SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Safety assurance”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 109 records · Page 6

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2017

Technology and Tool Development to Support Safety and Mission Assurance

The Assurance Case approach is being adopted in a number of safety-mission-critical application domains in the U.S., e.g., medical devices, defense aviation, automotive systems, and, lately, civil aviation. This paradigm refocuses traditional, process-based approaches to assurance on demonstrating explicitly stated assurance goals, emphasizing the use of structured rationale, and concrete product-based evidence as the means for providing justified confidence that systems and software are fit for purpose in safely achieving mission objectives. NASA has also been embracing assurance cases through the concepts of Risk Informed Safety Cases (RISCs), as documented in the NASA System Safety Handbook, and Objective Hierarchies (OHs) as put forth by the Agency's Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA). This talk will give an overview of the work being performed by the SGT team located at NASA Ames Research Center, in developing technologies and tools to engineer and apply assurance cases in customer projects pertaining to aviation safety. We elaborate how our Assurance Case Automation Toolset (AdvoCATE) has not only extended the state-of-the-art in assurance case research, but also demonstrated its practical utility. We have successfully developed safety assurance cases for a number of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) operations, which underwent, and passed, scrutiny both by the aviation regulator, i.e., the FAA, as well as the applicable NASA boards for airworthiness and flight safety, flight readiness, and mission readiness. We discuss our efforts in expanding AdvoCATE capabilities to support RISCs and OHs under a project recently funded by OSMA under its Software Assurance Research Program. Finally, we speculate on the applicability of our innovations beyond aviation safety to such endeavors as robotic, and human spaceflight.

Mission Assuranc↗

DOE OSTI2024

Implementing an Objectives-Driven, Risk-Informed, and Case-Assured Approach to Safety and Mission Success at NASA

NASA is developing a “Standard for Assurance of Space Flight Safety and Mission Success” that implements an objectives-driven, risk-informed, and case-assured approach to safety and mission success (S&MS) for NASA space flight programs and projects. The standard aligns with the philosophy of risk leadership that has recently been established in NASA policy to assure acceptable levels of flight crew safety and mission success risk. It is consistent with existing NASA risk management requirements and is compatible with NASA program management and systems engineering requirements. The methodology described in the standard is presented in terms of an S&MS assurance framework that is designed to allow substantial flexibility in the specific means by which programs and projects achieve acceptable mission S&MS risk. Such flexibility is necessary to accommodate the increasingly broad range of acquisition strategies employed by NASA, including commercial transportation services, as well as to accommodate the increasingly rapid evolution of space flight-related technologies and practices. A key feature of the S&MS assurance framework is the specification of S&MS success criteria for each life-cycle review (LCR). The S&MS assurance case is structured around these criteria, the satisfaction of which indicates that the program/project is adhering to the S&MS risk posture. This enables the evolving S&MS assurance case to be used as a fundamental program/project submittal at each LCR, where its inherent structure of argument, supported by evidence, directly supports the evaluation of the program/project with respect to the S&MS success criteria, and by extension, the S&MS risk posture. As such, the S&MS assurance case is integral to program/project systems engineering, risk management, and S&MS oversight activities, and provides the principal basis for S&MS risk acceptance by the Decision Authority throughout the program/project life cycle.

42 ENGINEERING↗

NASA NTRS2013

Evidence Arguments for Using Formal Methods in Software Certification

We describe a generic approach for automatically integrating the output generated from a formal method/tool into a software safety assurance case, as an evidence argument, by (a) encoding the underlying reasoning as a safety case pattern, and (b) instantiating it using the data produced from the method/tool. We believe this approach not only improves the trustworthiness of the evidence generated from a formal method/tool, by explicitly presenting the reasoning and mechanisms underlying its genesis, but also provides a way to gauge the suitability of the evidence in the context of the wider assurance case. We illustrate our work by application to a real example-an unmanned aircraft system- where we invoke a formal code analysis tool from its autopilot software safety case, automatically transform the verification output into an evidence argument, and then integrate it into the former.

Argumentation↗

NASA NTRS2010

GSFC Safety and Mission Assurance Organization

This viewgraph presentation reviews NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's approach to safety and mission assurance. The contents include: 1) NASA GSFC Background; 2) Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate; 3) The Role of SMA-D and the Technical Authority; 4) GSFC Mission assurance Requirements; 5) GSFC Systems Review Office (SRO); 6) GSFC Supply Chain Management Program; and 7) GSFC ISO9001/AS9100 Status Brief.

Kelly, Michael P.↗

NASA NTRS2020

Run Time Assurance as an Alternate Concept to Contemporary Development Assurance Processes

NASA and the FAA sought industry research to identify and evaluate alternate concepts for assuring safety of airborne systems. This report documents a research effort focused on the evaluation of Run Time Assurance (RTA) as applied to a novel, airborne system architecture. The RTA pattern is applied to a case study focused on a notional integrated flight and propulsion control system for a DEP VTOL aircraft. During flight, while the high-automation algorithms are operating, the RTA system will monitor the aircraft state for any impending violation of safety requirements. When necessary, it will switch to the low-automation software to prevent such violations. Assurance practices for both baseline industry activities and the RTA approach were captured and compared to illustrate the required engineering design considerations, and possible advantages and disadvantages of each approach as part of this case study.

Eric M. Peterson↗

NASA NTRS2010

Changing the Safety and Mission Assurance (S and MA) Paradigm

This slide presentation reviews the change in the work and impact of the Safety and Mission Assurance directorate at Marshall Space Flight Center. It reviews the background and the reasons given for a strong Safety & Mission Assurance presence in all planning for space flight. This was pointed out by the Rogers Commission Report after the Space Challenger accident, by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) and by a 2006 NASA Exploration Safety Study (NESS) Team. The overall objective of the work in this area was to improve and maintain S&MA expertise and skills. Training for this work was improved and the S&MA organization was reorganized. This has resulted in a paradigm shift for NASA's safety efforts, which is described. The presentation then reviews the impact of the new S&MA work in the Ares I design and development.

Malone, Roy W.↗

NASA NTRS2010

A Criteria Standard for Conflict Resolution: A Vision for Guaranteeing the Safety of Self-Separation in NextGen

Distributed approaches for conflict resolution rely on analyzing the behavior of each aircraft to ensure that system-wide safety properties are maintained. This paper presents the criteria method, which increases the quality and efficiency of a safety assurance analysis for distributed air traffic concepts. The criteria standard is shown to provide two key safety properties: safe separation when only one aircraft maneuvers and safe separation when both aircraft maneuver at the same time. This approach is complemented with strong guarantees of correct operation through formal verification. To show that an algorithm is correct, i.e., that it always meets its specified safety property, one must only show that the algorithm satisfies the criteria. Once this is done, then the algorithm inherits the safety properties of the criteria. An important consequence of this approach is that there is no requirement that both aircraft execute the same conflict resolution algorithm. Therefore, the criteria approach allows different avionics manufacturers or even different airlines to use different algorithms, each optimized according to their own proprietary concerns.

Munoz, Cesar↗

DOE OSTI2023

Uncertainty quantification in machine learning for engineering design and health prognostics: A tutorial

On top of machine learning (ML) models, uncertainty quantification (UQ) functions as an essential layer of safety assurance that could lead to more principled decision making by enabling sound risk assessment and management. The safety and reliability improvement of ML models empowered by UQ has the potential to significantly facilitate the broad adoption of ML solutions in high-stakes decision settings, such as healthcare, manufacturing, and aviation, to name a few. In this tutorial, we aim to provide a holistic lens on emerging UQ methods for ML models with a particular focus on neural networks and the applications of these UQ methods in tackling engineering design as well as prognostics and health management problems. Towards this goal, we start with a comprehensive classification of uncertainty types, sources, and causes pertaining to UQ of ML models. Next, we provide a tutorial-style description of several state-of-the-art UQ methods: Gaussian process regression, Bayesian neural network, neural network ensemble, and deterministic UQ methods focusing on spectral-normalized neural Gaussian process. Established upon the mathematical formulations, we subsequently examine the soundness of these UQ methods quantitatively and qualitatively (by a toy regression example) to examine their strengths and shortcomings from different dimensions. Then, we review quantitative metrics commonly used to assess the quality of predictive uncertainty in classification and regression problems. Afterward, we discuss the increasingly important role of UQ of ML models in solving challenging problems in engineering design and health prognostics. In conclusion, two case studies with source codes available on GitHub are used to demonstrate these UQ methods and compare their performance in the life prediction of lithium-ion batteries at the early stage (case study 1) and the remaining useful life prediction of turbofan engines (case study 2).

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2023

Predicting Safety Rod Reactivity Insertion in the Advanced Test Reactor

The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), and complimentary zero-power ATR Critical (ATRC) reactor, located at Idaho National Labs (INL), are undergoing conversion from Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) to Low Enriched Uranium (LEU). Both have a variety of testing locations that can receive large variations in flux due to its unique serpentine design, consisting of five lobes surrounding nine flux traps (see Figure 1). Initial criticality and power distribution throughout the core are controlled by core-external outer shim control cylinders (OSCCs). Distinct test loops allow for testing at specific temperatures, pressures, and irradiation conditions such as flux and fission density. The ATR is one of the key nuclear engineering research and testing facilities within the DOE National Laboratory Complex, and the ATRC supports its operation [1]. Currently, the Office of Material Management and Minimization (M3) within the National Nuclear Security Administration of the DOE is working to convert the remaining research reactors, including the ATR, from 93% HEU fuel to 19.75% LEU fuel (LEU) to support non-proliferation [2]. Extensive materials testing at INL and internationally has demonstrated that a high-density uranium molybdenum (U 10Mo) alloy can meet the performance requirements of the remaining high powered research reactors. The current LEU fuel element design is named the LOWE element. However, there are many technical challenges to address before the conversion to LEU can be successful, including the accurate characterization of the reactor core physics with LEU fuel. To ensure safe operation of the ATR, reactor engineers prepare a CSAP (Core Safety Assurance Package) before each cycle. The purpose of the CSAP is to verify the reactor performance calculation used to determine if the selected fuel loading meets operational, experimental, and safety criteria. Many of the criteria in the CSAP are limits on reactivity insertion in various accident scenarios.

42 ENGINEERING↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-32546-DND

These slides provide visual aids for a panel presentation on the question of "How can organization of Safety Assurance information be improved, so that various parties can identify the residual uncertainties and reason about their effects on the safety conclusion efficiently." The purpose of the panel is to generate discussion among the participants.

Michael Holloway↗

NASA NTRS2018

Safety and Mission Assurance Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions

This NASA Technical Handbook compiles into a single volume safety, reliability, maintainability, and quality assurance and risk management terms defined and used in NASA safety and mission assurance directives and standards. The purpose of this handbook is to support effective communication within NASA and with its contractors. The definitions in this handbook are updated when the definition of the acronym or term is updated in the originating document.

Colon, Alfredo E.↗

NASA NTRS2011

NASA Accident Precursor Analysis Handbook, Version 1.0

Catastrophic accidents are usually preceded by precursory events that, although observable, are not recognized as harbingers of a tragedy until after the fact. In the nuclear industry, the Three Mile Island accident was preceded by at least two events portending the potential for severe consequences from an underappreciated causal mechanism. Anomalies whose failure mechanisms were integral to the losses of Space Transportation Systems (STS) Challenger and Columbia had been occurring within the STS fleet prior to those accidents. Both the Rogers Commission Report and the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report found that processes in place at the time did not respond to the prior anomalies in a way that shed light on their true risk implications. This includes the concern that, in the words of the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), "no process addresses the need to update a hazard analysis when anomalies occur" At a broader level, the ASAP noted in 2007 that NASA "could better gauge the likelihood of losses by developing leading indicators, rather than continue to depend on lagging indicators". These observations suggest a need to revalidate prior assumptions and conclusions of existing safety (and reliability) analyses, as well as to consider the potential for previously unrecognized accident scenarios, when unexpected or otherwise undesired behaviors of the system are observed. This need is also discussed in NASA's system safety handbook, which advocates a view of safety assurance as driving a program to take steps that are necessary to establish and maintain a valid and credible argument for the safety of its missions. It is the premise of this handbook that making cases for safety more experience-based allows NASA to be better informed about the safety performance of its systems, and will ultimately help it to manage safety in a more effective manner. The APA process described in this handbook provides a systematic means of analyzing candidate accident precursors by evaluating anomaly occurrences for their system safety implications and, through both analytical and deliberative methods used to project to other circumstances, identifying those that portend more serious consequences to come if effective corrective action is not taken. APA builds upon existing safety analysis processes currently in practice within NASA, leveraging their results to provide an improved understanding of overall system risk. As such, APA represents an important dimension of safety evaluation; as operational experience is acquired, precursor information is generated such that it can be fed back into system safety analyses to risk-inform safety improvements. Importantly, APA utilizes anomaly data to predict risk whereas standard reliability and PRA approaches utilize failure data which often is limited and rare.

Groen, Frank↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Navigating the Complexities of Safety and Mission Assurance Across NASA's Partnership Landscape

As NASA increasingly pursues collaborative public-private partnerships and international efforts to advance space exploration goals, ensuring robust safety and mission assurance protocols has become more complex. The evolving dynamics introduce multifaceted challenges spanning regulatory oversight, governance and acquisition models, and technical standardization. To address these issues, NASA plans to prioritize deeper integration of safety and mission assurance principles from the formulation and acquisition stages when structuring partnerships and contracts. This embeds appropriate oversight from the start. Additionally, it is vital to establish an enterprise-level capability focused on identifying and resolving cross-cutting risks that transcend individual missions. Together, all these initial thoughts will form the basis of a broad roadmap of decisions that aims to ensure strategic alignment from policy to implementation allowing NASA to harmonize the currently fragmented safety and mission assurance ecosystem as it navigates the complexities introduced by the new era of public-private space partnerships.

Johnny T Nguyen↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Navigating the Complexities of Safety and Mission Assurance Across NASA's Partnership Landscape

Johnny T Nguyen↗

NASA NTRS2005

SMARR (Safety and Mission Assurance Readiness Review)

This document from the Stennis Space Center Office of Safety and Mission Assurance rates flight preparation elements for Space Shuttle mission STS-114. All elements are rated with the status "Standard Open Work or Completed", and marked in green on the document, which contains a Certificate of Flight Readiness for STS-114.

Failla, David P.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Model-Driven Development of Safety Architectures

We describe the use of model-driven development for safety assurance of a pioneering NASA flight operation involving a fleet of small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) flying beyond visual line of sight. The central idea is to develop a safety architecture that provides the basis for risk assessment and visualization within a safety case, the formal justification of acceptable safety required by the aviation regulatory authority. A safety architecture is composed from a collection of bow tie diagrams (BTDs), a practical approach to manage safety risk by linking the identified hazards to the appropriate mitigation measures. The safety justification for a given unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operation can have many related BTDs. In practice, however, each BTD is independently developed, which poses challenges with respect to incremental development, maintaining consistency across different safety artifacts when changes occur, and in extracting and presenting stakeholder specific information relevant for decision making. We show how a safety architecture reconciles the various BTDs of a system, and, collectively, provide an overarching picture of system safety, by considering them as views of a unified model. We also show how it enables model-driven development of BTDs, replete with validations, transformations, and a range of views. Our approach, which we have implemented in our toolset, AdvoCATE, is illustrated with a running example drawn from a real UAS safety case. The models and some of the innovations described here were instrumental in successfully obtaining regulatory flight approval.

Safety case↗

NASA NTRS1974

Safety of spacecraft lightweight pressure vessels

With the advent of the age of flight and specifically space flight, a major effort was devoted to the development of lightweight metallic flight hardware. The paper deals with metallic pressure vessels designed to hold liquids or gases under pressure and with the methods for assuring safety through elimination of failures. The consequences of discontinuity stress failures range from leakage, bursting, and detrimental deformation to catastrophic failure, or literally, an explosion of the vessel. Controls, system design, protective devices and tests are discussed.

Bolger, P. H.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Informing New Concepts for UAS and Autonomous System Safety Management using Disaster Management and First Responder Scenarios

As emerging flight operations become more prevalent and increasingly automated and distributed, the capabilities for managing safety of vehicles and operations will also need to evolve. To address this challenge, the National Academies has envisioned an In-Time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) capability for a wide range of aviation operations including current commercial operations as well as new entrants envisioned with advanced air mobility (AAM). The suite of IASMS services, functions, and capabilities (SFCs) would be implemented in a federated approach and would address trends as well as individual operations. Through predictive modeling and data analysis, IASMS is envisioned to identify arising risks so that they can be mitigated, in-time, before a safety incident occurs. IASMS and its requisite set of SFCs must leverage a wide range of information to perform. To better understand these new needs, FSF worked with the aviation and humanitarian communities to develop and validate scenarios that include traditional aviation operations and UAS operations intermingled as they are deployed for disaster management and first responder (DMFR) situations. The three scenarios developed include: • Post Natural disaster response, such as a hurricane, involving multiple parties utilizing traditional aviation and UAS to support rescue operations, surveil damage, and locate survivors needing assistance. • Wildfire fighting in remote locations with traditional aircraft for transport and fire-retardant delivery combined with UAS for surveillance of fire locations as well as to track individual firefighter locations. • Medical Operations and AAM in Urban Environments including passenger-carrying helicopters and AAM vehicles, medical missions (such as transport of radio-pharmaceuticals), and other UAS delivery operations (such as the delivery of defibrillators). Each scenario was developed and validated by representatives with expertise in humanitarian operations, urban and rural emergency response, air traffic management, UAS operations, and traditional flight operations. The scenario definitions address roles and responsibilities of individual actors, the appropriate utilization of UAS, and the actions taken by those actors to appropriately manage risks associated with the mission and environment. The risks to aviation traffic and to people on the ground explored included potential risks arising from incompatibilities in calculating reference altitudes (eg, differing uses of AGL, MSL, barometric, or GPS-derived values), loss of command and control (C2) communications, rapid changes in weather and winds, and physical interference. For each risk, IASMS SFCs were postulated in the context of monitoring services, risk assessment capabilities, and identifying appropriate mitigation strategies. The identified SFC capabilities were envisioned from known services postulated for IASMS and for UTM. For these unique environments, IASMS SFCs are needed to address conditions such as hazardous payloads, micro-climates and urban canyons, and the need to keep uninvolved air traffic out of the area where DMFR operations are being conducted. The second phase of analysis focused on inferring the specific information needs and the SFCs for IASMS, utilizing a structure of 16 information classes to organize requirements. For each of the risks identified in the workshops, it was postulated what data sources would be necessary to monitor critical aspects of the risk (eg, surrounding air traffic, ground population, terrain, etc). to be directly measured as well as data that would be derived, which implies additional SFCs for different actors to understand what information would likely be exchanged between parties. For an IASMS to be effective, additional research is needed to develop the advanced algorithms that can address the increasingly autonomous and complex operations in differing environments and to develop means of identifying unknown risks. Looking at these scenarios highlighted a number of research issues. These include the ability to quickly "cordon off" airspace thru temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) or other means, developing clear definitions to enable automation-based algorithms for prioritizing operations, defining airspace density metrics, standardization of altitude reporting, and establishing a basis for safety data metrics definition and collection. This paper seeks to outline the development of an IASMS in the context of the DMFR scenarios and resulting demonstrations. Utilizing this contextual approach, NASA will generate recommendations for an assured safety framework for AAM operations that enables AAM operations to safely access the NAS.

In Time Aviation Safety Management System↗