Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Risk Tolerance”

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 109 records · Page 6

Impact damage tolerance of thin wall composite struts

An experimental investigation was made to study the impact damage tolerance of thin wall composite struts made of both brittle epoxy and toughened epoxy based composite materials. Damage parameters such as barely visible surface damage and internal damage represented by the ultrasonic C-scan, and residual compressive strengths were evaluated against impact energy for two impactor sizes. From both a damage resistance (internal damage vs. impact energy) and a damage tolerance (residual compressive strength vs. internal damage) point of view, the toughened IM7/977-2 struts exhibited better performance than the brittle epoxy based T50/934 struts. This is attributed to the toughening mechanism in 977-2 which impedes delamination initiation from impact, and delamination growth and subsequent buckling under a compression loading. At barely visible damage thresholds, regardless of the impactor sizes, a maximum strength reduction of 45-55 percent was observed for the T50/934 struts, and approximately 10 percent for IM7/977-2 struts. This is of great interest for developing a damage tolerance design approach and risk assessment methodology in which the design allowable would be defined by the residual strength at the threshold of barely visible damage.

Chen, G.-S.↗

Mission management aircraft operations manual

This manual prescribes the NASA mission management aircraft program and provides policies and criteria for the safe and economical operation, maintenance, and inspection of NASA mission management aircraft. The operation of NASA mission management aircraft is based on the concept that safety has the highest priority. Operations involving unwarranted risks will not be tolerated. NASA mission management aircraft will be designated by the Associate Administrator for Management Systems and Facilities. NASA mission management aircraft are public aircraft as defined by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Maintenance standards, as a minimum, will meet those required for retention of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airworthiness certification. Federal Aviation Regulation Part 91, Subparts A and B, will apply except when requirements of this manual are more restrictive.

Source record↗

AXAF-I ghost ray study: On orbit case

The problem of baffles for control of singly reflected (and nonreflected) ghost rays is considered. The theory of baffle design for Wolter Type I grazing incidence optics is reviewed, and a set of sample baffle parameters is obtained subject to the assumptions of nominal mirror figures and perfect manufacture and alignment of baffles. It is found that baffles forward of the optics (in the thermal precollimator) and between the mirror elements (at the CAP) are sufficient to allow the simultaneous ghost image and vignetting requirements to be satisfied for HRMA shells P1H1, P3H3, and P4H4. However, these baffles are not sufficient for the innermost shell P6H6; at best the requirements are slightly violated and there is no margin for tolerances. The addition of a baffle interior to the P6 space at an axial station about one third of the way forward from the aft end of the paraboloid will allow the ghost ray and vignetting requirements to be met. The minimum ghost ray angles and the vignetting angles are sensitive functions of the baffle positions and radii; tolerances of considerably better than 1 mm will be required. The sensitivities are coupled and correlated; further investigations should be undertaken in order to obtain baffle parameters which, combined with likely achievable tolerances, will minimize the risk of the vignetting/ghost ray requirements not being met. The lightweight carbon-epoxy composite used for thermal baffles has insufficient X-ray opacity to be a suitable material for construction of the controlling X-ray baffles; further study is needed to determine an appropriate material and to investigate its thermal and mechanical implications.

Gaetz, T. J.↗

Laser Peening Effects on Friction Stir Welding

The laser peening process can result in considerable improvement to crack initiation, propagation, and mechanical properties in FSW which equates to longer hardware service life Processed hardware safety is improved by producing higher failure tolerant hardware, and reducing risk. Lowering hardware maintenance cost produces longer hardware service life, and lower hardware down time. Application of this proposed technology will result in substantial benefits and savings throughout the life of the treated components

Hatameleh, Omar↗

Measurement Assurance for End-Item Users

The goal of a Quality Management System (QMS) as specified in ISO 9001 and AS9100 is to assure the end product meets specifications and customer requirements. Measuring devices, often called measuring and test equipments (MTE), provide the evidence of product conformity to the prescribed requirements. Therefore the processes which employ MTE can become a weak link to the overall QMS if proper attention is not given to development and execution of these processes. Traditionally, calibration of MTE is given more focus in industry standards and process control efforts than the equally important proper usage of the same equipment. It is a common complaint of calibration laboratory personnel that MTE users are only interested in "a sticker." If the QMS requires the MTE "to demonstrate conformity of the product," then the quality of the measurement process must be adequate for the task. This leads to an ad hoc definition; measurement assurance is a discipline that assures that all processes, activities, environments, standards, and procedures involved in making a measurement produce a result that can be rigorously evaluated for validity and accuracy. To evaluate that the existing measurement processes are providing an adequate level of quality to support the decisions based upon this measurement data, an understanding of measurement assurance basics is essential. This topic is complimentary to the calibration standard, ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006, which targets the calibration of MTE at the organizational level. This paper will discuss general measurement assurance when MTE is used to provide evidence of product conformity, therefore the target audience of this paper is end item users of MTE. A central focus of the paper will be the verification of tolerances and the associated risks, so calibration professionals may find the paper useful in communication with their customers, MTE users.

Mimbs, Scott M.↗

Software reliability through fault-avoidance and fault-tolerance

Strategies and tools for the testing, risk assessment and risk control of dependable software-based systems were developed. Part of this project consists of studies to enable the transfer of technology to industry, for example the risk management techniques for safety-concious systems. Theoretical investigations of Boolean and Relational Operator (BRO) testing strategy were conducted for condition-based testing. The Basic Graph Generation and Analysis tool (BGG) was extended to fully incorporate several variants of the BRO metric. Single- and multi-phase risk, coverage and time-based models are being developed to provide additional theoretical and empirical basis for estimation of the reliability and availability of large, highly dependable software. A model for software process and risk management was developed. The use of cause-effect graphing for software specification and validation was investigated. Lastly, advanced software fault-tolerance models were studied to provide alternatives and improvements in situations where simple software fault-tolerance strategies break down.

Vouk, Mladen A.↗

Assessing the Risk of Crew Injury Due to Dynamic Loads During Spaceflight

Spaceflight requires tremendous amounts of energy to achieve Earth orbit and to attain escape velocity for interplanetary missions. Although the majority of the energy is managed in such a way as to limit the accelerations on the crew, several mission phases may result in crew exposure to dynamic loads. In the automotive industry, risk of serious injury can be tolerated because the probability of a crash is remote each time a person enters a vehicle, resulting in a low total risk of injury. For spaceflight, the level of acceptable injury risk must be lower to achieve a low total risk of injury because the dynamic loads are expected on each flight. To mitigate the risk of injury due to dynamic loads, the NASA Human Research Program has developed a research plan to inform the knowledge gaps and develop relevant tools for assessing injury risk. The risk of injury due to dynamic loads can be further subdivided into extrinsic and intrinsic risk factors. Extrinsic risk factors include the vehicle dynamic profile, seat and restraint design, and spacesuit design. Human tolerance to loads varies considerably depending on the direction, amplitude, and rise-time of acceleration therefore the orientation of the body to the dynamic vector is critical to determining crew risk of injury. Although a particular vehicle dynamic profile may be safe for a particular design, the seat, restraint, and suit designs can affect the risk of injury due to localized effects. In addition, characteristics intrinsic to the crewmember may also contribute to the risk of injury, such as crewmember sex, age, anthropometry, and deconditioning due to spaceflight, and each astronaut may have a different risk profile because of these factors. The purpose of the research plan is to address any knowledge gaps in the risk factors to mitigate injury risk. Methods for assessing injury risk have been well documented in other analogous industries and include human volunteer testing, human exposure to dynamic environments, post-mortem human subject (PMHS) testing, animal testing, anthropomorphic test devices (ATD), dynamic models of the human, numerical models of ATDs, and numerical models of the human. Each has inherent strengths and limitations. For example, human volunteer testing is advantageous because a population can be selected that is similar to the astronaut corps; however, because of the inherent ethical limitations, only sub-injurious conditions can be tested. PMHSs can be tested in a variety of conditions including injurious levels, but the responses are not completely analogous to living human subjects. In addition, it is exceedingly difficult to select a PMHS population that is similar to the astronaut corps. ATDs are currently widely used in the automotive industry and military because they are highly repeatable and durable. Unfortunately, because they are mechanical models of the human body, the biofidelity of the responses are limited to dynamic conditions used to validate the ATD. Numerical models of the ATD, in addition to the strengths and limitations for ATDs, are easy to use for a variety of designs before a design is fabricated, but also have additional limitations for ATDs, are easy to use for a variety of designs before a design is fabricated, but also have additional uncertainty. Dynamic models are simple and easy to use, but do not account for localized effects of the seat and suit. Finally, numerical models of the human have the potential to have the most advantages; however, the current models are not validated for the conditions expected during spaceflight. To properly assess spaceflight conditions with numerical human models, human data would be needed to optimize the model responses for those conditions. Using the appropriate assessment method with the knowledge gained for each risk factor, an appropriate approach for mitigating the risk of injury due to dynamic loads can be developed ensuring crew safety in future NASA vehicles.

Somers, J. T.↗

Applications and Performance of a Lightning Risk Assessment using Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) Data

Lightning is a hazard globally, particularly in lesser-developed countries. Cloud-to-ground lightning strikes are a threat to human safety, motivating a desire to monitor location-based lightning risk to mitigate harm. A lightning risk assessment for human safety was created that uses a combination of probabilistic risk calculation and spatial lightning mapping data to produce a risk magnitude. This risk magnitude evolves with time and changing conditions and is compared to tolerability thresholds in order to evaluate safety. The risk assessment using lightning mapping array (LMA) flash extent density (FED) data was found to perform comparatively (with respect to issuing lightning warnings) to a more standard method of monitoring lightning safety where National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN) flashes were monitored within a 5 nautical mile radius of a location of interest. This research investigates the replacement of LMA FED with FED from the Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) within the risk assessment framework. Using GLM FED would allow for risk to be calculated outside of LMA domains and anywhere within the GLM field of view, including areas outside of the United States (US). A few applications of the risk method with GLM FED are shown and discussed for locations both in and outside of the US. Additionally, the performance of the risk method is compared based on the type of lightning input source (LMA vs GLM). The end goal of this work is to provide forecasters and end users with a tool to help monitor lightning risk in decision support scenarios.

Kelley Murphy↗

Habitability Assessments And Lessons-learned From 3-day And 11-day Enriched Oxygen Hypobaric Chamber Tests At NASA Johnson Space Center

INTRODUCTION: Decompression sickness (DCS) is a risk to the health and performance of astronauts and high-altitude aircrew. Tolerance to flammability, hypoxia, prebreathe duration, and DCS risk varies across different organizations, vehicles, suits, and destinations, necessitating a variety of DCS risk mitigation approaches. Existing models of altitude DCS risk are often insufficient to enable accurate risk-informed decisions during hardware development, mission planning, and flight operations. METHODS: NASA completed outfitting of a dedicated facility at Johnson Space Center to support testing of up to eight human subjects for multiple days in hypobaric and enriched oxygen atmospheres. The primary purpose of the testing capability is validation of DCS risk mitigation protocols for Artemis missions to the Moon; however, it will also support development and validation of a generalizable altitude DCS risk estimation tool. A 3-day and an 11-day prebreathe validation test were completed in 2022, each with 8 human subjects living at 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, 66% N2, with 5 simulated EVAs performed on masks at 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi), 85% O2, 15% N2. Facility and organizational lessons-learned and process improvements were recorded during and following the tests, and subjective habitability ratings were recorded daily during the 11-day test. Hypoxia and DCS-related physiological and cognitive outcome measures were recorded during both tests and are reported in companion presentations. RESULTS & DISCUSSION: All subjects completed each of the tests. Primary habitability issues related to mask discomfort during simulated EVAs and poor sleep quality due to thin mattresses. Polybenzimidazole (PBI) clothing was worn by all subjects due to the increased fire risk and may be required for Artemis missions; clothing was found to be acceptable overall with the worst ratings being due to poor fit and inelasticity. Chamber O2 and CO2 sensor inconsistency was observed that did not result in test termination but required post-test follow-up. Forward plans include additional hypobaric testing and integration of existing and future physiological outcome data into an open-source Aerospace Estimation Tool for Hypobaric Exposure Risk (AETHER). NASA is also working to make the testing capability available to commercial companies.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗

Habitability Assessments And Lessons-learned From 3-day And 11-day Enriched Oxygen Hypobaric Chamber Tests At NASA Johnson Space Center

INTRODUCTION: Decompression sickness (DCS) is a risk to the health and performance of astronauts and high-altitude aircrew. Tolerance to flammability, hypoxia, prebreathe duration, and DCS risk varies across different organizations, vehicles, suits, and destinations, necessitating a variety of DCS risk mitigation approaches. Existing models of altitude DCS risk are often insufficient to enable accurate risk-informed decisions during hardware development, mission planning, and flight operations. METHODS: NASA completed outfitting of a dedicated facility at Johnson Space Center to support testing of up to eight human subjects for multiple days in hypobaric and enriched oxygen atmospheres. The primary purpose of the testing capability is validation of DCS risk mitigation protocols for Artemis missions to the Moon; however, it will also support development and validation of a generalizable altitude DCS risk estimation tool. A 3-day and an 11-day prebreathe validation test were completed in 2022, each with 8 human subjects living at 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, 66% N2, with 5 simulated EVAs performed on masks at 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi), 85% O2, 15% N2. Facility and organizational lessons-learned and process improvements were recorded during and following the tests, and subjective habitability ratings were recorded daily during the 11-day test. Hypoxia and DCS-related physiological and cognitive outcome measures were recorded during both tests and are reported in companion presentations. RESULTS & DISCUSSION: All subjects completed each of the tests. Primary habitability issues related to mask discomfort during simulated EVAs and poor sleep quality due to thin mattresses. Polybenzimidazole (PBI) clothing was worn by all subjects due to the increased fire risk and may be required for Artemis missions; clothing was found to be acceptable overall with the worst ratings being due to poor fit and inelasticity. Chamber O2 and CO2 sensor inconsistency was observed that did not result in test termination but required post-test follow-up. Forward plans include additional hypobaric testing and integration of existing and future physiological outcome data into an open-source Aerospace Estimation Tool for Hypobaric Exposure Risk (AETHER). NASA is also working to make the testing capability available to commercial companies.

Andrew Abercromby↗

Guidance, Navigation, and Control System Design in a Mass Reduction Exercise

Early Orion GN&C system designs optimized for robustness, simplicity, and utilization of commercially available components. During the System Definition Review (SDR), all subsystems on Orion were asked to re-optimize with component mass and steady state power as primary design metrics. The objective was to create a mass reserve in the Orion point of departure vehicle design prior to beginning the PDR analysis cycle. The Orion GN&C subsystem team transitioned from a philosophy of absolute 2 fault tolerance for crew safety and 1 fault tolerance for mission success to an approach of 1 fault tolerance for crew safety and risk based redundancy to meet probability allocations of loss of mission and loss of crew. This paper will discuss the analyses, rationale, and end results of this activity regarding Orion navigation sensor hardware, control effectors, and trajectory design.

Crain, Timothy↗

Analysis of Launch Vehicle Liftoff Debris: Historical Perspective from Space Shuttle and Application to Artemis I

Human exploration-class launch vehicles are inherently prone to debris due to the extreme environments generated during pre-launch operations, liftoff, and flight. The use of cryogenic propellants often requires thermal protection system (TPS) coatings, typically foam, to maintain the propellant conditions in the tank and prevent an accumulation ice on the external surface of the vehicle. Some ice growth is to be expected at umbilical interfaces, vents, flanges, or brackets where it is difficult to apply TPS. This ice may come loose at any time due to wind on the launch pad, structural vibration and acoustics after rocket ignition, or aerodynamic forces during flight. This phenomena is especially apparent on vehicles with no TPS, such as the Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo Program, see Figure 1. During propellant tanking, the thermal contraction of the underlying substrate may generate cracks in the TPS (Figure 1). Chunks of TPS can release due to the expansion of ingested gas from cryopumping or from aerodynamic forces if the crack creates an offset surface. Most foams will also have a certain amount of “popcorning” where small pieces of foam will pop off during flight because of the differential between the static surface pressure and the pressure of the gas trapped in the foam cell structure. There are a number of other coating or closeout materials that may be shed from the vehicle and become debris. During pre-launch operations and liftoff, the vehicle may also be exposed to debris originating from the launch pad or ground support equipment. This debris is separate from foreign object debris, or FOD, which is not intended to be present and is strictly controlled through operations and maintenance procedures. In this case, debris is generated from hardware and materials that are necessary for launch and are subject to the intense vibration, acoustics, and direct plume impingement of the launch environment. Examples include ice from umbilicals, tape and tie wraps that protect cables, and rust or corrosion from the launch platform. While NASA has historically been aware of debris as a potential issue that could cause a failure resulting in loss of mission, loss of vehicle, or loss of crew, the likelihood and severity of that risk was not always well understood or given sufficient weight in program and flight decisions. After the Space Shuttle Columbia accident (STS-107), the investigation found that foam TPS debris shed from the external tank was the proximate cause of the damage to the orbiter wing. Six previous observations of debris released from the foam ramp that covered the bipod connecting the forward end of the orbiter to the external tank resulted in minor changes or were determined to be accepted flight risks. Two occurrences of bipod ramp foam loss were not identified until the STS-107 investigation. Despite the damage inflicted by these debris strikes, the Shuttle Program Requirements Control Board deemed the vehicle safe to fly. During the Return to Flight effort following the Columbia disaster, NASA Engineering developed a process for the assessment of debris transport, impact, and damage tolerance to support independent assessments of risk by NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA). Under this system, each element (vehicle or ground system) defines a catalog of all expected debris based on launch history, component testing, or analysis. Debris transport analysis (DTA) is conducted using the debris catalog characteristics and potential flow transport mechanisms (e.g., vehicle aerodynamics, gravity, wind, plume-driven). The predicted debris impact locations and velocities are provided to the hardware owners, who use available test data and analysis to determine whether each component can withstand the impacts. In cases where the element hardware may be severely damaged or fail, the options are to mitigate the debris source through some change in design or operation, or to work with S&MA to try to characterize the probability of the impact and damage for program risk acceptance. Because of the differences in debris characteristics and transport, the DTA has been divided between the Liftoff and Ascent regimes. The development and application of Liftoff DTA methodology from the Shuttle Program to the current Artemis Program is the subject of this paper. Liftoff DTA covers the time from the start of pre-launch operations at the launch pad, up until the vehicle clears the launch tower and there is no longer any interaction with ground systems. Debris transport during this period is broadly classified as either gravity, wind, and plume-entrained (GWPE) or plume driven (PD). GWPE debris is generally lower speed, travelling in a forward-to-aft direction. PD transport includes flow features from the rocket ignition transient, as well as plume impingement and recirculation that occur as the vehicle lifts off the launch platform. In these cases, the debris typically moves in an aft-to-forward direction at higher speeds. The applicable transport mechanisms must be considered for each piece of debris depending on the material, and release location and time. For example, rust or metallic debris from the tower could fall (GWPE) and impact the vehicle before landing on the launch platform deck where it could be also be transported by plume impingement (PD). However, falling ice (GWPE) from an umbilical is unlikely to survive impact with the vehicle or launch platform and be available for PD transport. Modeling of debris transport is accomplished using a set of DTA tools which simulate debris trajectories subject to a reference frame acceleration (i.e., gravity) and aerodynamic drag. Where the trajectory encounters a solid surface, the debris is allowed to rebound with a specified coefficient of restitution. The drag is calculated by interpolating the fluid state at each point in the debris trajectory from high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of the launch vehicle and pad. The CFD data may either be static (steady state or time averaged), typically for GWPE transport, or dynamic (time-accurate) for PD flow features like the ignition transient. Examples of the CFD flow field solutions for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and launch pad are shown in Figure 2. Typical SLS debris trajectory predictions from DTA are illustrated in Figure 3. The final version of this paper will include a more detailed examination of the Liftoff DTA process developed during the Shuttle Program, and how it has been augmented and applied to the SLS rocket under the Artemis Program. Comparisons with debris observations from the Artemis I launch will demonstrate validation of the tools and methodology.

Debris↗

Validated Feasibility Study of Integrally Stiffened Metallic Fuselage Panels for Reducing Manufacturing Costs

The continual need to reduce airframe cost and the emergence of high speed machining and other manufacturing technologies has brought about a renewed interest in large-scale integral structures for aircraft applications. Applications have been inhibited, however, because of the need to demonstrate damage tolerance, and by cost and manufacturing risks associated with the size and complexity of the parts. The Integral Airframe Structures (IAS) Program identified a feasible integrally stiffened fuselage concept and evaluated performance and manufacturing cost compared to conventional designs. An integral skin/stiffener concept was produced both by plate hog-out and near-net extrusion. Alloys evaluated included 7050-T7451 plate, 7050-T74511 extrusion, 6013-T6511 extrusion, and 7475-T7351 plate. Mechanical properties, structural details, and joint performance were evaluated as well as repair, static compression, and two-bay crack residual strength panels. Crack turning behavior was characterized through panel tests and improved methods for predicting crack turning were developed. Manufacturing cost was evaluated using COSTRAN. A hybrid design, made from high-speed machined extruded frames that are mechanically fastened to high-speed machined plate skin/stringer panels, was identified as the most cost-effective manufacturing solution. Recurring labor and material costs of the hybrid design are up to 61 percent less than the current technology baseline.

Pettit, R. G.↗

Requirements Flowdown for Prognostics and Health Management

Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) principles have considerable promise to change the game of lifecycle cost of engineering systems at high safety levels by providing a reliable estimate of future system states. This estimate is a key for planning and decision making in an operational setting. While technology solutions have made considerable advances, the tie-in into the systems engineering process is lagging behind, which delays fielding of PHM-enabled systems. The derivation of specifications from high level requirements for algorithm performance to ensure quality predictions is not well developed. From an engineering perspective some key parameters driving the requirements for prognostics performance include: (1) maximum allowable Probability of Failure (PoF) of the prognostic system to bound the risk of losing an asset, (2) tolerable limits on proactive maintenance to minimize missed opportunity of asset usage, (3) lead time to specify the amount of advanced warning needed for actionable decisions, and (4) required confidence to specify when prognosis is sufficiently good to be used. This paper takes a systems engineering view towards the requirements specification process and presents a method for the flowdown process. A case study based on an electric Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (e-UAV) scenario demonstrates how top level requirements for performance, cost, and safety flow down to the health management level and specify quantitative requirements for prognostic algorithm performance.

video acuity↗

Space Shuttle critical function audit

A large fault-tolerance model of the main propulsion system of the US space shuttle has been developed. This model is being used to identify single components and pairs of components that will cause loss of shuttle critical functions. In addition, this model is the basis for risk quantification of the shuttle. The process used to develop and analyze the model is digraph matrix analysis (DMA). The DMA modeling and analysis process is accessed via a graphics-based computer user interface. This interface provides coupled display of the integrated system schematics, the digraph models, the component database, and the results of the fault tolerance and risk analyses.

Sacks, Ivan J.↗

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗