Results for “Productive Safety” — Page 6

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

System Safety Analysis of Complex NASA Systems with Model-Based Engineering

The emergence of model-based engineering is transforming design and analysis methodologies [5]. A recognized benefit of model-based engineering is the existence of a “single source of truth” about the system that becomes the authoritative source of data and information for designers, analysts, and developers. This promotes consistency and efficiency as the design emerges and can be used to further optimize the design. Integrating System Safety Engineers to the “single source of truth” will ensure that the outputs of their assessments and analyses are relevant to the design as it evolves. Use of an integrated system model enables near immediate evaluation of a design change as well as development of operational processes for risk assessment and communication. Such models can enable efficient and timely analysis of system hazards (e.g., hazard fault tree analysis and procedure simulations) and produce complete, accurate, and more consistent products (e.g., hazard reports and safety requirement evaluations). Therefore, an agency-sponsored team at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) recently completed a System Safety Study of modeling and testing capabilities as part of a Model-Based Safety and Mission Assurance Initiative (MBSMAI). Using an existing model developed for reliability analyses [1], GSFC modeling and system safety experts performed system safety analysis/modeling and produced safety products. The team evaluated model-based feasibility to support System Safety Engineering, developed safety analysis modeling processes, and identified tool capability advancement/development needs. These study results indicate model-based engineering is valid and useable for System

NASA↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

System Safety Analysis of Complex NASA Systems with Model Based Engineering

The emergence of model-based engineering is transforming design and analysis methodologies [5]. A recognized benefit of model-based engineering is the existence of a “single source of truth” about the system that becomes the authoritative source of data and information for designers, analysts, and developers. This promotes consistency and efficiency as the design emerges and can be used to further optimize the design. Integrating System Safety Engineers to the “single source of truth” will ensure that the outputs of their assessments and analyses are relevant to the design as it evolves. Use of an integrated system model enables near immediate evaluation of a design change as well as development of operational processes for risk assessment and communication. Such models can enable efficient and timely analysis of system hazards (e.g., hazard fault tree analysis and procedure simulations) and produce complete, accurate, and more consistent products (e.g., hazard reports and safety requirement evaluations). Therefore, an agency-sponsored team at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) recently completed a System Safety Study of modeling and testing capabilities as part of a Model-Based Safety and Mission Assurance Initiative (MBSMAI). Using an existing model developed for reliability analyses [1], GSFC modeling and system safety experts performed system safety analysis/modeling and produced safety products. The team evaluated model-based feasibility to support System Safety Engineering, developed safety analysis modeling processes, and identified tool capability advancement/development needs. These study results indicate model-based engineering is valid and useable for System

Model Based Engineering↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

System Safety Analysis of Complex NASA Systems with Model-Based Engineering (REV B)

The emergence of model-based engineering is transforming design and analysis methodologies. A recognized benefit of model-based engineering is the existence of a “single source of truth” about the system that becomes the authoritative source of data and information for designers, analysts, and developers. This promotes consistency and efficiency as the design emerges and can be used to further optimize the design. Integrating System Safety Engineers to the “single source of truth” will ensure that the outputs of their assessments and analyses are relevant to the design as it evolves. Use of an integrated system model enables near immediate evaluation of a design change as well as development of operational processes for risk assessment and communication. Such models can enable efficient and timely analysis of system hazards (e.g., hazard fault tree analysis and procedure simulations) and produce complete, accurate, and more consistent products (e.g., hazard reports and safety requirement evaluations). Therefore, an agency-sponsored team at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) recently completed a System Safety Study of modeling and testing capabilities as part of a Model-Based Safety and Mission Assurance Initiative (MBSMAI). Using an existing model developed for reliability analyses, GSFC modeling and system safety experts performed system safety analysis/modeling and produced safety products. The team evaluated model-based feasibility to support System Safety Engineering, developed safety analysis modeling processes, and identified tool capability advancement/development needs. These study results indicate model-based engineering is valid and useable for System Safety Engineering for NASA if adequate modeling processes and environment are established.

NASA↗

NASA NTRS1975

Fire safety: A case study of technology transfer

Two basic ways in which NASA-generated technology is being used by the fire safety community are described. First, improved products and systems that embody NASA technical advances are entering the marketplace. Second, NASA test data and technical information related to fire safety are being used by persons concerned with reducing the hazards of fire through improved design information and standards. The development of commercial fire safety products and systems typically requires adaptation and integration of aerospace technologies that may not have been originated for NASA fire safety applications.

Heins, C. F.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Flightdeck Automation Problems (FLAP) Model for Safety Technology Portfolio Assessment

NASA's Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) develops and advances methodologies and technologies to improve air transportation safety. The Safety Analysis and Integration Team (SAIT) conducts a safety technology portfolio assessment (PA) to analyze the program content, to examine the benefits and risks of products with respect to program goals, and to support programmatic decision making. The PA process includes systematic identification of current and future safety risks as well as tracking several quantitative and qualitative metrics to ensure the program goals are addressing prominent safety risks accurately and effectively. One of the metrics within the PA process involves using quantitative aviation safety models to gauge the impact of the safety products. This paper demonstrates the role of aviation safety modeling by providing model outputs and evaluating a sample of portfolio elements using the Flightdeck Automation Problems (FLAP) model. The model enables not only ranking of the quantitative relative risk reduction impact of all portfolio elements, but also highlighting the areas with high potential impact via sensitivity and gap analyses in support of the program office. Although the model outputs are preliminary and products are notional, the process shown in this paper is essential to a comprehensive PA of NASA's safety products in the current program and future programs/projects.

Ancel, Ersin↗

NASA NTRS1991

FY 1991 safety program status report

In FY 1991, the NASA Safety Division continued efforts to enhance the quality and productivity of its safety oversight function. Recent initiatives set forth in areas such as training, risk management, safety assurance, operational safety, and safety information systems have matured into viable programs contributing to the safety and success of activities throughout the Agency. Efforts continued to develop a centralized intra-agency safety training program with establishment of the NASA Safety Training Center at the Johnson Space Center (JSC). The objective is to provide quality training for NASA employees and contractors on a broad range of safety-related topics. Courses developed by the Training Center will be presented at various NASA locations to minimize travel and reach the greatest number of people at the least cost. In FY 1991, as part of the ongoing efforts to enhance the total quality of NASA's safety work force, the Safety Training Center initiated development of a Certified Safety Professional review course. This course provides a comprehensive review of the skills and knowledge that well-rounded safety professionals must possess to qualify for professional certification. FY 1992 will see the course presented to NASA and contractor employees at all installations via the NASA Video Teleconference System.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2011

Ares I-X Range Safety Analyses Overview

Ares I-X was the first test flight of NASA's Constellation Program's Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle designed to provide manned access to low Earth orbit. As a one-time test flight, the Air Force's 45th Space Wing required a series of Range Safety analysis data products to be developed for the specified launch date and mission trajectory prior to granting flight approval on the Eastern Range. The range safety data package is required to ensure that the public, launch area, and launch complex personnel and resources are provided with an acceptable level of safety and that all aspects of prelaunch and launch operations adhere to applicable public laws. The analysis data products, defined in the Air Force Space Command Manual 91-710, Volume 2, consisted of a nominal trajectory, three sigma trajectory envelopes, stage impact footprints, acoustic intensity contours, trajectory turn angles resulting from potential vehicle malfunctions (including flight software failures), characterization of potential debris, and debris impact footprints. These data products were developed under the auspices of the Constellation's Program Launch Constellation Range Safety Panel and its Range Safety Trajectory Working Group with the intent of beginning the framework for the operational vehicle data products and providing programmatic review and oversight. A multi-center NASA team in conjunction with the 45th Space Wing, collaborated within the Trajectory Working Group forum to define the data product development processes, performed the analyses necessary to generate the data products, and performed independent verification and validation of the data products. This paper outlines the Range Safety data requirements and provides an overview of the processes established to develop both the data products and the individual analyses used to develop the data products, and it summarizes the results of the analyses required for the Ares I-X launch.

Starr, Brett R.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Ares I-X Range Safety Flight Envelope Analysis

Ares I-X was the first test flight of NASA's Constellation Program's Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle designed to provide manned access to low Earth orbit. As a one-time test flight, the Air Force's 45th Space Wing required a series of Range Safety analysis data products to be developed for the specified launch date and mission trajectory prior to granting flight approval on the Eastern Range. The range safety data package is required to ensure that the public, launch area, and launch complex personnel and resources are provided with an acceptable level of safety and that all aspects of prelaunch and launch operations adhere to applicable public laws. The analysis data products, defined in the Air Force Space Command Manual 91-710, Volume 2, consisted of a nominal trajectory, three sigma trajectory envelopes, stage impact footprints, acoustic intensity contours, trajectory turn angles resulting from potential vehicle malfunctions (including flight software failures), characterization of potential debris, and debris impact footprints. These data products were developed under the auspices of the Constellation's Program Launch Constellation Range Safety Panel and its Range Safety Trajectory Working Group with the intent of beginning the framework for the operational vehicle data products and providing programmatic review and oversight. A multi-center NASA team in conjunction with the 45th Space Wing, collaborated within the Trajectory Working Group forum to define the data product development processes, performed the analyses necessary to generate the data products, and performed independent verification and validation of the data products. This paper outlines the Range Safety data requirements and provides an overview of the processes established to develop both the data products and the individual analyses used to develop the data products, and it summarizes the results of the analyses required for the Ares I-X launch.

Starr, Brett R.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Test plan and report for Space Shuttle launch environment testing of Bergen cable technology safety cable

Bergen Cable Technology (BCT) has introduced a new product they refer to as 'safety cable'. This product is intended as a replacement for lockwire when installed per Aerospace Standard (AS) 4536 (included in Appendix D of this document). Installation of safety cable is reportedly faster and more uniform than lockwire. NASA/GSFC proposes to use this safety cable in Shuttle Small Payloads Project (SSPP) applications on upcoming Shuttle missions. To assure that BCT safety cable will provide positive locking of fasteners equivalent to lockwire, the SSPP will conduct vibration and pull tests of the safety cable.

Ralph, John↗

NASA NTRS2008

Product Engineering Class in the Software Safety Risk Taxonomy for Building Safety-Critical Systems

No abstract available

Hill, Janice L.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Distributed communications and control network for robotic mining

The application of robotics to coal mining machines is one approach pursued to increase productivity while providing enhanced safety for the coal miner. Toward that end, a network composed of microcontrollers, computers, expert systems, real time operating systems, and a variety of program languages are being integrated that will act as the backbone for intelligent machine operation. Actual mining machines, including a few customized ones, have been given telerobotic semiautonomous capabilities by applying the described network. Control devices, intelligent sensors and computers onboard these machines are showing promise of achieving improved mining productivity and safety benefits. Current research using these machines involves navigation, multiple machine interaction, machine diagnostics, mineral detection, and graphical machine representation. Guidance sensors and systems employed include: sonar, laser rangers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, clinometers, and accelerometers. Information on the network of hardware/software and its implementation on mining machines are presented. Anticipated coal production operations using the network are discussed. A parallelism is also drawn between the direction of present day underground coal mining research to how the lunar soil (regolith) may be mined. A conceptual lunar mining operation that employs a distributed communication and control network is detailed.

Schiffbauer, William H.↗

NASA NTRS2023

Runtime Assurance of Aeronautical Products: Preliminary Recommendations

Runtime assurance (RTA) affords an operational layer of protection against safety hazards to aeronautical products that may include less trusted or untrusted functions. However, any RTA scheme must itself be trusted before it can be deployed into use: i.e., it must be fit for its intended purpose, and it must not itself introduce safety hazards. This report contains preliminary recommendations on the application and integration of RTA into aeronautical products intended for use in civil aviation. The main purpose of these recommendations is to inform regulatory guidance and consensus standards that may be used to meet the safety intent of the applicable regulations.

Runtime assurance↗

NASA NTRS1974

ASRDI oxygen technology survey, Volume 7: Characteristics of metals that influence system safety

A literature survey and analysis of the material and process factors affecting the safety of metals in oxygen systems is presented. In addition, the practices of those who specify, build, or use oxygen systems relative to the previous is summarized. Alloys based on iron, copper, nickel, and aluminum were investigated representing the bulk of metals found in oxygen systems. Safety-related characteristics of other miscellaneous metals are summarized. It was found that factors affecting the safety of metals in oxygen systems exit in all phases of the evolutionary process, from smelting and mill techniques through end-production fabrication. The safety of a given metal in an oxygen system was determined to be influenced by the particular service requirement. The metal characteristics should favorably influence fulfillment of these requirements. Thus, no singular metal or alloy could be classified as safest for all types of oxygen service.

Pelouch, J. J., Jr.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Safety & Mission Assurance (SMA) Activities in Support of Artemis I and Plans for Artemis II

The Artemis I mission in 2022 accomplished humanity’s first venture beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) with a human-rated spacecraft in over fifty years. Artemis comprises several key Program elements – Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Orion Crew Module, Service Module, Launch Abort System; the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Exploration Ground System (EGS). Much of our human spaceflight experience with crewed lunar missions is captured in historical program documents, but first-hand knowledge is limited to a few spaceflight veterans. Missions to LEO have offered the opportunity of direct, near-instantaneous communications and assistance, and the ability to return to Earth within a matter of hours in case of emergency. Outward-bound missions do not have these features and will require a more autonomous and reliable spacecraft. The assessment of compliance with applicable safety requirements and adequacy of hazard controls and verifications is the responsibility of the MPCV Safety and Engineering Review Panel (MSERP), along with a Joint [NASA/ESA] Safety and Engineering Review Panel (JSERP) for the review of the European Service Module (ESM). The MSERP has two features that are relatively unique amongst NASA safety panels. First, NASA Engineering was added as a Panel co-chair, which enhanced the Engineering organization’s engagement and level of understanding of hazard analysis methodology and results. The MSERP has representation from each office, including Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) and Health and Medical Technical Authority, supporting the Orion Program in addition to the Engineering and Safety Technical Authority co-chairs. Second, the JSERP has a second set of co-chairs from ESA Engineering and ESA Product Assurance and Safety organizations, which recognizes the international arrangement as one of partnership. This paper will focus on SMA processes, activities, and plans for the Orion element and explore unique challenges associated with Artemis II as we approach the flight of the first crewed Orion vehicle.

Paul J. Collier↗

NASA NTRS2019

Challenges and Opportunities of International Cooperation for Safety & Mission Assurance (SMA) on the European Service Module (ESM) of the Orion Program

ESA is providing the ESM to NASA for the Orion Program in accordance with the Implementing Arrangement (IA) established between the two Agencies in 2012. This IA is a barter agreement, in which ESA provides Service Module vehicles for the first two flights of Orion in exchange for two servicing missions to the ISS. This arrangement has provided opportunities and challenges to both communities. It represents an important opportunity for ESA to build on its experience in the development and operations of ATV and play an active role in the development and flight of a manned space vehicle. This paper will explore some of the unique aspects of this arrangement as it affects Safety & Mission Assurance (SMA).The assessment of ESM compliance with applicable safety requirements is the responsibility of the Joint Safety and Engineering Review Panel (JSERP). The JSERP has two features that are relatively unique amongst NASA safety panels. First, NASA Engineering and SMA organizations co-chair this Panel. Previously, Safety has chaired, with Engineering as a member of the Panel. Inclusion of Engineering as a co-chair has offered greater leverage within the technical community. Second, the JSERP includes a second set of co-chairs from ESA Engineering and ESA Product Assurance and Safety (PA/S) organizations. This recognizes the international arrangement as one of partnership.Another source of both opportunity and challenge is the differing experience base of ESA and NASA. NASA has decades of experience in manned spaceflight, dating back to the Mercury program and following through Gemini, Apollo, Apollo-Soyuz, Skylab, Shuttle and the International Space Station. The risk posture for manned missions is much more rigorous than for unmanned missions. ESA brings a wealth of knowledge as well, with their flights of Ariane and Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), development and operation of the Columbus module on ISS, and satellite programs. The result is that both parties have developed paradigms related to risk and failure that contribute to ESM discussions.Orion represents humanity's first venture beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) in over fifty years. Much of that experience is captured in program documents, but first-hand knowledge is limited to a few spaceflight veterans. Missions to LEO have offered the opportunity of direct, near-instantaneous communications and assistance, and the ability to return to Earth within a matter of hours in case of emergency. Outward-bound missions do not have these features and will require a more autonomous spacecraft with attendant safety-related issues.This paper will explore these and other challenges as we approach the flight of the first Orion vehicle.

Ciancone, Michael L.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Ignition and combustion of bulk metals in a microgravity environment

Knowledge of the oxidation, ignition, and combustion of bulk metals is important for fire safety in the production, management, and utilization of liquid and gaseous oxygen for ground based and space applications. This report summarizes research under NASA support to investigate the ignition and combustion characteristics of bulk metals under varying gravity conditions. Metal ignition and combustion have not been studied previously under these conditions and the results are important not only for improved fire safety but also to increase knowledge of basic ignition and combustion mechanisms. The studies completed to date have led to the development of a clean and reproducible ignition source and diagnostic techniques for combustion measurements and have provided normal gravity combustion data on ten different pure metals. Metal specimens were ignited using a xenon short-arc lamp and measurements were made of the radiant energy flux, surface temperature history, spectroscopy of surface and gas products, and surface morphology and chemistry. Elevated gravity was provided by the University of Colorado Geotechnical Centrifuge.

Branch, Melvyn C.↗

NASA NTRS1997

Software Design Improvements: Software Benefits and Limitations - Part 1

Computer hardware and associated software have been used for many years to process accounting information, to analyze test data and to perform engineering analysis. Now computers and software also control everything from automobiles to washing machines and the number and type of applications are growing at an exponential rate. The size of individual program has shown similar growth. Furthermore, software and hardware are used to monitor and/or control potentially dangerous products and safety-critical systems. These uses include everything from airplanes and braking systems to medical devices and nuclear plants. The question is: how can this hardware and software be made more reliable? Also, how can software quality be improved? What methodology needs to be provided on large and small software products to improve the design and how can software be verified?

Lalli, Vincent R.↗

NASA NTRS2002

Crew Factors in Flight Operations XIV: Alertness Management in Regional Flight Operations Education Module

Regional operations encompass a broad range of pilots and equipment. This module is intended to help all those involved in regional aviation, including pilots, schedulers, dispatchers, maintenance technicians, policy makers, and others, to understand the physiological factors underlying fatigue, how flight operations affect fatigue, and what can be done to counteract fatigue and maximize alertness and performance in their operations. The overall purpose of this module is to promote aviation safety, performance, and productivity. It is intended to meet three specific objectives: (1) to explain the current state of knowledge about the physiological mechanisms underlying fatigue; (2) to demonstrate how this knowledge can be applied to improving flight crew sleep, performance, and alertness; and (3) to offer strategies for alertness management. Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) and National Transportation Safety Board (NISH) reports are used throughout this module to demonstrate that fatigue is a safety issue in the regional operations community. The appendices at the end of this module include the ASRS reports used for the examples contained in this publication, brief introductions to sleep disorders and relaxation techniques, summaries of relevant NASA publications, and a list of general readings on sleep, sleep disorders, and circadian rhythms.

Rosekind, Mark R.↗