Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “human system risk”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2012

NASA Human Health and Performance Strategy

In May 2007, what was then the Space Life Sciences Directorate, issued the 2007 Space Life Sciences Strategy for Human Space Exploration. In January 2012, leadership and key directorate personnel were once again brought together to assess the current and expected future environment against its 2007 Strategy and the Agency and Johnson Space Center goals and strategies. The result was a refined vision and mission, and revised goals, objectives, and strategies. One of the first changes implemented was to rename the directorate from Space Life Sciences to Human Health and Performance to better reflect our vision and mission. The most significant change in the directorate from 2007 to the present is the integration of the Human Research Program and Crew Health and Safety activities. Subsequently, the Human Health and Performance Directorate underwent a reorganization to achieve enhanced integration of research and development with operations to better support human spaceflight and International Space Station utilization. These changes also enable a more effective and efficient approach to human system risk mitigation. Since 2007, we have also made significant advances in external collaboration and implementation of new business models within the directorate and the Agency, and through two newly established virtual centers, the NASA Human Health and Performance Center and the Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation. Our 2012 Strategy builds upon these successes to address the Agency s increased emphasis on societal relevance and being a leader in research and development and innovative business and communications practices. The 2012 Human Health and Performance Vision is to lead the world in human health and performance innovations for life in space and on Earth. Our mission is to enable optimization of human health and performance throughout all phases of spaceflight. All HHPD functions are ultimately aimed at achieving this mission. Our activities enable mission success, optimizing human health and productivity in space before, during, and after the actual spaceflight experience of our crews, and include support for ground-based functions. Many of our spaceflight innovations also provide solutions for terrestrial challenges, thereby enhancing life on Earth. Our strategic goals are aimed at leading human exploration and ISS utilization, leading human health and performance internationally, excelling in management and advancement of innovations in health and human system integration, and expanding relevance to life on Earth and creating enduring support and enthusiasm for space exploration.

Davis, Jeffrey R.↗
NASA NTRS2012

NASA Human Health and Performance Strategy

In May 2007, what was then the Space Life Sciences Directorate, issued the 2007 Space Life Sciences Strategy for Human Space Exploration. In January 2012, leadership and key directorate personnel were once again brought together to assess the current and expected future environment against its 2007 Strategy and the Agency and Johnson Space Center goals and strategies. The result was a refined vision and mission, and revised goals, objectives, and strategies. One of the first changes implemented was to rename the directorate from Space Life Sciences to Human Health and Performance to better reflect our vision and mission. The most significant change in the directorate from 2007 to the present is the integration of the Human Research Program and Crew Health and Safety activities. Subsequently, the Human Health and Performance Directorate underwent a reorganization to achieve enhanced integration of research and development with operations to better support human spaceflight and International Space Station utilization. These changes also enable a more effective and efficient approach to human system risk mitigation. Since 2007, we have also made significant advances in external collaboration and implementation of new business models within the directorate and the Agency, and through two newly established virtual centers, the NASA Human Health and Performance Center and the Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation. Our 2012 Strategy builds upon these successes to address the Agency's increased emphasis on societal relevance and being a leader in research and development and innovative business and communications practices. The 2012 Human Health and Performance Vision is to lead the world in human health and performance innovations for life in space and on Earth. Our mission is to enable optimization of human health and performance throughout all phases of spaceflight. All HH&P functions are ultimately aimed at achieving this mission. Our activities enable mission success, optimizing human health and productivity in space before, during, and after the actual spaceflight experience of our crews, and include support for ground-­‐ based functions. Many of our spaceflight innovations also provide solutions for terrestrial challenges, thereby enhancing life on Earth. Our strategic goals are aimed at leading human exploration and ISS utilization, leading human health and performance internationally, excelling in management and advancement of innovations in health and human system integration, and expanding relevance to life on Earth and creating enduring support and enthusiasm for space exploration.

Davis, Jeffrey R.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Medical System Concept of Operations for Mars Exploration Mission-11: Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element - Human Research Program

NASA’s exploration missions to Mars will have durations of 2-3 years and will take humans farther away from Earth than ever before. This will result in a paradigm shift for mission planning, spacecraft design, human systems integration, and in-flight medical care. Constraints on real-time communication, resupply, and medical evacuation are major architectural drivers. These constraints require medical system development to be tightly integrated with mission and vehicle design to provide crew autonomy and enable mission success. This concept of operations provides a common vision of medical care for developing a medical system for Mars exploration missions. It documents an overview of the stakeholder needs and goals of a medical system and provides examples of the types of activities the system will be used for during the mission. Development of the concept of operations considers mission variables such as distance from Earth, duration of mission, time to definitive medical care, communication protocols between crewmembers and ground support, personnel capabilities and skill sets, medical hardware and software, and medical data management. The information provided in this document informs the ExMC Systems Engineering effort to define the functions to be provided by the medical system. In addition, this concept of operations will inform the subsequent systems engineering process of developing technical requirements, system architectures, interfaces, and verification and validation approaches for the medical system. This document supports the closure of ExMC Gap Med01: We do not have a concept of operations for medical care during exploration missions, corresponding to the ExMC-managed human system risk: Risk of Adverse Health Outcomes & Decrements in Performance due to Inflight Medical Conditions. This document is applicable to the ExMC Element Systems Engineering process and may be used for collaboration within the Human Research Program.

Urbina, Michelle↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Crew Health & Performance Capability Development for Exploration: 2021 to 2022 Overview

Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. In many cases, research is required to characterize those risks and help identify risk mitigation strategies. Where new capabilities are necessary to maintain crew health and performance (CHP) during exploration missions, a multi-step process is followed: 1) a Capability Gap is defined; 2) a plan or “roadmap” to develop that capability is established based on agency priorities and anticipated mission development timelines; and 3) work defined on the roadmap is then initiated as resources allow, with the objective that the capability will be available in time to support the future mission. Over the past year, significant progress has occurred in CHP technology development, ground testbed development, ground-based testing, and in preparations for ISS technology demonstrations. This paper provides a development update in the following capability areas: crew health countermeasures, EVA physiology and performance, food and nutrition, exploration medical capabilities, and radiation. Project overviews will include descriptions of CHP development activities over the past year, the human system risks and capability gaps being targeted, as well as planned follow-on activities and anticipated program infusion points.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗
NASA NTRS2006

Developing Crew Health Care and Habitability Systems for the Exploration Vision

This paper will discuss the specific mission architectures associated with the NASA Exploration Vision and review the challenges and drivers associated with developing crew health care and habitability systems to manage human system risks. Crew health care systems must be provided to manage crew health within acceptable limits, as well as respond to medical contingencies that may occur during exploration missions. Habitability systems must enable crew performance for the tasks necessary to support the missions. During the summer of 2005, NASA defined its exploration architecture including blueprints for missions to the moon and to Mars. These mission architectures require research and technology development to focus on the operational risks associated with each mission, as well as the risks to long term astronaut health. This paper will review the highest priority risks associated with the various missions and discuss NASA s strategies and plans for performing the research and technology development necessary to manage the risks to acceptable levels.

Laurini, Kathy↗
NASA NTRS2019

Recommendation for a Medical System Concept of Operations for Gateway Missions

NASA’s exploration missions to cis-lunar space will establish a permanent gateway to future transport missions to Mars. These missions mandate a significant paradigm change for mission planning, spacecraft design, human systems integration, and in-flight medical care due to constraints on mass, volume, power, resupply, and medical evacuation capability. These constraints require medical system development to be tightly integrated with mission and habitat design to provide a sufficient medical infrastructure and enable mission success. This concept of operations provides a vision of medical care needs that will be used to guide the development of a medical system for the cis-lunar Gateway Habitat. This medical system will serve as the precursor to what is implemented in future exploration missions to Mars. This concept of operations documents an overview of the stakeholder needs and system goals of a medical system and provides examples of the types of activities for which the system will be used during the mission. This concept of operations informs the ExMC systems engineering effort to define the Gateway Habitat Medical System by documenting the medical activities and capabilities relevant to Gateway missions, as identified by the ExMC clinician community. In addition, this concept of operations will inform the subsequent systems engineering process of developing technical requirements, system architectures, interfaces, and verification and validation approaches for the medical system. This document supports the closure of ExMC Gap Med01: We do not have a concept of operations for medical care during exploration missions, corresponding to the ExMC-managed human system risk: Risk of Adverse Health Outcomes & Decrements in Performance due to Inflight Medical Conditions.

Rubin, David↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Managing HRP’S External Deliverables: The Process and the Customers

The Human Research Program’s (HRP) external deliverables (EDs) are the final outcomes of the research that the HRP Elements develop and execute. Four categories of HRP EDs exist: standards, requirements, countermeasures, and tools/technology. The NASA Human Health and Performance directorate’s primary stakeholders, i.e., the customers for the EDs, include the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) (Standards Team, Chief Health and Performance Officers and Chief Medical Officers, Human System Risk Board), and the agency’s System Capability Leadership Teams. The EDs may address the need of a specific customer, a specific design reference mission, or a vehicle lifecycle milestone. HRP’s Maturation and Integration Office External Programs facilitates the process of delivering the EDs to the targeted customers according to the customer’s expectations. This presentation describes this coordinated process and provides an overview of the nature of different types of EDs and how they impact the customers’ products. Successful transfer of the EDs to the customers will help mitigate the health and performance risks that crewmembers will face during NASA’s future exploration missions.

HRP research external deliverables↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Managing HRP's External Deliverables: The Process and the Customers

The Human Research Program’s (HRP) external deliverables (EDs) are the final outcomes of the research that the HRP Elements develop and execute. The NASA Human Health and Performance directorate’s primary stakeholders, i.e., the customers for the EDs, include the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) (Standards Team, Chief Health and Performance Officers and Chief Medical Officers, Human System Risk Board), and the agency’s System Capability Leadership Teams. The EDs may address the need of a specific customer, a specific design reference mission, or a vehicle lifecycle milestone. HRP’s Maturation and Integration Office External Programs facilitates the process of delivering the EDs to the targeted customers according to the customer’s expectations. This presentation describes this coordinated process and provides an overview of the nature of different types of EDs and how they impact the customers’ products. Successful transfer of the EDs to the customers will help mitigate the health and performance risks that crewmembers will face during NASA’s future exploration missions.

research↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Capabilities Assessments for Autonomous Missions: A Multi-Team Research Effort to Reduce Risk in the Human-System Integration Architecture for Future Deep-Space Missions

In future exploration missions beyond low earth-orbit, crew will have to execute complex operations and respond to off-nominal events, without real-time support from Mission Control. It is anticipated that increased reliance on automated systems, including human-centric vehicle and information architecture, will need to be designed to support the crew; increased risk to performance, health, and safety may occur if these are not implemented appropriately. The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element (HFBP) in the NASA Human Research Program supports research to characterize and mitigate such human health and performance risks, including the Risk of Adverse Outcome Due to Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA). The HSIA risk addresses the integration of onboard capability and the crew roles and responsibilities necessary to enable the crew to respond effectively and efficiently in the increasingly autonomous mission operations environment. In 2017, HFBP released the “Human Capabilities Assessments for Autonomous Missions” (HCAAM) research topic to address HSIA related questions. HCAAM is a major NASA research effort that has assembled a multidisciplinary team from seven institutions to work closely with design and engineering efforts on research towards developing and refining human performance standards, guidelines and automation tools. The scientific focus is on quantitative assessment of human capabilities relevant to future deep-space missions during which earth/spacecraft communication is so delayed and intermittent that the crew must be able to function autonomously. The integrated strategy of the HCAAM project characterizes human capabilities and limitations related to potential performance decrements during long duration exploration mission spaceflight as relevant to both routine and complex task performance; defines system characteristics that reduce the likelihood or impact of potential decrements in human performance capabilities; performs integrated assessment of intelligent system responses within the context of an operational environment with relevant NASA tools, systems, and data structures in order to determine positive or negative interactions and validate recommended approaches; and proposes specific updates to existing standards and guidelines for inclusion in NASA handbooks for the design of future spacecraft intelligent systems that provide crew performance assessment/feedback, and to also serve as decision-support aids for the onboard crew (i.e., NASA-STD-3001, and NASA/SP-Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH)). The scientific research vectors being addressed by the seven HCAAM teams include: - crew task performance (accuracy, efficiency) (crew + automation) - crew performance (accuracy, efficiency) - crew Situation Awareness - procedure design and multi-modal enhancement - concurrent tasking (mixed manual + some level of autonomy) - task handover - crew self-planning and time-lining - task design - trust in automation, real-time calibration - human multi-sensory feedback and guidance - human trust in on-board software-based intelligent assistants - virtual assistants The presentation will highlight plans and progress made in each of these research areas as well as the methods by which surrogate astronaut crews in the NASA JSC HERA spaceflight analog facility will function as human test subjects for all of the HCAAM research projects.

HCAAM VNSCOR↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using Systems Engineering to Develop an Integrated Crew Health and Performance System to Mitigate Risk for Human Exploration Missions

New space exploration missions are currently being designed to take humanity beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) to cis-lunar space, the lunar surface, and eventually to Mars. These missions carry increased risks due to a number of factors, including distance from Earth, exposure to deep space hazards, reduced capacity and ability to resupply and evacuate, and increased communication delays. As distance from Earth grows and mission length increases, a growing proportion of mission risk can be attributed to the “human system.” Almost twenty years ago, the Institute of Medicine in the United States recommended the early and complete integration of the human system into the spacecraft and mission design process to mitigate this increased risk inherent in exploration missions. Exploration missions will require increasing levels of crew self-sufficiency that will challenge the current operational paradigms established in LEO. Enabling progressive Earth independence requires management of the increasingly complex interactions among spacecraft systems and integration of all the data and functions that affect human health and performance into one coordinated system –the Crew Health and Performance (CHP) system. This system is a critical spacecraft system that is analogous to other systems such as propulsion, guidance and navigation, or avionics. Design and integration of the CHP system requires the evidence-based merger of typically disparate disciplines such as medicine, human factors, and life support system design, using systems engineering (SE) practices. SE provides traceability of spacecraft requirements and enables reliable and repeatable trade space analysis of the many competing options for hardware and software to be included in the mission architecture. The approach described here enables spacecraft and mission designers to align the scope of a CHP system with mission specific requirements, decrease risk to the crew, and increase the probability of mission success.

Kerry McGuire↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Sensorimotor Application of Proposed Methods to Combine the Effects of Multiple Countermeasures for PRisM

Risk associated with human systems is challenging to quantify but is critical for the mission planning and decision making required to enable future Lunar and Martian missions. To address this gap, the Crew Health and Performance-Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) project is developing an integrated computational model for CHP mission risk. Much like how MEDPRAT is designed to allow medical resource trades informed by medical risk, CHP-PRA will enable analogous trades in human system risks across multiple CHP functions and capabilities. Human performance is one component of the risk intended to be captured by CHP-PRA through the Performance Risk Model (PRisM). The sensorimotor risk area provides a good frame of reference for investigating the structure of a performance model because most tasks that astronauts are expected to perform require input from the sensory system and/or movement/motor control. Additionally, sensorimotor countermeasures are an area of particular concern for NASA’s Human Research Program because of the increased sensorimotor risk associated with surface operations in Lunar and Martian missions. Thus, a tool that can quickly compare risk reductions of potential countermeasures would be beneficial in guiding research and development of effective countermeasures. In this proof of concept, we present a systematic way to combine multiple performance data sets for humans subjected to different countermeasures such that we can predict the countermeasure(s) that optimize astronaut performance on relevant tasks. PRisM assumes that both the tests that are used to measure countermeasure effectiveness (input data) and the tasks we use to represent astronaut performance, can be broken down and represented as a function/vector of the human systems required to perform that test/task. Through mathematical combination, test data are used to predict performance on astronaut tasks that use similar systems. We propose that when combining countermeasures evaluated using the same test, that only one value should be used to represent their combined effectiveness. We start our analysis with the assumption that two countermeasures together will perform better than each countermeasure individually. Our initial implementation of this framework compares various space motion sickness countermeasures and the most up to date analysis will be demonstrated at the IWS.

Caroline R Austin↗
NASA NTRS2010

From Process to Product: Your Risk Process at Work

The Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD) and Human Research Program (HRP) at the NASA/Johnson Space Center work together to address and manage the human health and performance risks associated with human space flight. This includes all human system requirements before, during, and after space flight, providing for research, and managing the risk of adverse long-term health outcomes for the crew. We previously described the framework and processes developed for identifying and managing these human system risks. The focus of this panel is to demonstrate how the implementation of the framework and associated processes has provided guidance in the management and communication of human system risks. The risks of early onset osteoporosis, CO2 exposure, and intracranial hypertension in particular have all benefitted from the processes developed for human system risk management. Moreover, we are continuing to develop capabilities, particularly in the area of information architecture, which will also be described. We are working to create a system whereby all risks and associated actions can be tracked and related to one another electronically. Such a system will enhance the management and communication capabilities for the human system risks, thereby increasing the benefit to researchers and flight surgeons.

Kundrot, Craig E.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CHP-PRA: Sensorimotor Countermeasures Proof of Concept

The capabilities included in Crew Health and Performance (CHP) systems are designed to keep the crew healthy, happy, and productive. In doing so, the CHP system allows reductions in human related risks to be realized. All human missions, though particularly future Artemis and Mars missions, have constraints on the mass and volume allocated to the CHP system. Thus, trades must be made on how to best buy down risk while still meeting other requirements. Understanding how different CHP capabilities influence medical, performance, and long-term health risks is key to making informed choices among these trades. To address this, an integrated CHP Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) model is being developed. Much like how IMPACT is designed to allow medical resource trades informed by medical risks, CHP PRA will enable analogous trades in human system risks across all CHP functions and capabilities. There are 29 Human System Risk Board (HSRB) risk areas to consider for model implementation. This effort focused solely on the implementation of countermeasures associated with sensorimotor risk. The framework and lessons learned from this proof of concept will benefit the implementation of other risks and countermeasures. Astronauts experience sensorimotor changes when entering or exiting a microgravity environment. While most sensorimotor issues are resolved within a few days, they pose a serious risk to crew health and performance during the adaptation period. This adaptation period aligns with gravity transitions and key mission phases where the crew members may be required to complete challenging tasks ideally with an undisturbed sensorimotor system. Countermeasures such as training or pharmaceuticals can be used to mitigate risk. This effort began by identifying physiological changes to the sensorimotor system that could lead to functional performance decrements or medical conditions and potential countermeasures, so that the overall effect of sensorimotor disturbance on human risk could be captured. We then selected example countermeasures, mapped relationships between countermeasures and outcomes, and used results from existing sensorimotor investigations to define the relationship between a sensorimotor countermeasure and subsequent performance of a sensorimotor-affected task. Specifically, using shuttle landing performance data, we compared the use or absence of inflight training capabilities to yield a relative performance change that can be applied to the prediction of the risk associated with manual control performance in future missions, as depicted in the figure. This sensorimotor proof of concept demonstrates how HRP research information can be transformed into quantifiable relationships to describe changes in HSRB medical and performance risks.

Caroline R Austin↗
NASA NTRS2011

Harnessing the Risk-Related Data Supply Chain: An Information Architecture Approach to Enriching Human System Research and Operations Knowledge

An Information Architecture facilitates the understanding and, hence, harnessing of the human system risk-related data supply chain which enhances the ability to securely collect, integrate, and share data assets that improve human system research and operations. By mapping the risk-related data flow from raw data to useable information and knowledge (think of it as a data supply chain), the Human Research Program (HRP) and Space Life Science Directorate (SLSD) are building an information architecture plan to leverage their existing, and often shared, IT infrastructure.

Buquo, Lynn E.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using Systems Engineering to Develop an Integrated Crew Health and Performance System to Mitigate Risk for Human Exploration Missions

New space exploration missions are currently being designed to take humanity beyond Low EarthOrbit (LEO) to cis-lunar space, the lunar surface, and eventually to Mars. These missions carryincreased risks due to a number of factors, including distance from Earth, exposure to deep spacehazards, reduced capacity and ability to resupply and evacuate, and increased communication delays.As distance from Earth grows and mission length increases, a growing proportion of overall missionrisk can be attributed to the “human system.” Almost twenty years ago, the Institute of Medicine in theUnited States recommended the early and complete integration of the human system into thespacecraft and mission design process to mitigate this increased risk inherent in exploration missions.Exploration missions will require increasing levels of crew self-sufficiency that will challenge thecurrent operational paradigms established in LEO. Enabling progressive Earth independence requiresmanagement of the increasingly complex interactions among spacecraft systems and integration of allthe data and functions that affect human health and performance into one coordinated system – theCrew Health and Performance (CHP) system. This system is a critical spacecraft system that isanalogous to other systems such as propulsion, guidance and navigation, or avionics. Design andintegration of the CHP system requires the evidence-based merger of typically disparate disciplinessuch as medicine, human factors, and physiological support system design, using systems engineering(SE) practices. The approach described here enables spacecraft and mission designers to align thescope of a CHP system with mission specific requirements, decrease risk to the crew, and increase theprobability of mission success.

Kerry Mcguire↗
NASA NTRS2000

A Model-based Framework for Risk Assessment in Human-Computer Controlled Systems

The rapid growth of computer technology and innovation has played a significant role in the rise of computer automation of human tasks in modem production systems across all industries. Although the rationale for automation has been to eliminate "human error" or to relieve humans from manual repetitive tasks, various computer-related hazards and accidents have emerged as a direct result of increased system complexity attributed to computer automation. The risk assessment techniques utilized for electromechanical systems are not suitable for today's software-intensive systems or complex human-computer controlled systems. This thesis will propose a new systemic model-based framework for analyzing risk in safety-critical systems where both computers and humans are controlling safety-critical functions. A new systems accident model will be developed based upon modem systems theory and human cognitive processes to better characterize system accidents, the role of human operators, and the influence of software in its direct control of significant system functions. Better risk assessments will then be achievable through the application of this new framework to complex human-computer controlled systems.

Hatanaka, Iwao↗
NASA NTRS2004

How Systems Engineering and Risk Management Defend Against Murphy's Law and Human Error

Systems Engineering and Risk Management processes can work synergistically to defend against the causes of many mission ending failures. Defending against mission ending failures is facilitated by fostering a team that has a healthy respect for Murphy's Law and a team with a of curiosity for how things work, how they can fail, and what they need to know. This curiosity is channeled into making the unknowns known or what is uncertain more certain. Efforts to assure mission success require the expenditure of energy in the following areas: 1. Understanding what defines Mission Success as guided by the customer's needs, objectives and constraints. 2. Understanding how the system is supposed to work and how the system is to be produced, fueled by the curiosity of how the system should work and how it should be produced. 3. Understanding how the system can fail and how the system might not be produced on time and within cost, fueled by the curiosity of how the system might fail and how production might be difficult. 4. Understanding what we need to know and what we need learn for proper completion of the above three items, fueled by the curiosity of what we might not know in order to make the best decisions.

Bay, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2014

An Integrated Reliability and Physics-Based Risk Modeling Approach for Assessing Human Spaceflight Systems

This paper presents an integrated reliability and physics-based risk modeling approach for assessing human spaceflight systems. The approach is demonstrated using an example, end-to-end risk assessment of a generic-crewed space transportation system during a reference mission to the International Space Station. The behavior of the system is modeled using analysis techniques from multiple disciplines in order to properly capture the dynamic time- and state- dependent consequences of failures encountered in different mission phases. We discuss how to combine traditional reliability analyses with Monte Carlo simulation methods and physics-based engineering models to produce loss-of- mission and loss-of-crew risk estimates supporting risk-based decision-making and requirement verification. This approach facilitates risk-informed design by providing more realistic representation of system failures and interactions; identifying key risk-driving sensitivities, dependencies, and assumptions; and tracking multiple figures of merit within a single, responsive assessment framework that can readily incorporate evolving design information throughout system development.

Risk assessment↗