Results for “Engineering Risk Assessment” — Page 6

NASA NTRS2015

Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) Assessment

The Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Project requested the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) conduct an independent evaluation of the Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) models used in the latest JPSS MMOD risk assessment. The principal focus of the assessment was to compare Orbital Debris Engineering Model version 3 (ORDEM 3.0) with the Meteoroid and Space Debris Terrestrial Environment Reference version 2009 (MASTER-2009) and Aerospace Debris Environment Projection Tool (ADEPT) and provide recommendations to the JPSS Project regarding MMOD protection. The outcome of the NESC assessment is contained in this report.

Squire, Michael D.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Computational Analyses in Support of Sub-scale Diffuser Testing for the A-3 Facility: Steady Predictions - Part 1

Simulation technology can play an important role in rocket engine test facility design and development by assessing risks, providing analysis of dynamic pressure and thermal loads, identifying failure modes and predicting anomalous behavior of critical systems. Advanced numerical tools assume greater significance in supporting testing and design of high altitude testing facilities and plume induced testing environments of high thrust engines because of the greater inter-dependence and synergy in the functioning of the different sub-systems. This is especially true for facilities such as the proposed A-3 facility at NASA SSC because of a challenging operating envelope linked to variable throttle conditions at relatively low chamber pressures. Facility designs in this case will require a complex network of diffuser ducts, steam ejector trains, fast operating valves, cooling water systems and flow diverters that need to be characterized for steady state performance. In this paper, we will demonstrate with the use of CFD analyses s advanced capability to evaluate supersonic diffuser and steam ejector performance in a sub-scale A-3 facility at NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) where extensive testing was performed. Furthermore, the focus in this paper relates to modeling of critical sub-systems and components used in facilities such as the A-3 facility. The work here will address deficiencies in empirical models and current CFD analyses that are used for design of supersonic diffusers/turning vanes/ejectors as well as analyses for confined plumes and venting processes. The primary areas that will be addressed are: (1) supersonic diffuser performance including analyses of thermal loads (2) accurate shock capturing in the diffuser duct; (3) effect of turning duct on the performance of the facility (4) prediction of mass flow rates and performance classification for steam ejectors (5) comparisons with test data from sub-scale diffuser testing and assessment of confidence levels in CFD based flowpath modeling of the facility. The analyses tools used here expand on the multi-element unstructured CFD which has been tailored and validated for impingement dynamics of dry plumes, complex valve/feed systems, and high pressure propellant delivery systems used in engine and component test stands at NASA SSC. The analyses performed in the evaluation of the sub-scale diffuser facility explored several important factors that influence modeling and understanding of facility operation such as (a) importance of modeling the facility with Real Gas approximation, (b) approximating the cluster of steam ejector nozzles as a single annular nozzle, (c) existence of mixed subsonic/supersonic flow downstream of the turning duct, and (d) inadequacy of two-equation turbulence models in predicting the correct pressurization in the turning duct and expansion of the second stage steam ejectors. The procedure used for modeling the facility was as follows: (i) The engine, test cell and first stage ejectors were simulated with an axisymmetric approximation (ii) the turning duct, second stage ejectors and the piping downstream of the second stage ejectors were analyzed with a three-dimensional simulation utilizing a half-plane symmetry approximation. The solution i.e. primitive variables such as pressure, velocity components, temperature and turbulence quantities were passed from the first computational domain and specified as a supersonic boundary condition for the second simulation. (iii) The third domain comprised of the exit diffuser and the region in the vicinity of the facility (primary included to get the correct shock structure at the exit of the facility and entrainment characteristics). The first set of simulations comprising the engine, test cell and first stage ejectors was carried out both as a turbulent real gas calculation as well as a turbulent perfect gas calculation. A comparison for the two cases (Real Turbulent and Perfect gas turbulent) of the Ma Number distribution and temperature distributions are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively. The Mach Number distribution shows small yet distinct differences between the two cases such as locations of shocks/shock reflections and a slightly different impingement point on the wall of the diffuser from the expansion at the exit of the nozzle. Similarly the temperature distribution indicates different flow recirculation patterns in the test cell. Both cases capture all the essential flow phenomena such as the shock-boundary layer interaction, plume expansion, expansion of the first stage ejectors, mixing between the engine plume and the first stage ejector flow and pressurization due to the first stage ejectors. The final paper will discuss thermal loads on the walls of the diffuser and cooling mechanisms investigated.

Allgood, Daniel C.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Computational Analyses in Support of Sub-scale Diffuser Testing for the A-3 Facility: Steady Predictions - Part 1

Simulation technology can play an important role in rocket engine test facility design and development by assessing risks, providing analysis of dynamic pressure and thermal loads, identifying failure modes and predicting anomalous behavior of critical systems. Advanced numerical tools assume greater significance in supporting testing and design of high altitude testing facilities and plume induced testing environments of high thrust engines because of the greater inter-dependence and synergy in the functioning of the different sub-systems. This is especially true for facilities such as the proposed A-3 facility at NASA SSC because of a challenging operating envelope linked to variable throttle conditions at relatively low chamber pressures. Facility designs in this case will require a complex network of diffuser ducts, steam ejector trains, fast operating valves, cooling water systems and flow diverters that need to be characterized for steady state performance. In this paper, we will demonstrate with the use of CFD analyses s advanced capability to evaluate supersonic diffuser and steam ejector performance in a sub-scale A-3 facility at NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) where extensive testing was performed. Furthermore, the focus in this paper relates to modeling of critical sub-systems and components used in facilities such as the A-3 facility. The work here will address deficiencies in empirical models and current CFD analyses that are used for design of supersonic diffusers/turning vanes/ejectors as well as analyses for confined plumes and venting processes. The primary areas that will be addressed are: (1) supersonic diffuser performance including analyses of thermal loads (2) accurate shock capturing in the diffuser duct; (3) effect of turning duct on the performance of the facility (4) prediction of mass flow rates and performance classification for steam ejectors (5) comparisons with test data from sub-scale diffuser testing and assessment of confidence levels in CFD based flowpath modeling of the facility. The analyses tools used here expand on the multi-element unstructured CFD which has been tailored and validated for impingement dynamics of dry plumes, complex valve/feed systems, and high pressure propellant delivery systems used in engine and component test stands at NASA SSC. The analyses performed in the evaluation of the sub-scale diffuser facility explored several important factors that influence modeling and understanding of facility operation such as (a) importance of modeling the facility with Real Gas approximation, (b) approximating the cluster of steam ejector nozzles as a single annular nozzle, (c) existence of mixed subsonic/supersonic flow downstream of the turning duct, and (d) inadequacy of two-equation turbulence models in predicting the correct pressurization in the turning duct and expansion of the second stage steam ejectors. The procedure used for modeling the facility was as follows: (i) The engine, test cell and first stage ejectors were simulated with an axisymmetric approximation (ii) the turning duct, second stage ejectors and the piping downstream of the second stage ejectors were analyzed with a three-dimensional simulation utilizing a half-plane symmetry approximation. The solution i.e. primitive variables such as pressure, velocity components, temperature and turbulence quantities were passed from the first computational domain and specified as a supersonic boundary condition for the second simulation. (iii) The third domain comprised of the exit diffuser and the region in the vicinity of the facility (primary included to get the correct shock structure at the exit of the facility and entrainment characteristics). The first set of simulations comprising the engine, test cell and first stage ejectors was carried out both as a turbulent real gas calculation as well as a turbulent perfect gas calculation. A comparison for the two cases (Real Turbulent and Perfect gas turbulent) of the Ma Number distribution and temperature distributions are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively.

Allgood, Daniel C.↗

NASA NTRS2011

NASA Applications and Lessons Learned in Reliability Engineering

Since the Shuttle Challenger accident in 1986, communities across NASA have been developing and extensively using quantitative reliability and risk assessment methods in their decision making process. This paper discusses several reliability engineering applications that NASA has used over the year to support the design, development, and operation of critical space flight hardware. Specifically, the paper discusses several reliability engineering applications used by NASA in areas such as risk management, inspection policies, components upgrades, reliability growth, integrated failure analysis, and physics based probabilistic engineering analysis. In each of these areas, the paper provides a brief discussion of a case study to demonstrate the value added and the criticality of reliability engineering in supporting NASA project and program decisions to fly safely. Examples of these case studies discussed are reliability based life limit extension of Shuttle Space Main Engine (SSME) hardware, Reliability based inspection policies for Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) turbine disc, probabilistic structural engineering analysis for reliability prediction of the SSME alternate turbo-pump development, impact of ET foam reliability on the Space Shuttle System risk, and reliability based Space Shuttle upgrade for safety. Special attention is given in this paper to the physics based probabilistic engineering analysis applications and their critical role in evaluating the reliability of NASA development hardware including their potential use in a research and technology development environment.

Safie, Fayssal M.↗

DOE OSTI2024

Editorial: Subsurface microbiology within hydrocarbon resources or stored gases

A Research Topic on the microbiology of hydrocarbon and gas storage reservoirs has far reaching industrial applications. In recent decades, there has been a growing interest in understanding microbial communities in subsurface energy reservoirs, such as coal, oil, and shale beds. This area of research has broadened to include gas storage reservoirs for hydrogen and CO 2 . Scientists are beginning to unravel the unexpected impact microorganisms have on these systems, through changing the fluid geochemistry, the gas content, and even the permeability. By recognizing the influence of these tiny organisms on our engineered environments, we can develop better risk assessments, target mitigation strategies, expand energy production, and refine operational guidance, ultimately contributing to a more sustainable energy future.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2022

Numerical Characterization of Astronaut CaOx Renal Stone Incidence Rates to Quantify In-flight and Post-flight Relative Risk

Changes in urine chemistry potentially alter the risk of renal stone formation in astronauts. Quantifying spaceflight renal stone incidence risk compared to pre-flight levels remains a significant challenge for assessing the appropriate vehicle, mission, and countermeasure design. A computational biochemistry model representing CaOx crystal precipitation, growth, and agglomeration is combined with a probabilistic analysis to predict the in- and post-flight CaOx renal stone incidence risk ratio (IRR) relative to pre-flight values using 1517 astronaut 24-hour urine chemistries. Our simulations predict that in-flight fluid intake alone would need to increase from current prescriptions of 2.0 - 2.5 L/day to approximately 3.2 L/day to approach CaOx IRR of the pre-flight population. Bone protective interventions would reduce CaOx risk to pre-flight levels if Ca excretion alone is reduced to < 150 mg/day or if current levels are diminished to 190mg/day in combination with increasing fluid intake to 2.5 - 2.7 L/day. This analysis provides a quantitative risk assessment that can influence the critical balance between engineering and astronaut health requirements.

renal stones↗

NASA NTRS2018

Risk Management at NASA and Its Applicability to the Oil and Gas Industry

NASA has a world-class capability for quantitatively assessing the risk of highly-complex, isolated engineering structures operated in extremely hostile environments. In particular, the International Space Station (ISS) represents a reasonable risk analog for High Pressure, High Temperature drilling and production operations on deepwater rigs. Through a long-term U.S. Government Interagency Agreement, BSEE has partnered with NASA to modify NASA's Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) capabilities for application to deepwater drilling and production operations. The immediate focus of the activity will be to modify NASA PRA Procedure Guides and Methodology Documents to make them applicable to the Oil &Gas Industry. The next step will be for NASA to produce a PRA for a critical drilling system component, such as a Blowout Preventer (BOP). Subsequent activities will be for NASA and industry partners to jointly develop increasingly complex PRA's that analyze other critical drilling and production system components, including both hardware and human reliability. In the presentation, NASA will provide the objectives, schedule, and current status of its PRA activities for BSEE. Additionally, NASA has a Space Act Agreement with Anadarko Petroleum Corporation to develop a PRA for a generic 20K BOP. NASA will summarize some of the preliminary insights gained to date from that 20K BOP PRA as an example of the distinction between quantitative versus qualitative risk assessment.

PRA↗

NASA NTRS2013

Practical Application of PRA as an Integrated Design Tool for Space Systems

This paper presents the application of the first comprehensive Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) during the design phase of a joint NASA/NOAA weather satellite program, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Series R (GOES-R). GOES-R is the next generation weather satellite primarily to help understand the weather and help save human lives. PRA has been used at NASA for Human Space Flight for many years. PRA was initially adopted and implemented in the operational phase of manned space flight programs and more recently for the next generation human space systems. Since its first use at NASA, PRA has become recognized throughout the Agency as a method of assessing complex mission risks as part of an overall approach to assuring safety and mission success throughout project lifecycles. PRA is now included as a requirement during the design phase of both NASA next generation manned space vehicles as well as for high priority robotic missions. The influence of PRA on GOES-R design and operation concepts are discussed in detail. The GOES-R PRA is unique at NASA for its early implementation. It also represents a pioneering effort to integrate risks from both Spacecraft (SC) and Ground Segment (GS) to fully assess the probability of achieving mission objectives. PRA analysts were actively involved in system engineering and design engineering to ensure that a comprehensive set of technical risks were correctly identified and properly understood from a design and operations perspective. The analysis included an assessment of SC hardware and software, SC fault management system, GS hardware and software, common cause failures, human error, natural hazards, solar weather and infrastructure (such as network and telecommunications failures, fire). PRA findings directly resulted in design changes to reduce SC risk from micro-meteoroids. PRA results also led to design changes in several SC subsystems, e.g. propulsion, guidance, navigation and control (GNC), communications, mechanisms, and command and data handling (C&DH). The fault tree approach assisted in the development of the fault management system design. Human error analysis, which examined human response to failure, indicated areas where automation could reduce the overall probability of gaps in operation by half. In addition, the PRA brought to light many potential root causes of system disruptions, including earthquakes, inclement weather, solar storms, blackouts and other extreme conditions not considered in the typical reliability and availability analyses. Ultimately the PRA served to identify potential failures that, when mitigated, resulted in a more robust design, as well as to influence the program's concept of operations. The early and active integration of PRA with system and design engineering provided a well-managed approach for risk assessment that increased reliability and availability, optimized lifecyc1e costs, and unified the SC and GS developments.

Kalia, Prince↗

NASA NTRS2003

Space Shuttle Main Engine Implications for the Abort-to-Orbit Off-the-Pad Study

In 2001, the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) project office was contacted by the Space Shuttle Ascent Guidance, Navigation, and Control group to provide the engine perspective for an Abort-to-Orbit (ATO) study. The purpose of the AT0 Off-the-Pad study was to determine the feasibility of eliminating the Return to Launch Site and Transatlantic abort modes by using a five-segment solid rocket booster and throttling the remaining SSMEs to a higher power level. This would enable all abort modes to be Abort-to-Orbit. The SSME project office at Marshall Space Flight Center collaborated with MSFC's Space Transportation Directorate and Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power to provide the AT0 Off-the-Pad study with the analysis required. Power levels at 109%, 1 11% and 1 13% of rated power level were studied as well as mixture ratio decreases down to 5.85. SSME was to evaluate and define the technical and programmatic impacts to certify the SSME to these abort power levels. The SSME systems analysis group performed a steady state analysis using the SSME power balance model to determine if there were any technical issues associated with higher power level, low mixture ratio operation. Based on each power level/mixture ratio combination, an engine certification plan was created and a preliminary probabilistic risk assessment was performed. The results showed favorable results for higher power 1evel/lower mixture ratio SSME operation. In nearly all performance and redline parameters, the traded engine operation was encompassed by nominal engine performance of a prior engine configuration.

Schoffstoll, Dayna L.↗

DOE OSTI2022

The Publication and Endorsement of the ASME/ANS Probabilistic Risk Assessment Standard for Advanced Non-Light Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants

Due to growing interest in non-light water reactor (NLWR) concepts, the predecessor to the American Nuclear Society (ANS)/American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Joint Committee on Nuclear Risk Management (JCNRM) initiated development of a NLWR probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) standard in 2006. The developed standard, released for trial use in 2013, was the first integral PRA standard created by the JCNRM, containing requirements ranging from the development of initiating events to the analysis of offsite radiological consequence. Based on feedback from pilot applications of the trial standard, a revised version of the standard was developed and balloted in 2020, with unanimous passage by the JCNRM and formal publication as an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard in 2021. The paper provides an overview of the standard and its development process. In addition, the paper reviews the latest status of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission endorsement efforts through Regulatory Guide 1.247.

Fleming, K.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Johnson Space Center's Risk and Reliability Analysis Group 2008 Annual Report

The Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) Directorate s Risk and Reliability Analysis Group provides both mathematical and engineering analysis expertise in the areas of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) analysis, and data collection and analysis. The fundamental goal of this group is to provide National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) decisionmakers with the necessary information to make informed decisions when evaluating personnel, flight hardware, and public safety concerns associated with current operating systems as well as with any future systems. The Analysis Group includes a staff of statistical and reliability experts with valuable backgrounds in the statistical, reliability, and engineering fields. This group includes JSC S&MA Analysis Branch personnel as well as S&MA support services contractors, such as Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and SoHaR. The Analysis Group s experience base includes nuclear power (both commercial and navy), manufacturing, Department of Defense, chemical, and shipping industries, as well as significant aerospace experience specifically in the Shuttle, International Space Station (ISS), and Constellation Programs. The Analysis Group partners with project and program offices, other NASA centers, NASA contractors, and universities to provide additional resources or information to the group when performing various analysis tasks. The JSC S&MA Analysis Group is recognized as a leader in risk and reliability analysis within the NASA community. Therefore, the Analysis Group is in high demand to help the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) continue to fly safely, assist in designing the next generation spacecraft for the Constellation Program (CxP), and promote advanced analytical techniques. The Analysis Section s tasks include teaching classes and instituting personnel qualification processes to enhance the professional abilities of our analysts as well as performing major probabilistic assessments used to support flight rationale and help establish program requirements. During 2008, the Analysis Group performed more than 70 assessments. Although all these assessments were important, some were instrumental in the decisionmaking processes for the Shuttle and Constellation Programs. Two of the more significant tasks were the Space Transportation System (STS)-122 Low Level Cutoff PRA for the SSP and the Orion Pad Abort One (PA-1) PRA for the CxP. These two activities, along with the numerous other tasks the Analysis Group performed in 2008, are summarized in this report. This report also highlights several ongoing and upcoming efforts to provide crucial statistical and probabilistic assessments, such as the Extravehicular Activity (EVA) PRA for the Hubble Space Telescope service mission and the first fully integrated PRAs for the CxP's Lunar Sortie and ISS missions.

Valentine, Mark↗

NASA NTRS1997

NASA/JSC orbital debris models

The orbital debris models developed within the framework of the NASA Johnson Space Center's (JSC's) orbital debris program, are categorized as environment definition and risk assessment models. The EVOLVE, CHAIN and the orbital debris engineering model 1996 (ORDEM96) computer programs determine the past, present and future orbital particulate environment, while the BUMPER and debris assessment software (DAS) computer programs provide a means for evaluating the risks of specific space missions. These models are presented. To support these models and to conduct specialized analyses, NASA/JSC employs a range of auxiliary models, including explosion and collision satellite breakup models, hypervelocity impact ballistic limit models, orbit propagation and decay models, space traffic models and solid rocket motor effluent models.

Johnson, Nicholas↗

DOE OSTI2021

Analysis of Loss-of-Offsite-Power Events: Update

Loss-of-offsite power (LOOP) can have a negative impact on a nuclear power plant’s ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown conditions. LOOP event frequencies and times required for subsequent restoration of offsite power are important inputs to plant probabilistic risk assessments. This report presents a statistical and engineering analysis of LOOP frequencies and durations at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. The data used in this study were based on the operating experience during calendar years 1987–2020, while the most recent 15-year data (i.e., from 2006–2020) were used for most analyses in this report. LOOP events during critical operation that did not result in a reactor trip are not included. Frequencies and durations were determined for four LOOP event categories: plant-centered, switchyard-centered, grid-related, and weather related. Highly significant decreasing trends in the LOOP occurrence rates were identified for All-LOOPs during critical operation (p-value = 0.001) and switchyard-centered LOOPs during critical operation (p-value = 0.002) for the most recent 10-year period (2011–2020). Adverse trends in LOOP durations continue for switchyard-centered LOOPs (p-value = 0.005), All-LOOPs (p-value = 0.019), as well as All-LOOPs during shutdown operation (p-value = 0.003). Statistical tests show the LOOP counts are not uniformly distributed across the 12 months, and variation among the months exists for plant-centered LOOPs (p-value = 0.028), grid-related LOOPs (p-value = 0.021), All-LOOPs (p-value = 0.003), and All-LOOPs during critical operation (p-value = 0.008). The engineering analysis of LOOP data showed for the period of 2006–2020, the equipment failure events were dominated by failures of circuits and relay; human errors have been less frequent and occurred primarily in maintenance; and weather events were dominated by tornadoes and lightning.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Analysis of Loss-of-Offsite-Power Events: 2021 Update

Loss-of-offsite power (LOOP) can have a negative impact on a nuclear power plant’s ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown conditions. LOOP event frequencies and times required for subsequent restoration of offsite power are important inputs to plant probabilistic risk assessments. This report presents a statistical and engineering analysis of LOOP frequencies and durations at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. The data used in this study were based on the operating experience during calendar years 1987–2021, while the most recent 15-year data (i.e., from 2007–2021) were used for most analyses in this report. LOOP events during critical operation that did not result in a reactor trip are not included. Frequencies and durations were determined for four LOOP event categories: plant-centered, switchyard-centered, grid-related, and weather-related. These categories (and the All-LOOPs group which contains all LOOPs without regarding of the four categories) could be further grouped by whether a LOOP event occurred during critical operation, during shutdown operation, or during all operations. The following decreasing trends in the LOOP occurrence rates were identified for the most recent 10-year period (2012–2021): All-LOOPs during critical operation, switchyard-centered LOOPs during critical operation, and grid-related LOOPs during critical operation. Adverse trends in LOOP durations continue for switchyard-centered LOOPs during all operations, All-LOOPs during all operations, and All-LOOPs during shutdown operation for the 1997–2021 period. Statistical tests show the LOOP counts for the period of 2007–2021 are not uniformly distributed across the 12 months, and variation among the months exists for grid-related LOOPs during all operations, All-LOOPs during all operations, and All-LOOPs during critical operation. The engineering analysis of LOOP data showed for the period of 2007–2021, the equipment failure events were dominated by failures of relay and other; human errors have been less frequent and occurred primarily in maintenance and switching; and weather were dominated by tornadoes then by lightning and hurricane. Weather was the cause for 45% of LOOPs for the last fifteen years (2007– 2021) but only for 20% of LOOPs for the previous 20 years (1987–2006) .

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2023

R&D DC Electrical Safety [Slides]

Objectives: Recognize DC and pulsed electrical hazards; Improve risk assessment skills; Concepts to improve worker safety; Engineered vs. administrative controls; tools of the trade.

42 ENGINEERING↗

NASA NTRS2019

Meteoroid Engineering Model (MEM) 3: NASA’s Newest Meteoroid Model

Meteoroid impacts threaten spacecraft and astronauts at all locations within the Solar System. At certain altitudes in low-Earth orbit, orbital debris dominates the risk, but meteoroids are more significant within 250 km of the Earth’s surface and above 4000 km [1]. In interplanetary space, orbital debris is nonexistent and meteoroids constitute the entire population of potentially dangerous impactors. The NASA Meteoroid Environment Office (MEO) produces the Meteoroid Engineering Model (MEM) to support meteoroid impact risk assessments [2]; MEM is a stand-alone piece of software that describes the flux, speed, directionality, and bulk density of meteoroids striking a spacecraft on a user-supplied trajectory. The MEO released version 3 of MEM in 2019 [3]. This proceeding describes the orbital populations that form the core of MEM, highlights key differences between MEM 3 and its predecessors, discusses the implications of these changes for spacecraft, summarizes our validation against meteor and in-situ data, and delineates the model’s limitations.

Moorhead, Althea V.↗

DOE OSTI2025

Cybersecurity for Digital Energy Infrastructure : Trends, Threats, and Cyber-Informed Engineering

This presentation discusses the rise in digital energy infrastructure and associated threats. It covers an in-depth risk assessment of digital energy equipment and provides real world examples of threats, vulnerabilities, and known incidents. Research conducted by INL assessing and addressing these risks follows, concluding with a dive into Cyber-Informed Engineering (CIE) and it's application to digital energy infrastructure, using battery energy storage systems (BESS) as an example.

24 - POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2025

Cyber-Informed Engineering (CIE) Workbook: End-of-Train (EoT) / Head-of-Train (HoT) Communications

This workbook presents a vulnerability (CVE-2025-1727 ) found in train applications and guides a digital risk assessment and mitigation analysis and application of Cyber-Informed Engineering principles to mitigate the potential consequences and ultimately the hazard through the engineering discipline because of exploiting this vulnerability. Workshop participants are encouraged to use the workbook to capture insights and lessons learned. The workbook guides the participant to: • Understand the HE communication vulnerability • Map digital threats to physical consequences • Use bowtie analysis to illustrate both “security” and “engineering” barriers • Apply CIE principles to ensure that even if communications are compromised, the physical engineered system still behaves safely. • Produce an actionable set of engineered and infosec controls for implementation

42 - ENGINEERING↗