Results for “systemic risk” — Page 4

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Identified Risks of Adverse Outcomes Due to Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture in Human Spaceflight

The NASA Human System Risk Board (HSRB) has the overall responsibility for tracking the evolution of the top ~30 human system risks that it has identified to be associated with human spaceflight. As part of this process, the Board is charged with maintaining a consistent, integrated process to mitigate those risks, and developing evidence-based risk posture recommendations. One of the identified risks is due to inadequate human systems integration architecture (HSIA) and a driving factor of this risk is that given decreasing real-time ground support for execution of complex operations during future exploration missions, there is a possibility of adverse performance outcomes including that crew are unable to adequately respond to unanticipated critical malfunctions or detect safety critical procedural errors. The HSRB uses Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) as a communication tool for describing how astronaut exposure to spaceflight hazards leads to meaningful mission-level health and performance outcomes and as the basis for understanding intermediate causal relationships between risk contributing factors and countermeasures that link hazards to outcomes. The HSIA risk DAG will be presented and described. Historically, critical malfunctions requiring Crew/MCC management occurred at a rate of 1.7 times per year for ISS averaged over the lifetime and 3-4 times per year in the burn in phase for the vehicle. These averages do not include EVA data, which greatly increases the incident rate. Prior experience from the Apollo program showed 10/11 crewed missions experienced significant anomalies where crew relied heavily on MCC expertise in real-time. These failure patterns are in line with those observed in other complex engineered systems (e.g., oil rigs, launch systems, commercial aviation, etc.) It is likely that general malfunction and error rates are > 10% for short duration missions (<30 days), based on past and current spaceflight operations data. Likelihood of adverse outcomes has the potential to increase as crew conduct work with new, complex systems and with less ground support. For Low Earth Orbit missions and Lunar missions less than 30 days, assuming minimal comm delays, disruptions and bandwidth limitations, malfunctions and errors can affect mission objectives and crew health but may be mitigated by ground support. For Lunar missions greater than 30 days and any potential Mars mission malfunctions and errors can have Loss of Crew and Loss of Mission consequences due to reduced ground support (communication delays, constraints and blackouts) for more complex operations, as well as reduced resupply and evacuation options.

Daniel M Buckland↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

2023 Artemis Crew Health and Performance System Model Development

While the NASA Human Research Program (HRP) utilizes a Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System to represent all the Agency’s efforts to ensure the health and performance of NASA astronauts, there is no shared mental model of a CHP system at NASA. Some groups may consider a CHP system to be only a medical kit, while others may not be using the concept at all. To facilitate the integration of functions and capabilities to ensure astronaut health and performance during vehicle development, HRP has proposed a CHP Shared Mental Model derived from the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standards (NASA-STD-3001 Vol.1/Vol.2). [1] Even though many vehicle, ground, and communication systems as well as mission operations are modeled for the Artemis Campaigns, no mission level CHP system model was created to achieve the intent of the HRP CHP Shared Mental Model. The lack of this model renders it difficult to visualize and understand how the many programs work together to provide the necessary cross program functions and capabilities to ensure the health and performance of the crew throughout an Artemis mission. For this purpose, the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) element of HRP developed a CHP system model for the Artemis III and IV missions to provide a view of how each program contributes to and interacts with the overall CHP system. To develop the 2023 Artemis CHP system model, ExMC leveraged existing data and models from the Moon to Mars Program Office, the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) and the Orion, Gateway, Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility (EHP) and Human Landing System (HLS) programs. By using a Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach, existing requirements, functions, and concepts of operations were combined to create a single system model focused on representing CHP from the launch to the return to Earth segments of the Artemis III and IV missions. Additionally, by incorporating the HRP Systems Platform for Aggregating and Relating Capabilities, or SPARC tool, the data from the programs was also related back to the 2nd volume of the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standard (NASA-STD-3001, Vol.2) and the human system risks identified by the Human System Risk Board (HSRB). The first version of the 2023 Artemis CHP system model was baselined in Fall of 2023 after the model was demonstrated to be a potentially useful tool for systems engineers integrating CHP capabilities in vehicle development as well as members of the Health and Medical Technical Authority providing oversight of those programs. The model may also be useful to any stakeholder of astronaut health and performance by providing insights on how an Artemis mission satisfies the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standards as well as how they mitigate the HSRB Human System Risks. This presentation highlights how the model was developed and the possible benefits of the model. [1] NASA HRP (2022), Crew Health and Performance System Whitepaper

Systems engineering↗

NASA NTRS2024

2023 Artemis Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System Model Development

While the NASA Human Research Program (HRP) utilizes a Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System to represent all the Agency’s efforts to ensure the health and performance of NASA astronauts, there is no shared mental model of a CHP system at NASA. Some groups may consider a CHP system to be only a medical kit, while others may not be using the concept at all. To facilitate the integration of functions and capabilities to ensure astronaut health and performance during vehicle development, HRP has proposed a CHP Shared Mental Model derived from the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standards (NASA-STD-3001 Vol.1/Vol.2). [1] Even though many vehicle, ground, and communication systems as well as mission operations are modeled for the Artemis Campaigns, no mission level CHP system model was created to achieve the intent of the HRP CHP Shared Mental Model. The lack of this model renders it difficult to visualize and understand how the many programs work together to provide the necessary cross program functions and capabilities to ensure the health and performance of the crew throughout an Artemis mission. For this purpose, the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) element of HRP developed a CHP system model for the Artemis III and IV missions to provide a view of how each program contributes to and interacts with the overall CHP system. To develop the 2023 Artemis CHP system model, ExMC leveraged existing data and models from the Moon to Mars Program Office, the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) and the Orion, Gateway, Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility (EHP) and Human Landing System (HLS) programs. By using a Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach, existing requirements, functions, and concepts of operations were combined to create a single system model focused on representing CHP from the launch to the return to Earth segments of the Artemis III and IV missions. Additionally, by incorporating the HRP Systems Platform for Aggregating and Relating Capabilities, or SPARC tool, the data from the programs was also related back to the 2nd volume of the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standard (NASA-STD-3001, Vol.2) and the human system risks identified by the Human System Risk Board (HSRB). The first version of the 2023 Artemis CHP system model was baselined in Fall of 2023 after the model was demonstrated to be a potentially useful tool for systems engineers integrating CHP capabilities in vehicle development as well as members of the Health and Medical Technical Authority providing oversight of those programs. The model may also be useful to any stakeholder of astronaut health and performance by providing insights on how an Artemis mission satisfies the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standards as well as how they mitigate the HSRB Human System Risks. This presentation highlights how the model was developed and the possible benefits of the model. [1] NASA HRP (2022), Crew Health and Performance System Whitepaper

Systems engineering↗

NASA NTRS2003

Probabilistic Causal Analysis for System Safety Risk Assessments in Commercial Air Transport

Aviation is one of the critical modes of our national transportation system. As such, it is essential that new technologies be continually developed to ensure that a safe mode of transportation becomes even safer in the future. The NASA Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) is managing the development of new technologies and interventions aimed at reducing the fatal aviation accident rate by a factor of 5 by year 2007 and by a factor of 10 by year 2022. A portfolio assessment is currently being conducted to determine the projected impact that the new technologies and/or interventions may have on reducing aviation safety system risk. This paper reports on advanced risk analytics that combine the use of a human error taxonomy, probabilistic Bayesian Belief Networks, and case-based scenarios to assess a relative risk intensity metric. A sample case is used for illustrative purposes.

Luxhoj, James T.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of A Crew Health and Performance System Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool: Proof-of-Concept Approach

The crew health and performance (CHP) system represents the span of technological interventions and tested processes and procedures that in combination address the human risk to space flight. The Human Research Program (HRP) mental model of the CHP system breaks the capabilities needed to meet NASA human flight systems standards into specific categories (i.e., countermeasures, behavioral health, medical intervention). These categories are further broken down into specific sub-groups generally associated with the human system risks that these capabilities seek to mitigate. Like the approach used to develop the Integrated Medical Model (IMM) and the Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Analysis Tool (MEDPRAT), HRP tasked NASA GRC’s Cross-Cutting Computational Modeling Project with developing a CHP probabilistic risk assessment tool, the CHP-PRA. The CHP-PRA model seeks to quantify and relatively assess the human risk state within the crew health and performance domain, using a combination of knowledge about human system risks and technology and practices likely to be applied during space flight missions. This modeling system will incorporate customer and stakeholder feedback and be flexible enough to address multiple different questions about important low-level mission-specific parameters. This presentation will introduce the initial concept and development timeline for this tool and demonstrate proof-of-concept through an application addressing a specific human risk question posed within the Artemis program.

Risk analysis↗

NASA NTRS2005

ESMD Risk Management Workshop: Systems Engineering and Integration Risks

This report has been developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) Risk Management team in close coordination with the Systems Engineering Team. This document provides a point-in-time, cumulative, summary of key lessons learned derived from the SE RFP Development process. Lessons learned invariably address challenges and risks and the way in which these areas have been addressed. Accordingly the risk management thread is woven throughout the document.

Systems Engineering↗

NASA NTRS2022

Directed Acyclic Graph Guidance Documentation

For over a decade, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has tracked and configuration-managed approximately 30 risks to astronaut health and performance that occur before, during and after spaceflight. The Human System Risk Board (HSRB), a Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) Board at NASA Johnson Space Center, is the entity responsible for identifying, assessing, analyzing, and monitoring the official understanding of the risk or risk posture for each of the Human System Risks and determining – based on evaluation of the available evidence – when that risk posture changes. The ultimate purpose of tracking and researching these risks is to find ways to reduce the risk that astronaut crews face during spaceflight. Historically, research, development and operations relevant to one risk have been conducted in isolation from other risks; these individual risk ‘silos’ enabled initial characterization of each specific risk. In spaceflight however, the impact of exposure to risk for astronaut crews is cumulative, and not independent of exposures or other risks, as all the adverse effects of the spaceflight environment begin at launch, continue throughout the duration of the mission and in some cases across the lifetime of the crews. In January of 2020, the HSRB at NASA embarked on a pilot project designed to assess the potential value of causal diagramming as a tool to facilitate understanding these cumulative and interdependent effects as applied within Human System Risk management. This process uses directed acyclic graphs as a means of formalizing a shared mental model of the causal flow of risk among Risk Board stakeholders. Initially this model was to improve communication among those stakeholders, but the potential value exceeds communication alone. Formalization of the process for creating these causal diagrams will enable the creation of a composite risk network that is vetted by members of the NASA community and configuration managed. The causal diagrams are formulated as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to function as a type of knowledge graph for reference for the board and its stakeholders. This document outlines the pilot process, the standardized approaches, and guidance for risk custodian teams when creating and updating DAGs as a part of the NASA Human System Risk Management process.

Risk↗

NASA NTRS2017

Dynamic Positioning System (DPS) Risk Analysis Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) directorate at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) has applied its knowledge and experience with Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to projects in industries ranging from spacecraft to nuclear power plants. PRA is a comprehensive and structured process for analyzing risk in complex engineered systems and/or processes. The PRA process enables the user to identify potential risk contributors such as, hardware and software failure, human error, and external events. Recent developments in the oil and gas industry have presented opportunities for NASA to lend their PRA expertise to both ongoing and developmental projects within the industry. This paper provides an overview of the PRA process and demonstrates how this process was applied in estimating the probability that a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) operating in the Gulf of Mexico and equipped with a generically configured Dynamic Positioning System (DPS) loses location and needs to initiate an emergency disconnect. The PRA described in this paper is intended to be generic such that the vessel meets the general requirements of an International Maritime Organization (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC)/Circ. 645 Class 3 dynamically positioned vessel. The results of this analysis are not intended to be applied to any specific drilling vessel, although provisions were made to allow the analysis to be configured to a specific vessel if required.

Thigpen, Eric B.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Dynamic Positioning System (DPS) Risk Analysis Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) directorate at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) has applied its knowledge and experience with Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to projects in industries ranging from spacecraft to nuclear power plants. PRA is a comprehensive and structured process for analyzing risk in complex engineered systems and/or processes. The PRA process enables the user to identify potential risk contributors such as, hardware and software failure, human error, and external events. Recent developments in the oil and gas industry have presented opportunities for NASA to lend their PRA expertise to both ongoing and developmental projects within the industry. This paper provides an overview of the PRA process and demonstrates how this process was applied in estimating the probability that a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) operating in the Gulf of Mexico and equipped with a generically configured Dynamic Positioning System (DPS) loses location and needs to initiate an emergency disconnect. The PRA described in this paper is intended to be generic such that the vessel meets the general requirements of an International Maritime Organization (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC)/Circ. 645 Class 3 dynamically positioned vessel. The results of this analysis are not intended to be applied to any specific drilling vessel, although provisions were made to allow the analysis to be configured to a specific vessel if required.

Thigpen, Eric B.↗

NASA NTRS2011

NASA's Risk Management System

Leadership is key to success. Phased-approach for implementation of risk management is necessary. Risk management system will be simple, accessible and promote communication of information to all relevant stakeholders for optimal resource allocation and risk mitigation. Risk management should be used by all team members to manage risks -- risk office personnel. Each group is assigned Risk Integrators who are facilitators for effective risk management. Risks will be managed at the lowest-level feasible, elevate only those risks that require coordination or management from above. Risk reporting and communication is an essential element of risk management and will combine both qualitative and quantitative elements. Risk informed decision making should be introduced to all levels of management. Provide necessary checks and balances to insure that risks are caught/identified and dealt with in a timely manner. Many supporting tools, processes & training must be deployed for effective risk management implementation. Process improvement must be included in the risk processes.

Perera, Jeevan S.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Risk Interfaces to Support Integrated Systems Analysis and Development

Objectives for systems analysis capability: Develop integrated understanding of how a complex human physiological-socio-technical mission system behaves in spaceflight. Why? Support development of integrated solutions that prevent unwanted outcomes (Implementable approaches to minimize mission resources(mass, power, crew time, etc.)); Support development of tools for autonomy (need for exploration) (Assess and maintain resilience -individuals, teams, integrated system). Output of this exercise: -Representation of interfaces based on Human System Risk Board (HSRB) Risk Summary information and simple status based on Human Research Roadmap; Consolidated HSRB information applied to support communication; Point-of-Departure for HRP Element planning; Ability to track and communicate status of collaborations. 4

Mindock, Jennifer↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Medical Risk Estimates and Clinical Capability Needs for A Long Duration Artemis Mission

BACKGROUND Human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for in-mission medical care. Compared with the ISS, the greater distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and significant limitations on the evacuation of ill or injured crew. Spacecraft mass, volume, and power will be curtailed while higher demands will be placed on the crew’s knowledge, skills, and abilities. In this higher risk environment, it is important to: a) quantitatively estimate human system risk attributable to medical conditions, a process known as Probabilistic Risk Analysis, and b) use these estimates to inform medical system design. IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a PRA and medical trade space analysis tool developed by NASA to advance exploration mission medical system design. IMPACT v1.0 improves upon and will soon replace NASA’s existing tool, the Integrated Medical Model, with: a novel evidence base baselined to exploration environments; an expanded list of 119 medical conditions; a significant increase in the number of medical resources that can be utilized and in the flexibility of their use; and the modelling of time lost performing mission-specific tasks due to medical conditions. DISCUSSION: This abstract will present IMPACT estimates of medical system risk and clinical capability needs for an extended duration Artemis mission of approximately 9 months, with phases including outbound transit, 3 months on the Lunar Gateway space station, 3 months on the Lunar surface with EVAs, 3 months on Gateway (simulating the return phase of a Mars mission), and transit back to Earth. Medical system risk estimates include loss of crew life (LOCL), consideration of medical evacuation (known as return to definitive care – RTDC), and an estimate of crew time lost due to medical conditions (Task Time Lost – TTL). The presentation will also describe the medical conditions that are the greatest drivers of risk as well as the clinical capabilities and resources that have the largest effect on risk.

W Thompson↗

NASA NTRS2022

Medical Risk Estimates and Clinical Capability Needs for a Late Artemis Mission

BACKGROUND Human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for in-mission medical care. Compared with the ISS, the greater distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and significant limitations on the evacuation of ill or injured crew. Spacecraft mass, volume, and power will be curtailed while higher demands will be placed on the crew’s knowledge, skills, and abilities. In this higher risk environment, it is important to: a) quantitatively estimate human system risk attributable to medical conditions, a process known as Probabilistic Risk Analysis, and b) use these estimates to inform medical system design. IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a PRA and medical trade space analysis tool developed by NASA to advance exploration mission medical system design. IMPACT v1.0 improves upon and will soon replace NASA’s existing tool, the Integrated Medical Model, with: a novel evidence base baselined to exploration environments; an expanded list of 119 medical conditions; a significant increase in the number of medical resources that can be utilized and in the flexibility of their use; and the modelling of time lost performing mission-specific tasks due to medical conditions. DISCUSSION: This abstract will present IMPACT estimates of medical system risk and clinical capability needs for an extended duration Artemis mission of approximately 9 months, with phases including outbound transit, 3 months on the Lunar Gateway space station, 3 months on the Lunar surface with EVAs, 3 months on Gateway (simulating the return phase of a Mars mission), and transit back to Earth. Medical system risk estimates include loss of crew life (LOCL), consideration of medical evacuation (known as return to definitive care –RTDC), and an estimate of crew time list due to medical conditions (Task Time Lost –TTL). The presentation will also describe the medical conditions that are the greatest drivers of risk as well as the clinical capabilities and resources that have the largest effect on risk.

A Anderson↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Preliminary Medical Risk Estimates and Clinical Capability Needs for Artemis IV

BACKGROUND Human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for in- mission medical care. Compared with the ISS, the greater distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and significant limitations on the evacuation of ill or injured crew. Spacecraft mass, volume, and power will be curtailed while higher demands will be placed on the crew’s knowledge, skills, and abilities. In this higher risk environment, it is important to: a) quantitatively estimate human system risk attributable to medical conditions, a process known as Probabilistic Risk Analysis, and b) use these estimates to inform medical system design. IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a PRA and medical trade space analysis tool developed by NASA to advance exploration mission medical system design. IMPACT v1.0 improves upon and will soon replace NASA’s existing tool, the Integrated Medical Model, with: a novel evidence base baselined to exploration environments; an expanded list of 119 medical conditions; a significant increase in the number of medical resources that can be utilized and in the flexibility of their use; and the modelling of time lost performing mission-specific tasks due to medical conditions. METHODOLOGY: This abstract will present IMPACT estimates of medical system risk and clinical capability needs for the Artemis IV mission. Artemis IV is currently scheduled for 2026 and will visit the Gateway space station in lunar orbit prior to the second lunar landing of the Artemis program. The baseline Artemis IV mission that was modeled was 28 days in duration with phases including Orion outbound, 4 days on the Gateway space station in lunar orbit, 2 crew on the surface of the Moon for approximately one week, an additional 5 days on Gateway, and then return to Earth. This baseline was compared to two alternative 34-day design reference missions (DRMs) that shifted the lunar sortie earlier or later in the mission profile. Assumptions included 2 female and 2 male crew and a notional medical system mass of 25 kg. Medical system risk estimates include loss of crew life (LOCL), consideration of medical evacuation (known as return to definitive care – RTDC), and an estimate of crew time lost due to medical conditions (Task Time Lost – TTL). The presentation will also describe the medical conditions that are the greatest drivers of risk as well as the clinical capabilities and resources that have the largest effect on risk. RESULTS: All three DRMs had very low probability of LOCL from medical conditions, primarily due to short duration. RTDC was also similar across the DRMs. In contrast, TTL was higher in the early lunar sortie DRM due to earlier occurrence of EVA-related medical conditions. Taken as a whole, there was no clinically significant difference in medical risk across the three missions. Results for clinical capabilities and an example medical equipment list will be discussed but were similar across DRMs.

D Hilmers↗

NASA NTRS2024

Preliminary Medical Risk Estimates and Clinical Capability Needs for Late Artemis Missions

BACKGROUND Human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for in- mission medical care. Compared with the ISS, the greater distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and significant limitations on the evacuation of ill or injured crew. Spacecraft mass, volume, and power will be curtailed while higher demands will be placed on the crew’s knowledge, skills, and abilities. In this higher risk environment, it is important to: a) quantitatively estimate human system risk attributable to medical conditions, a process known as Probabilistic Risk Analysis, and b) use these estimates to inform medical system design. IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a PRA and medical trade space analysis tool developed by NASA to advance exploration mission medical system design. IMPACT v1.0 improves upon and will soon replace NASA’s existing tool, the Integrated Medical Model, with: a novel evidence base baselined to exploration environments; an expanded list of 119 medical conditions; a significant increase in the number of medical resources that can be utilized and in the flexibility of their use; and the modelling of time lost performing mission-specific tasks due to medical conditions. METHODOLOGY: This abstract will present IMPACT estimates of medical system risk and clinical capability needs for the Artemis IV mission. Artemis IV is currently scheduled for 2026 and will visit the Gateway space station in lunar orbit prior to the second lunar landing of the Artemis program. The baseline Artemis IV mission that was modeled was 28 days in duration with phases including Orion outbound, 4 days on the Gateway space station in lunar orbit, 2 crew on the surface of the Moon for approximately one week, an additional 5 days on Gateway, and then return to Earth. This baseline was compared to two alternative 34-day design reference missions (DRMs) that shifted the lunar sortie earlier or later in the mission profile. Assumptions included 2 female and 2 male crew and a notional medical system mass of 25 kg. Medical system risk estimates include loss of crew life (LOCL), consideration of medical evacuation (known as return to definitive care – RTDC), and an estimate of crew time lost due to medical conditions (Task Time Lost – TTL). The presentation will also describe the medical conditions that are the greatest drivers of risk as well as the clinical capabilities and resources that have the largest effect on risk. RESULTS: All three DRMs had very low probability of LOCL from medical conditions, primarily due to short duration. RTDC was also similar across the DRMs. In contrast, TTL was higher in the early lunar sortie DRM due to earlier occurrence of EVA-related medical conditions. Taken as a whole, there was no clinically significant difference in medical risk across the three missions. Results for clinical capabilities and an example medical equipment list will be discussed but were similar across DRMs.

D. Hilmers↗

NASA NTRS2010

Risk-Informed Safety Assurance and Probabilistic Assessment of Mission-Critical Software-Intensive Systems

This report validates and documents the detailed features and practical application of the framework for software intensive digital systems risk assessment and risk-informed safety assurance presented in the NASA PRA Procedures Guide for Managers and Practitioner. This framework, called herein the "Context-based Software Risk Model" (CSRM), enables the assessment of the contribution of software and software-intensive digital systems to overall system risk, in a manner which is entirely compatible and integrated with the format of a "standard" Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), as currently documented and applied for NASA missions and applications. The CSRM also provides a risk-informed path and criteria for conducting organized and systematic digital system and software testing so that, within this risk-informed paradigm, the achievement of a quantitatively defined level of safety and mission success assurance may be targeted and demonstrated. The framework is based on the concept of context-dependent software risk scenarios and on the modeling of such scenarios via the use of traditional PRA techniques - i.e., event trees and fault trees - in combination with more advanced modeling devices such as the Dynamic Flowgraph Methodology (DFM) or other dynamic logic-modeling representations. The scenarios can be synthesized and quantified in a conditional logic and probabilistic formulation. The application of the CSRM method documented in this report refers to the MiniAERCam system designed and developed by the NASA Johnson Space Center.

Guarro, Sergio B.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Incorporation of Human Risk Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAG) With Mishap Investigations to Un-Silo Knowledge

NASA’s Human System Risk Board (HSRB) has been a central driver in efforts to understand, mitigate, and communicate the 29 human systems risks monitored by the board. As a result of the collaboration between research, operations, and technical authorities, large bodies of knowledge have been collected and digested to represent the current understanding of the risks. As a part of these bodies of knowledge, directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) have been developed to communicate the current understanding of the causal relationship of the hazards, contributing factors, countermeasures, other risks, and outcomes that contribute to the overall risk. This risk knowledge is applied in a theoretical sense for potential incidents during exploration even while informed by surveillance data. However, there have been mishaps and close calls during past space exploration that intersect with one or more of the Human System Risks DAGs and knowledge bases. The purpose of this exercise was to un-silo this risk knowledge and connect it to the close call of EVA 23 through the development of a DAG representing the intersection of the HSRB Risks and the events of the close call. The development of the DAG occurred through an iterative process, with each iteration expanding and/or refining the nodes and connections described by the source materials. In addition to the risk documentation developed by the HSRB, lessons learned and other mishap investigation documents were utilized to understand the events that led to water entering the helmet of a crewmember on the EVA. New nodes specific to the events of EVA 23 were interconnected with existing HSRB DAG nodes and edges. Nodes within the DAG were defined within a “DAG-tionary” with any updates to a definition that may have previously existed from the HSRB DAGs, and edges were recorded in a matrix. Both the DAG-tionary and matrix describe where nodes and edges are present across the Risk and Mishap DAG. This DAG will then be reviewed by experts outside of HSRB and HRP to confirm that interpretations of the non-health related events (such as the engineering nodes) are represented accurately. DISCUSSION This process highlighted a method by which the knowledge generated among the contributing members of the HSRB Risks can be effectively adapted and utilized through the tools employed by the Risk Custodian teams. By leveraging these tools, new context and insights to the information at hand can be brought forward to address current spaceflight challenges. Moreover, un-siloing this knowledge through future DAGs and other efforts can drive interprofessional collaboration and foster communication. This will enable teams to work together more effectively, leveraging their diverse expertise to tackle the complex challenges of space exploration and human research. Ultimately, this collaboration will bring NASA closer to achieve agency goals and contribute to the overall shared mission and vision.

Samuel Jacobs↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Method for Validating Causal Diagrams of Human Health Risk in Space Flight

The complexity of cause-and-effect relationships between spaceflight hazards and resulting health conditions clouds understanding of the totality of human system risk in space. In response, NASA has introduced Directed Acyclic Graphs (causal diagrams) into the human systems risk management process. These diagrams allow for a common understanding of the mechanisms that lead from unique hazards of spaceflight to the health outcomes important to agencies and astronauts. However, the paucity of available biomedical data from spaceflight creates a need for methods of validating causal models that can accommodate data from spaceflight model analogs. Here we outline one approach utilizing open-access rodent bone datasets from the Ames Life Sciences Data Archive. The properties of directed acyclic graphs themselves can provide an epistemological and statistical framework for validation of a priori causal representations of human system risk in space flight. The assumed causal connections on the graph creates sets of logical implications: variables that – if the causal diagram is correct – should be correlated, as well as sets that should be conditionally independent. By testing these implied correlations and conditional independencies both statistically and heuristically, we can provide evidence for or against specific causal pathways on the causal diagram. In addition to validation of expert-generated causal diagrams, machine learning techniques can learn the most likely structure of a causal diagram from a given dataset. Comparison with and reconciliation between machine-learned causal diagrams and expert-generated diagrams is another technique for challenging assumptions and improving our understanding of causal mechanisms. Accurately representing complex causation is essential to systemic understanding of human health risks in space travel. Having a robust system of validating causal diagrams helps us arrive at more accurate representations of causal systems. This process will be integral to developing the countermeasures necessary for extended exploration of the moon and Mars.

Robert Reynolds↗