SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
NASA's Procedural Requirements 87052B defines the Human-Rating Certification process and related technical requirements for human spaceflight programs developed by and for NASA. The document specifies Agency-level responsibilities related to the certification, processes to be established by the program, and technical requirements.
The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is unique to any other program office at NASA. After the agency suffered devastating budget cuts and the Shuttle Program retired, the U.S. gave up its human spaceflight capabilities. Since 2011 the U.S. has been dependent on Russia to transport American astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station (ISS) and back. NASA adapted and formed CCP, which gives private, domestic, aerospace companies unprecedented reign over America's next ride to space. The program began back in 2010 with 5 companies and is now in the final phase of certification with 2 commercial partners. The Commercial Crew Program is made up of 7 divisions, each working rigorously with the commercial providers to complete the certification phase. One of these 7 divisions is Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) which is partly comprised of the Safety Technical Review Board (STRB). The STRB is primarily concerned with mitigating improbable, but catastrophic hazards. It does this by identifying, managing, and tracking these hazards in reports. With the STRB being in SE&I, it significantly contributes to the overall certification of the partners' vehicles. After the partners receive agency certification approval, they will have the capability to provide the U.S. with a reliable, safe, and cost-effective means of human spaceflight and cargo transport to the ISS and back.
Under the guidance of processes provided by Crew Transportation Plan (CCT-PLN-1100), this document with its sister documents, Crew Transportation Technical Management Processes (CCT-PLN-1120), Crew Transportation Technical Standards and Design Evaluation Criteria (CCT-STD-1140), and Crew Transportation Operations Standards (CCT-STD-1150), and International Space Station (ISS) to Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Interface Requirements Document (SSP 50808), provides the basis for a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) certification for services to the ISS for the Commercial Provider. When NASA Crew Transportation System (CTS) certification is achieved for ISS transportation, the Commercial Provider will be eligible to provide services to and from the ISS during the services phase of the NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP).
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) originally designed the International Space Station (ISS) to operate until 2015, but have extended operations until at least 2020. As part of this very dynamic Program, there is an effort underway to simplify the certification of Commercial ]of ]the ]Shelf (COTS) hardware. This change in paradigm allows the ISS Program to take advantage of technologically savvy and commercially available hardware, such as the iPad. The iPad, a line of tablet computers designed and marketed by Apple Inc., was chosen to support this endeavor. The iPad is functional, portable, and could be easily accessed in an emergency situation. The iPad Electronic Flight Bag (EFB), currently approved for use in flight by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), is a fraction of the cost of a traditional Class 2 EFB. In addition, the iPad fs ability to use electronic aeronautical data in lieu of paper in route charts and approach plates can cut the annual cost of paper data in half for commercial airlines. ISS may be able to benefit from this type of trade since one of the most important factors considered is information management. Emergency procedures onboard the ISS are currently available to the crew in paper form. Updates to the emergency books can either be launched on an upcoming visiting vehicle such as a Russian Soyuz flight or printed using the onboard ISS printer. In both cases, it is costly to update hardcopy procedures. A new operations concept was proposed to allow for the use of a tablet system that would provide a flexible platform to support space station crew operations. The purpose of the system would be to provide the crew the ability to view and maintain operational data, such as emergency procedures while also allowing Mission Control Houston to update the procedures. The ISS Program is currently evaluating the safety risks associated with the use of iPads versus paper. Paper products can contribute to the flammability risk and require manual updates that take time away from research tasks. The ISS program has recently purchased three iPads for the astronauts and the certification has been approved. The crew is currently using the iPads onboard. The results of this analysis could be used to discern whether the iPad is a viable option for use in emergencies by assessing the risk posture through the development of a quantitative probabilistic risk assessment (PRA).
During FY 97, 152 MUREP education and training projects were conducted at OMU institutions. The institutions conducted precollege and bridge programs, education partnerships with other universities and industry, NRTS, teacher training, and graduate and/or PI undergraduate programs. These programs reached a total of 23,748 participants, with the predominant number at the precollege level and achieved major goals of heightening students' interest and awareness of career opportunities in MSET fields, and exposing students to the NASA mission, research and advanced technology through role models, mentors, and participation in research and other educational activities. Also in FY 1997, NASA continued a very meaningful relationship with the Hispanic Association of Colleges students and Universities (HACU) through Proyecto Access, a consortium through which HACU links seven HSI's together to conduct 8-week summer programs. OMU Institutions reported 4,334 high school student in NASA programs and 3,404 of those students selected college preparatory MSET courses. Three hundred and forty-nine (349) graduated from high school, 343 enrolled in college, and 199 selected MSET majors. There were 130 high school graduates (bridge students) in NASA programs, 57 of whom successfully completed their freshman year. There were 307 teachers in teacher programs and 48 teachers received certificates. Of the 389 undergraduate students, 75 received under graduate degrees, and eight students are employed in a NASA-related field.
A new Microsystems Fabrication Laboratory (MFL), a Class 100 cleanroom fabrication facility, was completed and certified in 2002 at the NASA Glenn Research Center. This facility, to be used by Glenn's Instrumentation and Controls Division, was designed and built as part of the NASA Construction of Facilities Program. The design, construction, and certification phases were managed by personnel from Glenn s Facilities and Test Engineering Division. Because of time constraints and the need for specialized cleanroom expertise, this 1000 ft2 laboratory was completed using a design-build procurement. Facility Planning & Resources (Pittsburgh, PA) was selected as the prime contractor and provided the architectural design and project management. A major subcontractor, AdvanceTEC, LLC (Richmond, VA), provided the mechanical and electrical design and performed the construction services. Throughout this fast-track project, Facilities and Test Engineering Division personnel provided overall project management and worked closely with the contractors to ensure that the customers needs were addressed and that the impact of the project implementation was minimized.
In June 2004, the June Space Flight Leadership Council (SFLC) assigned an action to the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) and External Tank (ET) project jointly to characterize the available dataset [of defect sizes from dissections of foam], identify resultant limitations to statistical treatment of ET as-built foam as part of the overall thermal protection system (TPS) certification, and report to the Program Requirements Change Board (PRCB) and SFLC in September 2004. The NESC statistics team was formed to assist the ET statistics group in August 2004. The NESC's conclusions are presented in this report.
The International Space Station (ISS) Simplified Aid for Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) Rescue (SAFER) is the spacewalking astronaut's final safety measure against separating from the ISS and being unable to return safely. Since the late 1990s, the SAFER has been a standard element of the spacewalking astronaut's equipment. The ISS SAFER project was chartered to develop a new block of SAFER units using a highly similar design to the legacy SAFER (known as the USA SAFER). An on-orbit test module was also included in the project to enable periodic maintenance/propulsion system checkout on the ISS SAFER. On the ISS SAFER project, model-based systems engineering (MBSE) was not the initial systems engineering (SE) approach, given the volume of heritage systems engineering and integration (SE&I) products. The initial emphasis was ensuring traceability to ISS program standards as well as to legacy USA SAFER requirements. The requirements management capabilities of the Cradle systems engineering tool were to be utilized to that end. During development, however, MBSE approaches were applied selectively to address specific challenges in requirements validation and test and verification (T&V) planning, which provided measurable efficiencies to the project. From an MBSE perspective, ISS SAFER development presented a challenge and an opportunity. Addressing the challenge first, the project was tasked to use the original USA SAFER operational and design requirements baseline, with a number of additional ISS program requirements to address evolving certification expectations for systems operating on the ISS. Additionally, a need to redesign the ISS SAFER avionics architecture resulted in a set of changes to the design requirements baseline. Finally, the project added an entirely new functionality for on-orbit maintenance. After initial requirements integration, the system requirements count was approaching 1000, which represented a growth of 4x over the original USA SAFER system. This presented the challenge - How to confirm that this new set of requirements set would result in the creation of the desired capability.
Code to estimate position and attitude of a spacecraft or aircraft belongs to the most safety-critical parts of flight software. The complex underlying mathematics and abundance of design details make it error-prone and reliable implementations costly. AutoFilter is a program synthesis tool for the automatic generation of state estimation code from compact specifications. It can automatically produce additional safety certificates which formally guarantee that each generated program individually satisfies a set of important safety policies. These safety policies (e.g.. array-bounds, variable initialization) form a core of properties which are essential for high-assurance software. Here we describe the AutoFilter system and its certificate generator and compare our approach to the static analysis tool PolySpace.
The Ares I and Ares V Vehicles will utilize the J-2X rocket engine developed for NASA by the Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne Company (PWR) as the upper stage engine (USE). The J-2X is an improved higher power version of the original J-2 engine used for Apollo. System Engineering (SE) facilitates direct and open discussions of issues and problems. This simple idea is often overlooked in large, complex engineering development programs. Definition and distribution of requirements from the engine level to the component level is controlled by Allocation Reports which breaks down numerical design objectives (weight, reliability, etc.) into quanta goals for each component area. Linked databases of design and verification requirements help eliminate redundancy and potential mistakes inherent in separated systems. Another tool, the Architecture Design Description (ADD), is used to control J-2X system architecture and effectively communicate configuration changes to those involved in the design process. But the proof of an effective process is in successful program accomplishment. SE is the methodology being used to meet the challenge of completing J-2X engine certification 2 years ahead of any engine program ever developed at PWR. This paper describes the simple, better SE tools and techniques used to achieve this success.
The Ares I and Ares V Vehicles will utilize the J-2X rocket engine developed for NASA by the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Company. The J-2X is an improved higher power version of the original J-2 engine used during the Apollo program. With higher power and updated requirements for safety and performance, the J-2X becomes a new engine using state-of-the-art design methodology, materials and manufacturing processes. The implementation of Systems Engineering (SE) principles enables the rapid J-2X development program to remain aligned with the ARES I and V vehicle programs, Meeting the aggressive development schedule is a challenge. Coordinating the best expertise thai NASA and PWR have to offer requires effectively utilizing resources at multiple sites. This presents formidable communication challenges. SE allows honest and open discussions of issues and problems. This simple idea is often overlooked in large and complex SE programs. Regular and effective meetings linking SE objectives to component designs are used to voice differences of opinions with customer and contractor in attendance so that the best mutual decisions can be made on the shortest possible schedule. Regular technical interchange meetings on secure program wide computer networks and CM processes are effective,in the "Controlled Change" process that exemplifies good SE. Good communication is a key effective SE implementation. The System of Systems approach is the vision of the Orion program which facilitates the establishment of dynamic SE processes at all levels including the engine. SE enables requirements evolution by facilitating organizational and process agility. Flow down and distribution of requirements is controlled by Allocation Reports which breakdown numerical design objectives (weight, reliability, etc.) into quanta goals for each component area. Linked databases of design and verification requirements helps eliminate redundancy and potential mistakes inherent m separated systems. Another tool, the Architecture Design Description, is being used to control J-2X system architecture and effectively communicate configuration changes to those involved in the design process. But the proof is in successful program accomplishment. The SE is the methodology being used to meet the challenge of completing J-2X engine certification 2 years ahead of any engine program ever developed at PWR. The Ares I SE system of systems has delivered according to expectations thus far. All major design reviews (SRR. PDR, CDR) have been successfully conducted to satisfy overall program objectives using SE as the basis for accomplishment. The paper describes SE tools and techniques utilized to achieve this success.
The basic Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) concept called for an operational life of 55 missions, as well as an exceptionally high specific impulse. While these requirements are considered achievable in the cases of the basic engine structure, powerhead, main combustion chamber, propellant ducts, hydraulic lines and engine controller, other components may experience excessive wear and deterioration and may not achieve specification life without removal and overhaul. Most SSME components have been designed as line replaceable units, which have demonstrated good operational durability and will meet flight certification requirement upgrading. The Flight Confidence Program of the SSME test program currently being instituted will recertify existing engines for use in more than the 10 flights stipulated until now. The testing of two engines in repeated cycles should add 10 flights for every two successfully completed certification cycles.
NASA Headquarters Environmental Management Division supports NASA's mission to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research by integrating environmental considerations into programs and projects early-on, thereby proactively reducing NASA's exposure to institutional, programmatic and operational risk. As part of this effort, NASA established the Principal Center for Regulatory Risk Analysis and Communication (RRAC PC) as a resource for detecting, analyzing, and communicating environmental regulatory risks to the NASA stakeholder community. The RRAC PC focuses on detecting emerging environmental regulations and other operational change drivers that may pose risks to NASA programs and facilities, and effectively communicating the potential risks. For example, regulatory change may restrict how and where certain activities or operations may be conducted. Regulatory change can also directly affect the ability to use certain materials by mandating a production phase-out or restricting usage applications of certain materials. Regulatory change can result in significant adverse impacts to NASA programs and facilities due to NASA's stringent performance requirements for materials and components related to human-rated space vehicles. Even if a regulation does not directly affect NASA operations, U.S. and international regulations can pose program risks indirectly through requirements levied on manufacturers and vendors of components and materials. For example, manufacturers can change their formulations to comply with new regulatory requirements. Such changes can require time-consuming and costly requalification certification for use in human spaceflight programs. The RRAC PC has implemented a system for proactively managing regulatory change to minimize potential adverse impacts to NASA programs and facilities. This presentation highlights the process utilized by the RRACPC to communicate regulatory change and the associated potential risks within NASA, as well as the process for communicating and cooperating with other government agencies and industry partners, both domestic and international, to ensure mission success.
NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research. To help enable existing and future programs to pursue this mission, NASA has established the Principal Center for Regulatory Risk Analysis and Communication (RRAC PC) to proactively identify, analyze, and communicate environmental regulatory risks to the NASA community. The RRAC PC is chartered to evaluate the risks posed to NASA Programs and facilities by environmentally related drivers. The RRAC PC focuses on emerging environmental regulations, as well as risks related to operational changes that can trigger existing environmental requirements. Changing regulations have the potential to directly affect program activities. For example, regulatory changes can restrict certain activities or operations by mandating changes in how operations may be done or limiting where or how certain operations can take place. Regulatory changes also can directly affect the ability to use certain materials by mandating a production phase-out or restricting usage applications of certain materials. Such changes can result in NASA undertaking material replacement efforts. Even if a regulation does not directly affect NASA operations, U.S. and international regulations can pose program risks indirectly through requirements levied on manufacturers and vendors of components and materials. For example, manufacturers can change their formulations to comply with new regulatory requirements. Such changes can require time-consuming and costly requalification certification for use in human spaceflight programs. The RRAC PC has implemented several strategies for proactively managing regulatory change to minimize potential adverse impacts to NASA Programs and facilities. This presentation highlights the lessons learned through establishing the RRAC PC, the process by which the RRAC PC monitors and distributes information about emerging regulatory requirements, and the cross-Agency cooperation that is vital to supporting NASA's mission.
NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research. To help enable existing and future programs to pursue this mission, NASA has established the Principal Center for Regulatory Risk Analysis and Communication (RRAC PC) to proactively identify, analyze, and communicate environmental regulatory risks to the NASA community. The RRAC PC is chartered to evaluate the risks posed to NASA Programs and facilities by environmentally related drivers. The RRAC PC focuses on emerging environmental regulations, as well as risks related to operational changes that can trigger existing environmental requirements. Changing regulations have the potential to directly affect program activities. For example, regulatory changes can restrict certain activities or operations by mandating changes in how operations may be done or limiting where or how certain operations can take place. Regulatory changes also can directly affect the ability to use certain materials by mandating a production phase-out or restricting usage aPi'iications of certain materials. Such changes can result in NASA undertaking material replacement efforts. Even if a regulation does not directly affect NASA operations, U.S. and international regulations can pose program risks indirectly through requirements levied on manufacturers and vendors of components and materials. For example, manufacturers can change their formulations to comply with new regulatory requirements. Such changes can require time-consuming and costly requalification certification for use in human spaceflight programs. The RRAC PC has implemented several strategies for proactively managing regulatory change to minimize potential adverse impacts to NASA Programs and facilities. This presentation highlights the lessons learned through establishing the RRAC PC, the process by which the RRAC PC monitors and distributes information about emerging regulatory requirements, and the cross-Agency cooperation that is vital to supporting NASA's mission.
NASA Gateway program has named cFS as the software architecture for the vehicle. The core CFS team (GSFC+JSC) is tasked to develop a certifiable release of the cFS bundle, by components, as class A, safety-critical flight software. It is to be available to all Gateway software developers, including our element vendors and international partners. Its availability & usage will be as stated by the Gateway User Agreement license. In this presentation, we will describe our general certification process, and more importantly, our certification artifacts that can be re-run to certify cFS on different platforms. Our goal is to also make available these certifiable packages to the open source community, specifically for cFE, OSAL and certain cFS applications and libraries that are currently hosted on NASA github (https://github.com/nasa).
NASA Gateway program has named cFS as the software architecture for the vehicle. The core CFS team (GSFC+JSC) is tasked to develop a certifiable release of the cFS bundle, by components, as class A, safety-critical flight software. It is to be available to all Gateway software developers, including our element vendors and international partners. Its availability & usage will be as stated by the Gateway User Agreement license. In this presentation, we will describe our general certification process, and more importantly, our certification artifacts that can be re-run to certify cFS on different platforms. Our goal is to also make available these certifiable packages to the open source community, specifically for cFE, OSAL and certain cFS applications and libraries that are currently hosted on NASA github (https://github.com/nasa).
Certification trails are a recently introduced and promising approach to fault-detection and fault-tolerance. Recent experimental work reveals many cases in which a certification-trail approach allows for significantly faster program execution time than a basic time-redundancy approach. Algorithms for answer-validation of abstract data types allow a certification trail approach to be used for a wide variety of problems. An attempt to assess the performance of algorithms utilizing certification trails on abstract data types is reported. Specifically, this method was applied to the following problems: heapsort, Hullman tree, shortest path, and skyline. Previous results used certification trails specific to a particular problem and implementation. The approach allows certification trails to be localized to 'data structure modules,' making the use of this technique transparent to the user of such modules.