SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Assurance”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2004

Software for Optimizing Quality Assurance of Other Software

Software assurance is the planned and systematic set of activities that ensures that software processes and products conform to requirements, standards, and procedures. Examples of such activities are the following: code inspections, unit tests, design reviews, performance analyses, construction of traceability matrices, etc. In practice, software development projects have only limited resources (e.g., schedule, budget, and availability of personnel) to cover the entire development effort, of which assurance is but a part. Projects must therefore select judiciously from among the possible assurance activities. At its heart, this can be viewed as an optimization problem; namely, to determine the allocation of limited resources (time, money, and personnel) to minimize risk or, alternatively, to minimize the resources needed to reduce risk to an acceptable level. The end result of the work reported here is a means to optimize quality-assurance processes used in developing software.

Feather, Martin↗

NASA NTRS2012

Mission Assurance Modeling and Simulation: A Cyber Security Roadmap

This paper proposes a cyber security modeling and simulation roadmap to enhance mission assurance governance and establish risk reduction processes within constrained budgets. The term mission assurance stems from risk management work by Carnegie Mellon's Software Engineering Institute in the late 19905. By 2010, the Defense Information Systems Agency revised its cyber strategy and established the Program Executive Officer-Mission Assurance. This highlights a shift from simply protecting data to balancing risk and begins a necessary dialogue to establish a cyber security roadmap. The Military Operations Research Society has recommended a cyber community of practice, recognizing there are too few professionals having both cyber and analytic experience. The authors characterize the limited body of knowledge in this symbiotic relationship. This paper identifies operational and research requirements for mission assurance M&S supporting defense and homeland security. M&S techniques are needed for enterprise oversight of cyber investments, test and evaluation, policy, training, and analysis.

Gendron, Gerald↗

NASA NTRS2015

Current Practices in Constructing and Evaluating Assurance Cases With Applications to Aviation

This report introduces and provides an overview of assurance cases including theory, practice, and evaluation. This report includes a section that introduces the principles, terminology, and history of assurance cases. The core of the report presents twelve example uses of assurance cases from a range of domains, using a novel classification scheme. The report also reviews the state of the art in assurance case evaluation methods.

David J Rinehart↗

NASA NTRS2016

A Review of Function Allocation and En Route Separation Assurance

Today's air traffic control system has reached a limit to the number of aircraft that can be safely managed at the same time. This air traffic capacity bottleneck is a critical problem along the path to modernization for air transportation. The design of the next separation assurance system to address this problem is a cornerstone of air traffic management research today. This report reviews recent work by NASA and others in the areas of function allocation and en route separation assurance. This includes: separation assurance algorithms and technology prototypes; concepts of operations and designs for advanced separation assurance systems; and specific investigations into air-ground and human-automation function allocation.

Lewis, Timothy A.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Understanding What It Means for Assurance Cases to "Work"

This report is the result of our year-long investigation into assurance case practices and effectiveness. Assurance cases are a method for working toward acceptable critical system performance. They represent a significant thread of applied assurance methods extending back many decades and being employed in a range of industries and applications. Our research presented in this report includes a literature survey of over 50 sources and interviews with nearly a dozen practitioners in the field. We have organized our results into seven major claimed assurance case benefits and their supporting mechanisms, evidence, counter-evidence, and caveats.

David J Rinehart↗

NASA NTRS2017

Assessment of the State-of-the-Art of System-Wide Safety and Assurance Technologies

Since its initiation, the System-wide Safety Assurance Technologies (SSAT) Project has been focused on developing multidisciplinary tools and techniques that are verified and validated to ensure prevention of loss of property and life in NextGen and enable proactive risk management through predictive methods. To this end, four technical challenges have been listed to help realize the goals of SSAT, namely (i) assurance of flight critical systems, (ii) discovery of precursors to safety incidents, (iii) assuring safe human-systems integration, and (iv) prognostic algorithm design for safety assurance. The objective of this report is to provide an extensive survey of SSAT-related research accomplishments by researchers within and outside NASA to get an understanding of what the state-of-the-art is for technologies enabling each of the four technical challenges. We hope that this report will serve as a good resource for anyone interested in gaining an understanding of the SSAT technical challenges, and also be useful in the future for project planning and resource allocation for related research.

Roychoudhury, Indranil↗

NASA NTRS2018

UAS Autonomous Hazard Mitigation through Assured Compliance with Conformance Criteria

The behavior of a drone depends on the integrity of the data it uses and the reliability of the avionics systems that process that data to affect the operation of the aircraft. Commercial unmanned aircraft systems frequently rely on commercial-off-the-shelf and open source avionics components and data sources whose reliability and integrity are not easily assured. To mitigate failure events for aircraft that do not comply with conventional aviation safety standards, operational limitations are typically prescribed by regulators. Part 107 of the Federal Aviation Regulations serves as a good example of operational limitations that mitigate risk for small unmanned aircraft systems. These limitations, however, restrict growth possibilities for the industry. Any reasonable path toward achieving routine operation of all types of drones will have to address the need for assurance of avionics systems, especially their software. This paper discusses the possibility of strategically using assured systems as a stepping stone to routine operation of drones. A specimen system for assured geofencing, called Safeguard, is described as an example of such a stepping stone.

Dill, Evan, T.↗

NASA NTRS2018

ASTERIA Operations Demonstrates the Value of Combining the Mission Assurance and Fault Protection Roles on CubeSats

On November 20, 2017, ASTERIA (Arcsecond Space Telescope Enabling Research in Astrophysics), a 6U CubeSat performing a technology demonstration of astrophysical measurements, deployed from the ISS. The technology demonstration goals to achieve precision photometry via arcsecond-level line-of-sight pointing error and highly stable focal plane temperature control were met by February 2018. Extended mission operations are ongoing, with the primary focus on observing nearby stars for transiting exoplanets. Throughout development and operations, the roles of mission assurance and fault protection have proven critical to achieving the primary technical goals and to maintaining a healthy spacecraft through multiple extended missions. Given the budget and schedule constraints typical of a CubeSat, innovative tailoring of processes has been critical to success throughout both development and operations of ASTERIA. Mission assurance plays an important role in identifying and evaluating risk and developing cost-effective mitigations. Flexibility in the fault protection design offers a variety of options for implementing risk mitigations as risks have been uncovered both in pre-delivery testing and in mission operations. This paper will discuss the approach taken on ASTERIA to implement mission assurance and fault protection and the resulting benefits to operational efficiency and success. It will briefly address the advantages of this approach during development, in which the combination of the roles provided mission assurance significant insight to system risks, which feeds back into testing methodologies and directly into fault protection design. Operations will be discussed in detail. During this phase, the roles merge to identify in-flight fault protection updates to efficiently respond to anomalies and improve the likelihood of successful technology demonstrations. The paper will also detail the tools that are used to analyse data, identify anomalies, and develop the updates to uplink to the spacecraft. Finally, the general operational approach will be discussed to highlight the usefulness of the ASTERIA processes and their applicability to future CubeSat missions.

Knapp, Mary↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Toward Design Assurance of Machine-Learning Airborne Systems

In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, enabled by Machine Learning (ML)technology, have demonstrated impressive progress and provides historic opportunities for the aviation industry. However, several key aspects of ML technology are not compatible with existing design assurance standards and make certification problematic. In this paper, we present a case study of a visual system with a Deep Neural Network (DNN) intended to detect and identify airport runway signs. Different use cases and variants of this system exhibit different levels of criticality ranging from design assurance level (DAL) D to B. We use the case study to illustrate the challenges of certification according to the current standards, such asDO-178C. We present the system design, data generation, training, and verification in detail and describe how the design assurance objectives can be met for a DAL D variant of the system. We also discuss gaps and potential approaches for the higher design assurance levels.

Avionics↗

NASA NTRS2020

Demonstrating Assurance of Model-Based Fault Diagnosis Systems on an Operational Mission

Developers of robotic scientific and commercial spacecraft are trending towards use of onboard autonomous capabilities for responding quickly to dynamic environments and rapidly changing situations. These capabilities need to know the state of the spacecraft’s health. Model-based fault diagnosis (MBFD) is an approach to estimating health by continuously verifying accurate behavior and diagnosing off-nominal behavior. Proper functioning of MBFD depends on 1) the quality of the diagnostic system model that is analyzed and compared to commands and onboard measurements to estimate a system’s health state, and 2) the correct functionality of the diagnosis engine interrogating the model and comparing its analyses to observed system behavior. Our goal is to develop Verification and Validation (V&V) techniques for MBFD to provide future missions sufficient confidence in its functionality and performance to deploy it on the systems they develop. Our work has been focused on infusing the techniques we developed earlier to an operational mission. First, we are constructing diagnostic models of a spacecraft attitude control system and updating our diagnostic engine so they can be demonstrated aboard the Arcsecond Space Telescope Enabling Research in Astrophysics (ASTERIA) mission, an operational spacecraft for which experiments in autonomy are being planned and executed, using the V&V techniques we have previously developed to assure they are both correct and complete. Since it is nearing the end of its life, ASTERIA provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate MBFD since the monitored components are expected to fail. Our demonstration will give system developers additional confidence to make timely, informed MBFD deployment decisions. Second, we will be completing performance assessments of the diagnostic engine/diagnostic model ensemble both on the flight system and ground-based testbeds to gain confidence in MBFD’s ability to run successfully in a spacecraft’s resource-constrained environment without adversely affecting other on-board activities. Finally, we are capturing our experience in preparing this demonstration in a set of checklists and guidance documents. Current practice includes high-level institutional guidance documents and standards, but at a high level of abstraction that does not necessarily address specific MBFD concerns. The purpose of the new checklists is to provide future mission developers clear, unambiguous, procedure-oriented guidance on assuring MBFD. This paper describes our work in these areas. For the first area, we describe the diagnostic models and updated diagnostic engine that will be used for the on-board demonstration. We describe how the V&V techniques we developed earlier are used to assure model and engine correctness and completeness. For the second area, we identify the performance measurement and assessment techniques used to characterize the diagnostic engine and diagnostic models, and discuss the effect of measured performance on overall mission operation. Finally, we present the checklist and guidance documents and describe how they meet the goals of providing system developers with clear, unambiguous, procedure-oriented guidance on MBFD assurance. We show how the techniques we have developed map into those artifacts.

Nikora, Allen↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Containment Assurance Risk Framework of the Mars Sample Return Program

The Mars Sample Return campaign aims at bringing rock and atmospheric samples from Mars to Earth through a series of robotic missions. These missions would collect the samples being cached and deposited on Martian soil by the Perseverance rover, place them in a container, and launch them into Martian orbit for subsequent capture by an orbiter that would bring them back. Given there exists a non-zero probability that the samples contain biological material, precautions are being taken to design systems that would break the chain of contact between Mars and Earth. These include techniques such as sterilization of Martian particles, redundant containment vessels, and a robust reentry capsule capable of accurate landings without a parachute. Requirements exist that the probability of containment not assured of Martian-contaminated material into Earth’s biosphere be less than one in a million. To demonstrate compliance with this strict requirement, a statistical framework was developed to assess the likelihood of containment loss during each sample return phase and make a statement about the total combined mission probability of containment not assured. The work presented here describes this framework, which considers failure modes or fault conditions that can initiate failure sequences ultimately leading to containment not assured. Reliability estimates are generated from databases, design heritage, component specifications, or expert opinion in the form of probability density functions or point estimates and provided as inputs to the mathematical models that simulate the different failure sequences. The probabilistic outputs are then combined following the logic of several fault trees to compute the ultimate probability of containment not assured. Given the multidisciplinary nature of the problem and the different types of mathematical models used, the statistical tools needed for analysis are required to be computationally efficient. While standard Monte Carlo approaches are used for fast models, a multi-fidelity approach to rare event probabilities is proposed for expensive models. In this paradigm, inexpensive low-fidelity models are developed for computational acceleration purposes while the expensive high-fidelity model is kept in the loop to retain accuracy in the results. This work presents an example of end-to-end application of this framework highlighting the computational benefits of a multi-fidelity approach.

Giuseppe Cataldo↗

DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 132: Risk-Informed Approach for Decision Making in WM, D and D and SNF Management: Reasonable Assurance for Safety

Mr. Larry Camper organized a panel of experts to discuss approaches to better make risk-informed decisions in waste management, decommissioning, and the management of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF). The audience heard the perspectives from four panelists that addressed issues ranging from the technical basis used to make risk-informed decisions to for developing cleanup criteria and promulgating regulations and safety standards both domestically and abroad. A summary of each of the presentations given by the panelists is provided herein. This WMS BOD featured panel focused on the Risk-Informed Approach for Decision Making in WM, D and D and SNF Management and the Reasonable Assurance for Safety. The panelists addressed and discussed with the audience different approaches used for decision-making, summarizing ongoing probabilistic vs. deterministic approaches, including IAEA graded approach, and discussed policies/approaches to achieve reasonable assurance for safety rather than using absolute assurance. Panelists with presentations: Risk-Informed Decision Making - More than a Motto? (Paul Black); NRC Staff Perspective on Risk-Informed Approach and Reasonable Safety Assurance in D and D and LLW (Rateb (Boby) Abu Eid); Risk-Informed Decision-Making and Illustrative National Academies Studies (Charles Ferguson); IAEA's Revised Safety Guidance on Remediation (Michelle Roberts); NDA Radioactive Waste Strategy - A Risk Informed Approach (James McKinney)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Safety, Reliability, and Mission Assurance Digital Future

The evolution from “document-centric” to “data-centric” and “model-centric” information leveraging structured data and model-based approaches is at the heart of digital engineering transformational efforts underway across industry and government. It is these approaches that pave the way for data lakes, Authoritative Sources of Truth (ASOTs), and systems- of-systems interoperability and the corresponding transformational benefits thereof. Such benefits include increased data availability, data access equity, data traceability, real-time analytics, batch analytics, and (most importantly) acceleration of the time-to-value and time-to-insights associated with engineering products and analyses. The longer-term benefits of reusability, customization and traceability are even more promising. For Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA), and Mission Success (SMS) activities; realization of such benefits is essential to provide engineers and analysts alike vital information when needed to support critical decision making throughout the entire life cycle. The SMA community often operate in parallel with engineering activities, for which information exchange with relevant context is paramount. Far too often, such information lags key decision points and/or is absent of the robust, integrated, knowledge needed, given inherent barriers associated with traditional document-centric means to data sharing, analysis, and reporting. This paper provides an overview of how NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) is evolving its policies, standards, guidance, and training to transform to eliminate such barriers, thus realizing the benefits emerging in this new digital era. A roadmap for achieving this digital future is presented along with key building blocks involving use and implementation of concepts such as: Objectives-Hierarchies, Objective-Driven Requirements, Accepted Standards, Safety and Assurance Cases, data digitization (i.e., ontologies, structured data, and model-centric data), FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, & Reusable) and/or FAIRUST (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable, Understandable, Secure, and Trusted) principles [1]. This paper also describes how OSMA, leveraging the Agency’s overall commitment to Digital Transformation (DT), is using the power of Policy, “Digital” Domain representation, Product Evolution, and Community Outreach and Engagement as part of a strategic vision and roadmap to evolve and transform its SMA organizations to become better able to serve its stakeholders and customers. Future publications will elaborate on these building blocks and deeper concepts.

Authoritative Source of Truth (ASOT),↗

DOE OSTI2025

Advanced Transmission Technologies –GETs and HPCs Session 3: HPCs and Building Actions Plans to Digital Assurance Risks

The third session of the Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL) Technical Assistance for Digital Assurance (TADA) program, held on November 11, 2025, centered on High Performance Conductors (HPCs) and the formulation of action plans to address digital assurance risks associated with Grid-Enhancing Technologies (GETs). This session convened experts from utilities, vendors, and government agencies to examine the technical, operational, and cybersecurity aspects of HPC deployment. Discussions highlighted the benefits of HPCs, such as their ability to rapidly increase transmission capacity using existing corridors, improve grid resilience, reduce system losses, and align with FERC Orders 2023 and 1920. Participants evaluated supply chain and digital assurance risks, including reliance on imported materials, limited domestic manufacturing capacity, workforce shortages, and traceability issues. The session also emphasized the importance of digital trust, integration-layer cybersecurity, and unified risk frameworks, introducing tools like intrusion detection systems, encryption, zero trust networking, and firmware integrity. Recaps of earlier workshops on Dynamic Line Ratings (DLRs), Advanced Power Flow Control (APFC), and Transmission Topology Optimization (TTO) underscored institutional barriers and integration challenges. Action plans were proposed to mitigate issues such as inconsistent cybersecurity practices, SBOM usage, supply chain visibility, operator trust, and misaligned incentives. Additionally, INL presented its supply chain risk management tools and Cyber-Informed Engineering (CIE) principles to support secure procurement and system design. The session concluded with a commitment to share key takeaways, incorporate cohort feedback into future policy development, and continue collaborative engagement through upcoming pilot activities. Session 3 of 3.

24 - POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2021

Probability of Loss of Assured Safety in Systems with Multiple Time-Dependent Failure Modes: Incorporation of Delayed Link Failure in the Presence of Aleatory Uncertainty

Probability of loss of assured safety (PLOAS) is modeled for weak link (WL)/strong link (SL) systems in which one or more WLs or SLs could potentially degrade into a precursor condition to link failure that will be followed by an actual link failure after some amount of elapsed time. The descriptor loss of assured safety (LOAS) is used because failure of the WL system places the entire system in an inoperable configuration while failure of the SL system before failure of the WL system, although undesirable, does not necessarily result in an unintended operation of the entire system. Thus, safety is “assured” by failure of the WL system before failure of the SL system. Here, the following topics are considered: (i) Definition of precursor occurrence time cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) for individual WLs and SLs, (ii) Formal representation, approximation and illustration of PLOAS with (a) constant delay times, (b) aleatory uncertainty in delay times, and (c) delay times defined by functions of link properties at occurrence times for link failure precursors, and (iii) Procedures for the verification of PLOAS calculations for the three indicated definitions of delayed link failure.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2002

NASA/Navy Benchmarking Exchange (NNBE). Volume 1. Interim Report. Navy Submarine Program Safety Assurance

The NASA/Navy Benchmarking Exchange (NNBE) was undertaken to identify practices and procedures and to share lessons learned in the Navy's submarine and NASA's human space flight programs. The NNBE focus is on safety and mission assurance policies, processes, accountability, and control measures. This report is an interim summary of activity conducted through October 2002, and it coincides with completion of the first phase of a two-phase fact-finding effort.In August 2002, a team was formed, co-chaired by senior representatives from the NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance and the NAVSEA 92Q Submarine Safety and Quality Assurance Division. The team closely examined the two elements of submarine safety (SUBSAFE) certification: (1) new design/construction (initial certification) and (2) maintenance and modernization (sustaining certification), with a focus on: (1) Management and Organization, (2) Safety Requirements (technical and administrative), (3) Implementation Processes, (4) Compliance Verification Processes, and (5) Certification Processes.

SUBSAFE PROGRAM↗

NASA NTRS2016

Goal Structuring Notation in a Radiation Hardening Assurance Case for COTS-Based Spacecraft

A systematic approach is presented to constructing a radiation assurance case using Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) for spacecraft containing COTS parts. The GSN paradigm is applied to an SRAM single-event upset experiment board designed to fly on a CubeSat in January 2017. A custom software language for development of a GSN assurance case is under development at Vanderbilt. Construction of a radiation assurance case without use of hardened parts or extensive radiation testing is discussed.

Radiation Effects Modeling (REM)↗

NASA NTRS2016

The Evolution of the NASA Commercial Crew Program Mission Assurance Process

In 2010, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) established the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) in order to provide human access to the International Space Station and low Earth orbit via the commercial (non-governmental) sector. A particular challenge to NASA has been how to determine that the Commercial Provider's transportation system complies with programmatic safety requirements. The process used in this determination is the Safety Technical Review Board which reviews and approves provider submitted hazard reports. One significant product of the review is a set of hazard control verifications. In past NASA programs, 100% of these safety critical verifications were typically confirmed by NASA. The traditional Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) model does not support the nature of the CCP. To that end, NASA S&MA is implementing a Risk Based Assurance process to determine which hazard control verifications require NASA authentication. Additionally, a Shared Assurance Model is also being developed to efficiently use the available resources to execute the verifications.

Mission Assurance↗