Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “policy directives”

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

The Artemis Challenge: Another Revolution in Structural Dynamics

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on an exciting evolution in human exploration and spaceflight. Space Policy Directive (SPD) 1 provides the overarching narrative for returning humans to the Moon and then to Mars. We are challenged to “Lead an innovative and sustainable program with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations…” Here we explore some of the key technical challenges that this new era of human exploration brings with a focus on the challenges and opportunities in the structural dynamics discipline.

Structural Dynamics↗

NASA’s Initial and Sustained Artemis Human Landing Systems

On March 26, 2019, in keeping with President Trump’s Space Policy Directive-1, Vice President Pence charged NASA with landing the first woman and the next man on the South Pole of the Moon by 2024, followed by a sustained presence on and around the Moon by 2028. NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) Program is responsible for the final mode of transportation in deep space that will carry humans to and from the surface of the Moon, to be designed and developed by American companies for NASA’s Artemis lunar exploration program. This paper examines the approach for Artemis human landing systems for both the initial missions and future sustained missions. While achieving the 2024 goal requires a focus on speed and the use of mature technologies, planning toward sustained operations to and from the lunar surface requires a focus on reliability and reusability. The two approaches, however, are not mutually exclusive, as demonstrated by the HLS prime contractors’ integrated lander system proposals. On April 30, 2020, NASA announced that Blue Origin of Kent, Washington, Dynetics (a Leidos company) of Huntsville, Alabama, and SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, were the awardees for NASA’s Human Landing System contracts under Appendix H of the NextSTEP-2 Broad Agency Announcement. The companies began work in a 10-month base period during which NASA teams worked with the companies to streamline the review of required products and to share the agency’s expertise in human spaceflight systems development. Following the base period, NASA will determine which company or companies will develop the human landers for the initial missions, including the 2024 landing, and which companies will develop landers for future sustained missions toward the end of the decade.

HLS↗

Overview of a NASA Centennial Challenges Prize Competition to Address Crew Nutritional Needs for Long-Duration Space Exploration Missions

Historically, competitions and prizes such as those executed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Centennial Challenges (CC) program have created broader avenues through which to spur innovation from unlikely sources. In 2005, Congress amended the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to authorize NASA to create challenges through which prizes could be awarded to United States citizens or entities that succeeded in meeting challenge objectives. Over the past 15 years, the CC program has initiated more than 20 challenges in a variety of technology areas, including: propulsion, robotics, communications and navigation, human health, science instrumentation, nanotech, materials/structures and aerodynamics. This paper provides the background, status and ongoing plans by NASA’s CC program in developing a Deep Space Food Challenge (formerly the Lunar Nutrition Challenge) as one approach to fulfilling Space Policy Directive 1 (To the Moon, then Mars”).

Centennial Challenges↗

NASA's Initial and Sustained Artemis Human Landing Systems

On March 26, 2019, in keeping with President Trump’s Space Policy Directive-1, Vice President Pence charged NASA with landing the first woman and the next man on the South Pole of the Moon by 2024, followed by a sustained presence on and around the Moon by2028. NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) Program is responsible for the final mode of transportation in deep space that will carry humans to and from the surface of the Moon, to be designed and developed by American companies for NASA’s Artemis lunar exploration program. This paper examines the approach for Artemis human landing systems for both the initial missions and future sustained missions. While achieving the 2024 goal requires a focus on speed and the use of mature technologies, planning toward sustained operations to and from the lunar surface requires a focus on reliability and reusability. The two approaches, however, are not mutually exclusive, as demonstrated by the HLS prime contractors’ integrated lander system proposals. On April 30, 2020, NASA announced that Blue Origin of Kent, Washington, Dynetics (a Leidos company) of Huntsville, Alabama, and SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, were the awardees for NASA’s Human Landing System contracts under Appendix H of the NextSTEP-2 Broad Agency Announcement. The companies began work in a 10-month base period during which NASA teams worked with the companies to streamline the review of required products and to share the agency’s expertise in human spaceflight systems development. Following the base period, NASA will determine which companies will develop the human landers for the initial missions, including the 2024 landing, and which companies will develop landers for future sustained missions toward the end of the decade.

Lisa Watson-Morgan↗

Exploration Capabilities Data Analysis: An Integrated Approach

In preparation for humanity’s return to the Moon, it is necessary to advance technologies and capabilities that will allow for human sustainability on the lunar surface, as well as on eventual missions to send humans to Mars. Guided by Space Policy Directive-1 and through the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) Artemis program, the advancement and development of technologies on the lunar surface will be leveraged towards technologies and knowledge needed for humans to successfully and safely go to Mars and return. In order to understand the capability needs for lunar and Mars missions, the Capabilities Integration Team identifies integration approaches and overlaps between missions to develop strategies for advancing key capabilities that support those needs. Since 2013, the Capabilities Integration Team has reached out to subject matter experts, principal technologists, and system capability leadership teams throughout NASA to gather information about the critical technologies and capabilities needed in order to support the lunar and Mars exploration missions. To properly gather this data, the Capabilities Integration Team used a capability-driven approach to identify gaps between the current state of the art and the needs of proposed exploration missions, as well as activities that may close those gaps. These inputs are used to shape technology investment strategies and are incorporated in missions to the lunar and Mars surfaces. Data collected included: gap definitions and identifying information; gap closure information and metrics for success; mapping of gaps to elements of NASA's Artemis program and future exploration architecture. . The data collected, specifically from the technology gap list, has been used to support the NASA Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution processes, as well as the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate Strategic Technology Plans. This paper discusses the integration approach used by the Capabilities Integration Team to identify current capability gaps for the Moon to Mars architecture and what capabilities exist or must be developed to support those architecture needs. In addition, this paper also details the performance, gap characterization, current capability gap closure opportunities, and risk impacts towards Artemis, and the overall Moon to Mars architecture.

Gregory Benjamin↗

Principles for a Practical Moon Base

NASA planning for the human space flight frontier is now coming into alignment with goals promoted by other planetary-capable national space agencies. US policy aims to achieve the “horizon goal” of Humans to Mars through significant learning about systems, operations, and partnerships in the cislunar and lunar-surface environment first. US Space Policy Directive 1 made this shift explicit: “the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations”. The stage is now set for sufficient public and private American investment in a wide range of lunar activities. Assumptions about Moon base architectures and operations are likely to drive the invention of requirements that will in turn govern development of systems, commercial-services purchase agreements, and priorities for technology investment. Yet some fundamental architecture-shaping lessons already captured in the literature are not evident drivers, and remain absent from most depictions of lunar base concepts. A prime example is general failure to recognize that most of the time (i.e., before and between intermittent human occupancy), a Moon base must be robotic: most of the activity, most of the time, must be implemented by robot agents rather than astronauts. This paper reviews key findings of a seminal robotic-base design-operations analysis commissioned by NASA in 1989. It culminates by discussing implications of these lessons for today’s Moon Village and SPD-1 paradigms: exploration by multiple actors; public-private partnership development and operations; cislunar infrastructure; production-quantity exploitation of volatile resources near the poles to bootstrap further space activities; autonomy capability that was frontier in 1989 but now routine within terrestrial industry. We need to engineer today’s generation of practical, justifiable, and inspirational Moon base concepts.

Sherwood, Brent↗

NASA’s Artemis Human Landing Systems: Enabling Lunar Exploration

On March 26, 2019, in keeping with Space Policy Directive-1, NASA was charged with landing the first woman and the next man on the South Pole of the Moon by 2024, followed by a sustained presence on and around the Moon by 2028. NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) Program is responsible for the transportation in deep space to carry humans to and from the surface of the Moon, to be designed and developed by American companies for NASA’s Artemis lunar exploration program. On April 30, 2020, NASA announced the awardees for NASA’s Human Landing System contracts under Appendix H of the NextSTEP-2 Broad Agency Announcement: A Blue Origin-led team including Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, and Draper; Dynetics (a Leidos company); and SpaceX. The companies began work in a multi-month base period during which NASA teams will work with the companies to streamline requirements, to establish standards and methods, to review required products and to share the NASA’s expertise in human spaceflight systems development. Following the base period, which ends in the spring of 2021, NASA will determine which company or companies will develop Artemis human landing systems for the initial demonstration missions, including the goal of landing on the Moon in 2024.This paper examines how the Human Landing System program is at the center of NASA’s Artemis lunar exploration program, designed to yield groundbreaking science, develop and utilize lunar surface resources and leverage the Moon as a proving ground for future Mars missions. While achieving the 2024 goal requires a focus on speed and the use of mature technologies, planning toward sustained operations to and from the lunar surface requires a focus on reliability and reusability.

Lisa Watson-Morgan↗

Probabilistic Modeling of a Three-Stage Human Landing System Architecture

Space Policy Directive-1 has led to NASA partnerships with commercial entities on procurement which includes the development of the Human Landing System (HLS) [1]. With the goal of delivering human crew to the lunar surface by 2024, system uncertainties become an important obstacle to the maturation of multiple new, driving technologies and mission concepts of the HLS program. As unmitigated uncertainties have previously led to failed development programs, these risks and their impacts must be understood and handled to ensure program success [2]. Sources of uncertainty include novel engine designs and configurations, increased reliance on cryogenic fluid management(CFM), and refueling technologies—which propagate as high-level performance metrics such as overall propellant mass and engine performance. Also, the occurrence of operational uncertainties—e.g. launch conditions or need to abort during the mission—can cause cascading effects on the rest of the mission that are difficult to definitively quantify, and are outside the scope of control. These concrete examples and other occurrences can be categorized as either epistemic or aleatory uncertainties.Epistemic uncertainty arises due to a lack of knowledge and can be alleviated with design and program maturation. Aleatory uncertainty is due to the inherent randomness of the system and cannot be directly reduced, unlike epistemic uncertainty. Robust design and probabilistic methods can compensate for aleatory effects. A taxonomy of uncertainty is referred to for this work [3]. In this paper, a probabilistic methodology to handle uncertainties has been demonstrated on a three-element HLS concept [1, 4], which allows tracking of current best estimates of the concept and assessment of concept design robustness against uncertainties. A sample case has been completed for this abstract, and an expansion on the methodology will be included in the final paper. This methodology has two key parts: first, the creation of a dynamic architecture model of a three-element HLS concept; and second, its use with surrogate modeling and range estimating techniques to capture and propagate uncertainties. This abstract will cover the basics of the approach used, and further details and justifications will be in the final paper.The mission profile associated with this three-element concept (Fig 1) was modeled as a set of mission events that facilitated mass changes, idles, or spacecraft maneuvers. The mission profile scope starts with each element’s NRHO orbit insertion and aggregation and ends at post-sortie rendezvous with Orion. More detail on the mission profile will be in the final paper. The DYnamic Rocket EQuation Tool (DYREQT), a space systems synthesis and sizing framework used by NASA, was used as the physics framework to model the HLS architecture for applying the probabilistic methodology [5, 6]. Specifically, a parametric representation of the lander, ascent, and transfer elements and the mission profile of each element was established, with vehicle and mission parameters available as inputs to allow for a dynamic model. Each vehicle stage was modeled with high-level performance metrics, using Isp and propellant mass fraction (PMF) to remain parametric. For the probabilistic analysis, uncertainties of interest within the HLS concept were enumerated and represented as parameters within the DYREQT model as inputs for vehicle stages or mission profile events. These parameters were frozen at their nominal values for the purposes of baselining architecture performance and sizing the vehicle appropriately based on reference documentation [1]. Range estimating—a probabilistic method that combines Monte Carlo sampling, focus on critical parameters, and heuristics to assess risk and opportunities—is traditionally used with Mass Equipment Lists (MELs), but has been adapted with operational parameters as well as vehicle parameters in theDYREQT model to capture mission uncertainty alongside vehicle uncertainty [7, 3]. This method was selected due to its application and insight on a system from a bottom-up perspective, independence from historical rules of thumb, and ability to generate sensitivities based on design decisions and uncertainties. As a sample case for the abstract, the boiloff rates of the vehicle elements and the loiter times during the mission (simulating launch time variations and changing window of opportunities) were used with range estimating to provide preliminary results. To perform the range estimation portion of this methodology (depicted in Fig. 3, further details in final paper), the DYREQT model was sampled using a Design of Experiments (DoE) to efficiently explore the architecture design space with respect to the sample set of uncertainty parameters; 5,000 cases via Latin Hypercube Sampling were computed on the DYREQT architecture model. Then, the results were used to create surrogate models, multivariate regressions that can visualize hypercube trends in the design space, of the architecture with respect to the uncertainty parameters. Range estimating was applied to the surrogates instead of the actual models, which saves computational expense due to the bulk of cases needed for the Monte Carlo simulation as part of range estimating. Uncertainty parameters were sampled independently from triangular distributions using the DoE ranges as ‘min’ and ‘max’, and the nominal value as ‘most likely’. Based engineering intuition, some uncertainty parameters are correlated—e.g. if the main propellant has a high boil-off rate, the oxidizer should follow suit as both are related to CFM technology.While a Monte Carlo simulation samples all inputs as independent, the results would show model correlations; thus, it is efficient to sample the inputs as correlated. Using a correlation matrix constructed for the uncertainty parameters, previously independent samples were transformed to perform a Correlated Monte Carlo. A table for the DoE ranges and probability distribution parameters is shown in Table 1, and more details on Correlated Monte Carlo Simulations will be discussed in the final paper. The model’s resulting DoE showed that multivariate polynomial equations fit via least squares method captured its behavior accurately for the sample case. For the Correlated Monte Carlo Simulation, a positive correlation between fuel and oxidizer boiloff rates was used as a demonstration. 10,000 cases were computed with the surrogates and the launched masses for each vehicle element was collated. The results can be displayed in a probability density function (PDF), showing the impact of the uncertainty parameters chosen. Integrating the PDFs will yield a cumulative distribution function (CDF) that shows the cumulative probability of a given value on the x-axis. For the sample case, the elements’ launch mass margin was calculated and represented in as CDFs, as a demonstrated representation of figures of merit for the HLS concept. For the lander and ascent elements, the NRHO mass insertion limit is 16t; the transfer element has a limit of 30t [1]. It can be seen with Figure 2 that this probabilistic methodology can provide insight into mass margin with respect to the uncertainties being modeled. Currently, the results show that the lander (descent) vehicle element has the most restrictive design space; it is the only element to show a 10% probability of negative margin. Further analysis on the Monte Carlo results will show sensitivities for driving constraints and parameters for architecture feasibility, which can lead to establishing potential mission rules.The combination of range estimating with a parametric architecture model for HLS demonstrated the capability of this probabilistic methodology in a sample case. As the HLS development progresses, this methodology has the potential for keeping current best estimates of architecture performance for awarded concepts due to the flexibility in DYREQT’s modeling framework and its parametric nature. Concept maturation and increased epistemic knowledge can be injected into the model probabilistic modeling, and thus continue to track probability of mission success.

Stephanie Y Zhu↗

Off Earth Landing and Launch Pad Construction – A Critical Technology for Establishing a Long-Term Presence on Extraterrestrial Surfaces

Space Policy Directive 1 has refocused the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization. A long-term presence on the moon will require numerous lunar landings and launches to build up surface assets, rotate crew, and deliver resources to/from the moon. Interactions between landing/launch plumes and the unprepared surface cause regolith to be eroded and ejected at high velocities from beneath the vehicle. The associated ejecta elevates mission risks by obscuring sensors and human vision during landing; cratering/modifying the surface that the vehicle will land upon; and subjecting the vehicle, surrounding assets, and potentially orbital assets to impacts from high velocity dust particles. A method to mitigate risks stemming from landing/launch plume ejecta is to construct reusable landing/launch pads. A landing/launch pad can provide a known landing/launch surface, minimize ejecta, protect assets from liberated particles, and provide protection in case of a landing/launch anomaly. This presentation will summarize previous work towards construction of off-Earth landing/launch pads and identify key technology gaps. Additionally, this presentation establishes metrics for comparison of pad construction technologies and trades current approaches. The overall objective of this paper is to baseline the state of the art of off-Earth landing/launch pad construction technologies and serve as the starting point for further technical development.

Landing & Launch Pad↗

NASA Centennial Challenges Deep Space Food Challenge Competition to Incentivize Innovation in Food Systems for Long-Duration Space Exploration Missions

The Centennial Challenges (CC) program, currently part of NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), is one of the vehicles NASA uses to develop and execute public prize competitions. Since opening its first challenge in 2005, the CC program has initiated more than 20 challenges in a variety of technology areas. This paper provides the background, development and execution of the Deep Space Food Challenge as one approach to fulfilling NASA’s Space Policy Directive 1 (“To the Moon, then Mars”). Specifics about the CC program’s accomplishments will also be discussed. The Deep Space Food Challenge (DSF) was developed in collaboration with the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) to create novel food production technologies with minimal inputs, and maximum safe, nutritious, palatable food outputs for long-duration space missions, which have potential to benefit people on Earth. When humans return to the lunar surface in the mid-2020s, the early missions will use prepackaged foods similar to those in use on the International Space Station (ISS) today. However, extending the duration of lunar missions requires reducing resupply dependency on Earth. Testing a sustainable system on the Moon that meets lunar crews’ needs is a fundamental step for lunar sustainability and future Mars exploration. NASA and CSA are focused on how to furnish crew members with a viable food system for long duration space missions that provides all daily nutritional needs through a variety of palatable, safe food with limited resource requirements and no dependency on resupply from Earth; and enables acceptable, safe and quick preparation methods. On Earth, technology solutions for food systems could also be used to produce nutritional sources for urban and rural environments; potentially leading to a reduced impact on our Earth’s resources. Challenges, such as the DSF, are an embodiment of NASA’s continuing commitment to technological advancement and innovation through non-traditional programs.

Centennial Challenges↗

Distributed Lunar Data Platform with Advanced Machine Learning Capabilities in Support of Lunar Science and Exploration

The United States 2020 Space Policy directive declares that NASA, in cooperation with private industry, will “extend human economic activity into deep space by establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon”. This goal will require advanced data management, as well as analysis, modeling and representation of lunar information in order to prepare for Artemis human missions, lunar science investigations and exploration. To meet this requirement, we conceptualize and present an implementation strategy for a distributed platform for lunar data retrieval, inferencing and analysis, which will be based on federated learning and the NASA Celestial Mapping System (CMS). In addition to demonstrating the imperative of enabling lunar-borne data to remain in-situ but still accessible, this presentation will also include examples of how third parties could contribute both datasets and new functionality into this platform using an AI-based data import pipeline and a plug-in architecture respectively.

Artificial Intelligence↗

NASA Plans for In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Development, Demonstration, and Implementation

The United States (US) National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Artemis Moon to Mars program has four major goals: (1) Returning Americans to the Moon: 1st Woman & 1st Person of Color, (2) Learning to live and work on the Moon, (3) Translating lessons learned so that the United States has capabilities and operational experience for a mission to Mars, and (4) Inspires the next generation of explorers, researchers, scientists, and engineers worldwide. Overarching all of this, the NASA Artemis program also continues to follow Space Policy Directive One (SPD-1) which directs the US to lead an innovative and sustainable exploration program with commercial and international partners. A major objective to achieve the Artemis program goals and SPD-1 is to understand and characterize the resources that exist at these destinations, and to learn how to utilize these resources for sustained human exploration and the commercialization of space. This ability, commonly known as In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), involves any hardware or operation that harnesses and utilizes local resources to create products and services for robotic and human explo-ration. The NASA ISRU program is focused on the production of mission consumables and com-modities to enable sustained human exploration, such as rocket propellants, life support consuma-bles, fuel cell reactants, feedstock for manufacturing and construction, and nutrients for food and plant growth. In particular, propellants make up a significant fraction of the mass launched from Earth, are critical to mission success, and can reduce the cost for reusable transportation. Important for enabling long term surface stays, greater independence from Earth, and growing lunar infra-structure are the abilities to perform construction and manufacturing from in situ-derived metals and materials to create and expand on the infrastructure and reduce the logistical resupply needed for sustained surface and space operations. To achieve these ISRU capabilities, NASA, in partner-ship with industry, academia, and international partners has initiated a multi-faceted program which involves (i) Determining Customer Needs (Type and Quantity of Commodities), (ii) supporting ground Development of Hardware and Systems until Ready for Lunar Flight, (iii) utilize Commer-cial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) flights to fly resource assessment missions with the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), and public-private partnership (PPP) ISRU demonstrations of critical technologies and processes, and (iv) performing commercial-led end-to-end ‘Pilot’ Plant production of commodities and demonstration of usage at a scale and duration that minimizes or eliminates risk for full implementation of ISRU-derived commodities in mission critical applications. This paper will discuss the technologies, mission studies, and accomplishments achieved to date for the ISRU multi-faceted program, and plans for continued ground development and flight missions to reduce the risk of full ISRU implementation.

In situ resource utilization↗

Architecture Robustness in NASA’s Moon to Mars Capability Development – FY23 Data Results

In preparation for humanity’s return to the Moon, it is important to advance technologies and capabilities that will allow for sustainability on the lunar surface and prepare for human missions to Mars. As charged in Space Policy Directive-1, NASA’s Artemis program will advance and develop technologies on the lunar surface that can be leveraged towards a safe and successful human round-trip mission to Mars. NASA’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate Capabilities Integration Team (ESDMD CIT) is advancing a continuous effort to identify and map gaps between capabilities and anticipated human spaceflight architecture elements. As upcoming exploration missions approach, the architectural design tradespace increasingly narrows. This paper provides an updated exploration of certain architectural and element design choices for upcoming missions to the Moon and Mars, comparing and contrasting capability gaps and classes of capability gaps that are architecture robust with those that are not. In doing so, we identify certain capabilities as relevant, and therefore robust, across varying architectural possibilities while identifying other capabilities as only applicable to specific architectural pathways. Capabilities that are applicable to multiple elements across the architecture have more architectural breadth because of their increased likelihood of remaining relevant even if changes are made to some elements they are mapped to. Correspondingly, capabilities that are applicable to specific elements across the architecture but are necessary under almost any eventuality have more architectural depth because of their increased likelihood of remaining relevant even if architecture changes are made. One of the key analyses in this paper is an exploration of architecture robustness as a function of capability area, as defined by the NASA Technology Taxonomy. These results are then evaluated and analyzed across human spaceflight architecture elements to gain a greater understanding of the relationships between exploration capabilities and the systems that will eventually be implemented. Additional insights regarding investment strategies are also considered. General conclusions about these relationships are drawn.

Gaps↗

Communications System Concept of Operations (ConOp) for Supporting Second Shift (SS) Operations

Wildland fires take place most often in remote areas without access to communications infrastructure. Communication during wildfire operations is crucial for safe and effective command and control of air assets, ground-based firefighters, and fire management. Without connectivity, Incident Command (IC) cannot exchange information, receive alerts or work with all parties involved in the wildfire suppression operation. Current policy directs IC to use voice radio communications, which require no prior infrastructure, to provide information needed for the command, control and safety of personnel and resources. Cellular communications are used only for logistical purposes unless no other method is available. To address some of the shortcomings of the current state of communications, the Advanced Capabilities for Emergency Response Operations (ACERO) Second Shift (SS) technical team is developing characteristics of an air-to-ground Mesh Radio System (MRS) and preparing for a future demonstration. The MRS will allow air and ground assets to automatically join a radio network without relying on existing infrastructure and exchange information critical to maintaining situation awareness and air traffic management by the onsite IC. The MRS will also give users more options for communications in addition to voice communications.

David Fuller↗

NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 1

The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0. NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.

Uncertainty↗

NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 2

The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0 (January 2020). NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.

Risk Leadership↗

Making Data-Driven Policy Decisions for the Nation’s First Building Energy Performance Standards

Nearly every major U.S. city has committed itself to ambitious climate action goals – for Washington, DC this means a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2032 and carbon neutrality by 2050. In support of these goals, Washington, DC has passed one of the most aggressive and practical climate action bills in the nation—with the Clean Energy DC Omnibus Act, DC became the first city in the U.S. to adopt energy performance standards for existing buildings. DC’s Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) require energy efficiency improvements for all commercial and multifamily buildings that do not meet a sector-specific minimum ENERGY STAR score or equivalent metric, with iterative compliance cycles every five years that will accelerate the pace of whole building retrofits. This paper explores this revolutionary policy framework and uses two data analysis projects that DC conducted to evaluate the potential impact of the BEPS and move towards carbon neutrality. First, we analyze the potential energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions, as well as potential cost impacts, from the implementation of a BEPS policy in DC We then examine the role of BEPS in a carbon neutrality strategy, how BEPS savings iterate over time, and what additional existing building improvements will be driven by the gravitational pull of new building codes on median performance. The paper highlights the benefits and limitations of such data-driven approaches to support policy decisions. Finally, we will review ongoing BEPS implementation, including expected policy directions, critical supportive programs, and lessons learned to date.

Bergfeld, Katie↗

The Public Health Service guidelines. Governing research involving human subjects: An analysis of the policy-making process

The policy making process which led to development of the Public Health Service Guidelines governing research involving human subjects is outlined. Part 1 examines the evolution of PHS Guidelines, tracing (1) evolution of thought and legal interpretation regarding research using human subjects; (2) initial involvement of the Federal government; (3) development of the government's research program; (4) the social-political environment in which formal government policy was developed; and (5) various policy statements issued by the government. Part 2 analyzes the process by which PHS Guidelines were developed and examines the values and other underlying factors which contributed to their development. It was concluded that the evolution of the Guidelines is best understood within the context of a mixed-scanning strategy. In such a strategy, policy makers make fundamental decisions regarding the basic direction of policy and subsequent decisions are made incrementally and within the contexts set by the original fundamental decisions.

Frankel, M. S.↗