an improved workflow process for adaptive, risk-informed FM assurance is currently underway.

Software Verification & Validation↗
NASA NTRS2015

Fault Management Architectures and the Challenges of Providing Software Assurance

The satellite systems Fault Management (FM) is focused on safety, the preservation of assets, and maintaining the desired functionality of the system. How FM is implemented varies among missions. Common to most is system complexity due to a need to establish a multi-dimensional structure across hardware, software and operations. This structure is necessary to identify and respond to system faults, mitigate technical risks and ensure operational continuity. These architecture, implementation and software assurance efforts increase with mission complexity. Because FM is a systems engineering discipline with a distributed implementation, providing efficient and effective verification and validation (VV) is challenging. A breakout session at the 2012 NASA Independent Verification Validation (IVV) Annual Workshop titled VV of Fault Management: Challenges and Successes exposed these issues in terms of VV for a representative set of architectures. NASA's IVV is funded by NASA's Software Assurance Research Program (SARP) in partnership with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to extend the work performed at the Workshop session. NASA IVV will extract FM architectures across the IVV portfolio and evaluate the data set for robustness, assess visibility for validation and test, and define software assurance methods that could be applied to the various architectures and designs. This work focuses efforts on FM architectures from critical and complex projects within NASA. The identification of particular FM architectures, visibility, and associated VVIVV techniques provides a data set that can enable higher assurance that a satellite system will adequately detect and respond to adverse conditions. Ultimately, results from this activity will be incorporated into the NASA Fault Management Handbook providing dissemination across NASA, other agencies and the satellite community. This paper discusses the approach taken to perform the evaluations and preliminary findings from the research including identification of FM architectures, visibility observations, and methods utilized for VVIVV.

Fault Management↗
NASA NTRS2016

Technical Reference Suite Addressing Challenges of Providing Assurance for Fault Management Architectural Design

Research into complexities of software systems Fault Management (FM) and how architectural design decisions affect safety, preservation of assets, and maintenance of desired system functionality has coalesced into a technical reference (TR) suite that advances the provision of safety and mission assurance. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program, with Software Assurance Research Program support, extracted FM architectures across the IV&V portfolio to evaluate robustness, assess visibility for validation and test, and define software assurance methods applied to the architectures and designs. This investigation spanned IV&V projects with seven different primary developers, a wide range of sizes and complexities, and encompassed Deep Space Robotic, Human Spaceflight, and Earth Orbiter mission FM architectures. The initiative continues with an expansion of the TR suite to include Launch Vehicles, adding the benefit of investigating differences intrinsic to model-based FM architectures and insight into complexities of FM within an Agile software development environment, in order to improve awareness of how nontraditional processes affect FM architectural design and system health management. The identification of particular FM architectures, visibility, and associated IV&V techniques provides a TR suite that enables greater assurance that critical software systems will adequately protect against faults and respond to adverse conditions. Additionally, the role FM has with regard to strengthened security requirements, with potential to advance overall asset protection of flight software systems, is being addressed with the development of an adverse conditions database encompassing flight software vulnerabilities. Capitalizing on the established framework, this TR suite provides assurance capability for a variety of FM architectures and varied development approaches. Research results are being disseminated across NASA, other agencies, and the software community. This paper discusses the findings and TR suite informing the FM domain in best practices for FM architectural design, visibility observations, and methods employed for IV&V and mission assurance.

Fitz, Rhonda↗
NASA NTRS2007

Full Life-Cycle Defect Management Assessment: Initial Inspection Data Collection Results and Research Questions for Further Study

It is often the case in software projects that when schedule and budget resources are limited, the Verification and Validation (V&V) activities suffer. Fewer V&V activities can be afforded and moreover, short-term challenges can result in V&V activities being scaled back or dropped altogether. As a result, too often the default solution is to save activities for improving software quality until too late in the life-cycle, relying on late-term code inspections followed by thorough testing activities to reduce defect counts to acceptable levels. As many project managers realize, however, this is a resource-intensive way of achieving the required quality for software. The Full Life-cycle Defect Management Assessment Initiative, funded by NASA s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance under the Software Assurance Research Program, aims to address these problems by: Improving the effectiveness of early life-cycle V&V activities to make their benefits more attractive to team leads. Specifically, we focus on software inspection, a proven method that can be applied to any software work product, long before executable code has been developed; Better communicating this effectiveness to software development teams, along with suggestions for parameters to improve in the future to increase effectiveness; Analyzing the impact of early life-cycle V&V on the effectiveness and cost required for late life-cycle V&V activities, such as testing, in order to make the tradeoffs more apparent. This white paper reports on an initial milestone in this work, the development of a preliminary model of inspection effectiveness across multiple NASA Centers. This model contributes toward reaching our project goals by: Allowing an examination of inspection parameters, across different types of projects and different work products, for an analysis of factors that impact defect detection effectiveness. Allowing a comparison of this NASA-specific model to existing recommendations in the literature regarding how to plan effective inspections. Forming a baseline model which can be extended to incorporate factors describing: the numbers and types of defects that are missed by inspections; how such defects flow downstream through software development phases; how effectively they can be caught by testing activities in the late stages of development. The model has been implemented in a prototype web-enabled decision-support tool which allows developers to enter their inspection data and receive feedback based on a comparison against the model. The tool also allows users to access reusable materials (such as checklists) from projects included in the baseline. Both the tool itself and the model underlying it will continue to be extended throughout the remainder of this initiative. As results of analyzing inspection effectiveness for defect containment are determined, they can be shared via the tool and also via updates to existing training courses on metrics and software inspections. Moreover, the tool will help satisfy key CMMI requirements for the NASA Centers, as it will enable NASA to take a global view across peer review results for various types of projects to identify systemic problems. This analysis can result in continuous improvements to the approach to verification.

Shull, Forrest↗
NASA NTRS2002

Engineering Management Capstone Project EM 697: Compare and Contrast Risk Management Implementation at NASA and the US Army

NASA at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and the U.S. Army at Redstone Arsenal were analyzed to determine whether they were successful in implementing their risk management program. Risk management implementation surveys were distributed to aid in this analysis. The scope is limited to NASA S&MA (Safety and Mission Assurance) at MSFC, including applicable support contractors, and the US Army Engineering Directorate, including applicable contractors, located at Redstone Arsenal. NASA has moderately higher risk management implementation survey scores than the Army. Accordingly, the implementation of the risk management program at NASA is considered good while only two of five of the survey categories indicated that the risk management implementation is good at the Army.

Brothers, Mary Ann↗
NASA NTRS2003

Academy Sharing Knowledge (ASK). The NASA Source for Project Management Magazine, Volume 11, March 2003

APPL is a research-based organization that serves NASA program and project managers, as well as project teams, at every level of development. In 1997, APPL was created from an earlier program to underscore the importance that NASA places on project management and project teams through a wide variety of products and services, including knowledge sharing, classroom and online courses, career development guidance, performance support, university partnerships, and advanced technology tools. ASK Magazine grew out of APPL's Knowledge Sharing Initiative. The stories that appear in ASK are written by the 'best of the best' project managers, primarily from NASA, but also from other government agencies and industry. Contributors to this issue include: Teresa Bailey, a librarian at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Roy Malone, Deputy Director in the Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Office at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), W. Scott Cameron, Capital Systems Manager for the Food and Beverage Global Business Unit of Procter and Gamble, Ray Morgan, recent retiree as Vice President of AeroVironment, Inc., Marty Davis, Program Manager of the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, Maryland, Todd Post, editor of ASK Magazine, and works for EduTech Ltd. in Silver Spring, Maryland, Dr. Owen Gadeken, professor of Engineering Management at the Defense Acquisition University, Ken Schwer, currently the Project Manager of Solar Dynamics Observatory, Dr. Edward Hoffmwan, Director of the NASA Academy of Program and Project Leadership, Frank Snow, a member of the NASA Explorer Program at Goddard Space Flight Center since 1992, Dr. Alexander Laufer, Editor-in-Chief of ASK Magazine and a member of the Advisory Board of the NASA Academy of Program and Project Leadership, Judy Stokley, presently Air Force Program Executive Officer for Weapons in Washington, D.C. and Terry Little, Director of the Kinetic Energy Boost Office of the Missile Defense Agency.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2013

Visit from JAXA to NASA MSFC: The Engines Element & Ideas for Collaboration

System Design, Development, and Fabrication: Design, develop, and fabricate or procure MB-60 component hardware compliant with the imposed technical requirements and in sufficient quantities to fulfill the overall MB-60 development effort. System Development, Assembly, and Test: Manage the scope of the development, assembly, and test-related activities for MB-60 development. This scope includes engine-level development planning, engine assembly and disassembly, test planning, engine testing, inspection, anomaly resolution, and development of necessary ground support equipment and special test equipment. System Integration: Provide coordinated integration in the realms of engineering, safety, quality, and manufacturing disciplines across the scope of the MB-60 design and associated products development Safety and Mission Assurance, structural design, fracture control, materials and processes, thermal analysis. Systems Engineering and Analysis: Manage and perform Systems Engineering and Analysis to provide rigor and structure to the overall design and development effort for the MB-60. Milestone reviews, requirements management, system analysis, program management support Program Management: Manage, plan, and coordinate the activities across all portions of the MB-60 work scope by providing direction for program administration, business management, and supplier management.

Greene, William D.↗
NASA NTRS2010

GSFC Safety and Mission Assurance Organization

This viewgraph presentation reviews NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's approach to safety and mission assurance. The contents include: 1) NASA GSFC Background; 2) Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate; 3) The Role of SMA-D and the Technical Authority; 4) GSFC Mission assurance Requirements; 5) GSFC Systems Review Office (SRO); 6) GSFC Supply Chain Management Program; and 7) GSFC ISO9001/AS9100 Status Brief.

Kelly, Michael P.↗