NASA's Safety, Reliability, and Mission Assurance Digital Future
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Reliability↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Mission 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.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
A Codification of Technical Considerations and Mission Assurance to Enable Viable Servicing/Active Debris Removal/Assisted Debris Disposal (ADR/ADD)
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
NASA↗
NASA Office of Safety & Mission Assurance (OSMA) Vision for a “Digital” Objectives-Driven, Risk-Informed, and Case-Assured Framework
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Anthony J Diventi↗
NASA’s Approach to Mission Assurance
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Matt Forsbacka↗
SmallSat / Model-Based Mission Assurance Session Overview
SmallSat state of the art report advanced avionics section updates. Systematic CubeSat radiation hardening assurance using the SEAM platforms. Building ontologies for AI-integrated prognostic health management of spacecraft avionics.
Rebekah Austin↗
Model-Based Engineering/Digital Engineering (MBE/DE) and Mission Assurance of Complex NASA Systems With Federated Modeling
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
systems engineering↗
Risk Balance: A Key Tool for Mission Operations Assurance
The Mission Operations Assurance (MOA) discipline actively participates as a project member to achieve their common objective of full mission success while also providing an independent risk assessment to the Project Manager and Office of Safety and Mission Success staff. The cornerstone element of MOA is the independent assessment of the risks the project faces in executing its mission. Especially as the project approaches critical mission events, it becomes imperative to clearly identify and assess the risks the project faces. Quite often there are competing options for the project to select from in deciding how to execute the event. An example includes choices between proven but aging hardware components and unused but unproven components. Timing of the event with respect to visual or telecommunications visibility can be a consideration in the case of Earth reentry or hazardous maneuver events. It is in such situations that MOA is called upon for a risk balance assessment or risk trade study to support their recommendation to the Project Manager for a specific option to select. In the following paragraphs we consider two such assessments, one for the Stardust capsule Earth return and the other for the choice of telecommunications system configuration for the EPOXI flyby of the comet Hartley 2. We discuss the development of the trade space for each project's scenario and characterize the risks of each possible option. The risk characterization we consider includes a determination of the severity or consequence of each risk if realized and the likelihood of its occurrence. We then examine the assessment process to arrive at a MOA recommendation. Finally we review each flight project's decision process and the outcome of their decisions.
operations↗
Integrated Systems Health Management for Space Exploration
Integrated Systems Health Management (ISHM) is a system engineering discipline that addresses the design, development, operation, and lifecycle management of components, subsystems, vehicles, and other operational systems with the purpose of maintaining nominal system behavior and function and assuring mission safety and effectiveness under off-nominal conditions. NASA missions are often conducted in extreme, unfamiliar environments of space, using unique experimental spacecraft. In these environments, off-nominal conditions can develop with the potential to rapidly escalate into mission- or life-threatening situations. Further, the high visibility of NASA missions means they are always characterized by extraordinary attention to safety. ISHM is a critical element of risk mitigation, mission safety, and mission assurance for exploration. ISHM enables: In-space maintenance and repair; a) Autonomous (and automated) launch abort and crew escape capability; b) Efficient testing and checkout of ground and flight systems; c) Monitoring and trending of ground and flight system operations and performance; d) Enhanced situational awareness and control for ground personnel and crew; e) Vehicle autonomy (self-sufficiency) in responding to off-nominal conditions during long-duration and distant exploration missions; f) In-space maintenance and repair; and g) Efficient ground processing of reusable systems. ISHM concepts and technologies may be applied to any complex engineered system such as transportation systems, orbital or planetary habitats, observatories, command and control systems, life support systems, safety-critical software, and even the health of flight crews. As an overarching design and operational principle implemented at the system-of-systems level, ISHM holds substantial promise in terms of affordability, safety, reliability, and effectiveness of space exploration missions.
Uckun, Serdar↗
Failures and anomalies attributed to spacecraft charging
The effects of spacecraft charging can be very detrimental to electronic systems utilized in space missions. Assuring that subsystems and systems are protected against charging is an important engineering function necessary to assure mission success. Spacecraft charging is expected to have a significant role in future space activities and programs. Objectives of this reference publication are to present a brief overview of spacecraft charging, to acquaint the reader with charging history, including illustrative cases of charging anomalies, and to introduce current spacecraft charging prevention activities of the Electromagnetics and Environments Branch, Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Leach, R. D.↗
Electronic systems failures and anomalies attributed to electromagnetic interference
The effects of electromagnetic interference can be very detrimental to electronic systems utilized in space missions. Assuring that subsystems and systems are electrically compatible is an important engineering function necessary to assure mission success. This reference publication will acquaint the reader with spacecraft electronic systems failures and anomalies caused by electromagnetic interference and will show the importance of electromagnetic compatibility activities in conjunction with space flight programs. It is also hoped that the report will illustrate that evolving electronic systems are increasingly sensitive to electromagnetic interference and that NASA personnel must continue to diligently pursue electromagnetic compatibility on space flight systems.
Leach, R. D.↗
Mission Operations Assurance
Integrate the mission operations assurance function into the flight team providing: (1) value added support in identifying, mitigating, and communicating the project's risks and, (2) being an essential member of the team during the test activities, training exercises and critical flight operations.
project tracking↗
Mission Operations Assurance: Battling Risk to Preserve Mission Success
No abstract available
operational errors↗
Tailoring NIST Security Controls for the Ground System: Selection and Implementation -- Recommendations for Information System Owners
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) invests millions of dollars in spacecraft and ground system development, and in mission operations in the pursuit of scientific knowledge of the universe. In recent years, NASA sent a probe to Mars to study the Red Planet's upper atmosphere, obtained high resolution images of Pluto, and it is currently preparing to find new exoplanets, rendezvous with an asteroid, and bring a sample of the asteroid back to Earth for analysis. The success of these missions is enabled by mission assurance. In turn, mission assurance is backed by information assurance. The information systems supporting NASA missions must be reliable as well as secure. NASA - like every other U.S. Federal Government agency - is required to manage the security of its information systems according to federal mandates, the most prominent being the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002 and the legislative updates that followed it. Like the management of enterprise information technology (IT), federal information security management takes a "one-size fits all" approach for protecting IT systems. While this approach works for most organizations, it does not effectively translate into security of highly specialized systems such as those supporting NASA missions. These systems include command and control (C&C) systems, spacecraft and instrument simulators, and other elements comprising the ground segment. They must be carefully configured, monitored and maintained, sometimes for several years past the missions' initially planned life expectancy, to ensure the ground system is protected and remains operational without any compromise of its confidentiality, integrity and availability. Enterprise policies, processes, procedures and products, if not effectively tailored to meet mission requirements, may not offer the needed security for protecting the information system, and they may even become disruptive to mission operations. Certain protective measures for the general enterprise may not be as efficient within the ground segment. This is what the authors have concluded through observations and analysis of patterns identified from the various security assessments performed on NASA missions such as MAVEN, OSIRIS-REx, New Horizons and TESS, to name a few. The security audits confirmed that the framework for managing information system security developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for the federal government, and adopted by NASA, is indeed effective. However, the selection of the technical, operational and management security controls offered by the NIST model - and how they are implemented - does not always fit the nature and the environment where the ground system operates in even though there is no apparent impact on mission success. The authors observed that unfit controls, that is, controls that are not necessarily applicable or sufficiently effective in protecting the mission systems, are often selected to facilitate compliance with security requirements and organizational expectations even if the selected controls offer minimum or non-existent protection. This paper identifies some of the standard security controls that can in fact protect the ground system, and which of them offer little or no benefit at all. It offers multiple scenarios from real security audits in which the controls are not effective without, of course, disclosing any sensitive information about the missions assessed. In addition to selection and implementation of controls, the paper also discusses potential impact of recent legislation such as the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) of 2014 - aimed at the enterprise - on the ground system, and offers other recommendations to Information System Owners (ISOs).
GOVERNANCE↗
Adopting an Objectives-Driven Assurance Case Approach for Achieving Space Flight Mission Planetary Protection Objectives
Traditionally, NASA has utilized prescriptive technical and process requirements to ensure safety and mission assurance performance objectives for space flight missions are achieved. While prescriptive re-quirements may be easier to communicate and manage throughout the systems engineering process, the highly-constrained nature of prescriptive requirements can limit the ability to take advantage of cost-saving opportunities and offer limited ability to explore other options or alternative designs, processes, and methods. It can also be difficult to develop prescriptive requirements for objectives that are prob-abilistic in nature or that cannot be satisfied by direct verification. In contrast, the development of an assurance case allows for a compelling, comprehensible, and valid argument to be developed with support-ing evidence that shows safety and mission assurance objectives have been satisfied. Analogous to how patent applications are constructed for inventions, an assurance case has a high-level claim of meeting a safety and mission assurance objective, followed by a more specific set of sub-claims and technical evidence which supports the claims. The objectives-driven assurance case approach allows for a better understand-ing and exploration of the trade space, more flexibility to balance trades, and the ability to realize and implement technical and process innovations for resource, time, and cost savings. The assurance case is a living case that evolves over the entire program life cycle. Recently, NASA’s Office of Planetary Pro-tection (OPP) has adopted the assurance case approach as an acceptable methodology for demonstrating avoidance of contamination of target solar system bodies explored by NASA space flight missions. This methodology has been incorporated into NASA’s new technical standard for planetary protection and is currently being utilized by the Mars Sample Return campaign for safe sample containment during sample return. This presentation will explore the development and implementation of an assurance case approach in the context of planetary protection, the shift from prescriptive requirements and the ongoing culture change in the technical community, and the support and guidance from NASA’s OPP in adopting the assurance case approach for achieving planetary protection objectives on NASA’s space flight missions.
Elaine Seasly↗
Summer 2014 Pathways Report
Over the summer I had the exciting opportunity to work for NASA at the Kennedy Space Center as a Mission Assurance Engineering intern. When I was offered a position in mission assurance for the Safety and Mission Assurance directorate's Launch Services Division, I didn't really know what I would be doing, but I knew it would be an excellent opportunity to learn and grow professionally. In this report I will provide some background information on the Launch Services Division, as well as detail my duties and accomplishments during my time as an intern. Additionally, I will relate the significance of my work experience to my current academic work and future career goals. This report contains background information on Mission Assurance Engineering, a description of my duties and accomplishments over the summer of 2014, and relates the significance of my work experience to my school work and future career goals. It is a required document for the Pathways program.
Pathways↗
Adopting an Objectives-Driven Assurance Case Approach for Achieving Space Flight Mission Planetary Protection Objectives
Traditionally, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has utilized prescriptive technical and process requirements to ensure safety and mission assurance performance objectives for planetary protection are achieved during space flight missions. While prescriptive requirements may be easier to communicate and manage throughout the systems engineering process, the highly constrained nature of prescriptive requirements can limit the ability to take advantage of cost-saving opportunities and offer limited ability to explore other options or alternative designs, processes, and methods. It can also be difficult to develop prescriptive requirements for objectives that are probabilistic in nature or that cannot be satisfied by direct verification. In contrast, the development of an assurance case allows for a compelling, comprehensible, and valid argument to be developed with supporting evidence that shows safety and mission assurance objectives have been satisfied. Analogous to how patent applications are constructed for inventions, an assurance case has a high-level claim of meeting a safety and mission assurance objective, followed by a more specific set of sub-claims and technical evidence which supports the claims. The objectives-driven assurance case approach allows for a better understanding and exploration of the trade space, more flexibility to balance trades, and the ability to realize and implement technical and process innovations for resource, time, and cost savings. The assurance case is a living case that evolves over the entire program life cycle. Recently, NASA’s Office of Planetary Protection (OPP) has adopted the assurance case approach as an acceptable methodology for demonstrating avoidance of contamination of target solar system bodies explored by NASA space flight missions. This methodology has been incorporated into NASA’s new technical standard for planetary protection and is currently being utilized by the Mars Sample Return campaign for safe sample containment during sample return.
Assurance Case↗
Shielding Considerations for CubeSat Structures During Solar Maximum
The purpose of this lessons learned paper is to communicate the utility of shielding in small spacecraft planning for the support of mission assurance and reliability. Numerous SmallSats have been flying in polar low Earth orbit for science, communications, technology demonstrations, and imaging with academic, commercial, and government interests. Shielding has been part of mission assurance and reliability from the advent of long duration spacecraft missions. The Shields-1 CubeSat has been operating in polar low Earth orbit since 16 December 2018 with atomic number (Z)-grade radiation shielding and demonstrates shielding effectiveness. Shields-1 has collected a representative example of solar minimum data in 2019 with eight Teledyne µDosimeters over varying shielding effectivenesses. It serves as current experimental data and has been compared with NOVICE Shielding estimates using the AP8 – AE8 trapped radiation model with the Shields-1 CAD and generic CubeSat three unit (3U) models. Using NOVICE model radiation analysis coding, the shielding effectivenesses, based on a generic CubeSat 3U structure with four electronic boards, were estimated for aluminum wall thicknesses ranging from 0.204 cm to 4.44 cm (0.550 g/cm 2 to 12.0 g/cm 2 ). For modeled polar orbiting spacecraft, solar maximum total ionizing dose (TID) increases by nearly a magnitude for thin-walled aluminum 0.550-g/cm 2 - 0.686-g/cm 2 (0.204-cm – 0.254-cm) typical CubeSat structures. The shielding effectiveness estimated by NOVICE Sigma, which is a shielding sphere approximation around a detector, showed a linear relationship with wall thickness, which increased over the wall thickness by a ratio of 1.43 determined by linear regression analysis. Using NOVICE Adjoint Monte-Carlo Modeling of solar minimum and solar maximum with the inclusion of a worst-case solar particle event over a one-year mission without geomagnetic shielding, the TID for minimum and maximum conditions for a generic 3U with a wall thickness of 0.254 cm is 158 RAD and 1540 RAD, respectively. The modeled total solar maximum TID is over estimated, because at low orbital latitudes a spacecraft will have shielding from the Earth’s magnetic field. However, TID will still be significant at high latitudes over the poles, where a spacecraft is exposed in a solar particle event. In contrast to a thin-walled generic 3U CubeSat, the Shields-1 electronics enclosure has a shielding effectiveness of 21.3 g/cm 2 from NOVICE Sigma modeling and is expected to show reduced total ionizing dose increases during the present active Solar Cycle 25 period. Because solar particle events during solar maximum increase TID on electronic parts with thin-walled shielding in short periods of time, it is a mission assurance and reliability consideration on the mission value of the spacecraft versus adding shielding for risk reduction of premature spacecraft or instrument payload loss. Since the volumes of many instruments and system electronics have reduced with small spacecraft, shielding material costs and weight penalties have diminished. A small spacecraft project budget and schedule may limit traditional radiation-hardened part use and radiation testing requirements, where shielding can contribute to mission assurance and reliability with reduced costs.
Shields-1↗
Shielding Considerations for CubeSat Structures During Solar Maximum
The purpose of this lessons learned is to communicate the utility of shielding in small spacecraft planning for the support of mission assurance and reliability. Numerous SmallSats have been flying in polar low earth orbit for scientific, communications, technology demonstrations, and imaging with academic, commercial, and government interests. Shielding has been part of mission assurance and reliability from the advent of long duration spacecraft missions. The Shields-1 CubeSat has been operating in polar low earth orbit since 16 December 2018 with atomic number (Z)-grade radiation shielding and demonstrates shielding effectiveness. Shields-1 has collected a representative example of solar minimum data in 2019 with 8 Teledyne dosimeters over varying shielding effectiveness. It serves as current experimental data and has been compared with NOVICE Shielding estimates using the AP8 –AE8 trapped radiation model with the Shields-1 CAD and generic CubeSat 3 unit (U) models. Using NOVICE model radiation analysis coding, the shielding effectiveness's, based on a generic CubeSat 3U structure with 4 electronic boards, were estimated for aluminum wall thicknesses ranging from 0.204 cmto4.44 cm (0.550 g/cm2–12.0 g/cm2) thick aluminum. For modeled polar orbiting spacecraft, solar maximum total ionizing dose (TID)increases by nearly a magnitude for thin-walled aluminum 0.550g/cm2-0.686 g/cm2(0.204 cm –0.254 cm) typical CubeSat structures. The shielding effectiveness by NOVICE Sigma estimates, which is a shielding sphere approximation around a detector, showed a linear relationship with wall thickness, which increased over the wall thickness by a ratio of 1.43 determined by linear regression analysis. Using NOVICE Adjoint Monte-Carlo Modeling of solar minimum and solar maximum with the inclusion of a worst-case solar particle event over a one year mission without geomagnetic shielding, the TID for minimum and maximum conditions for a generic 3U with a wall thickness of 0.254 cm is 158 RAD and 1540 RAD, respectively. The modeled total solar maximum TID is over estimated, because at low orbital latitudes a spacecraft will have shielding from Earth's magnetic field. However, TID will still be significant at high latitudes over the poles, where a spacecraft is exposed in a solar particle event. In contrast, to a thin walled generic 3U CubeSat, Shields-1 electronics enclosure has a shielding effectiveness of 21.3 g/cm2from NOVICE Sigma modeling and is expected to show reduced total ionizing dose increases during the present active Solar Cycle 25 period. Because solar particle events during solar maximum increase TID on electronic parts with thin-walled shielding in short periods of time, it is a mission assurance and reliability consideration on the spacecraft’s mission value versus adding shielding for risk reduction of premature spacecraft or instrument payload loss. Since the volumes of many instruments and system electronics have reduced with small spacecraft, shielding material costs and weight penalties have diminished. A small spacecraft project budget and schedule may limit traditional radiation-hardened part use and radiation testing requirements, where shielding can contribute to mission assurance and reliability with reduced costs.
Shields-1↗