Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Mission Assurance Management”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

Considerations in Assuring Safety of Increasingly Autonomous Systems

Recent technological advances have accelerated the development and application of increasingly autonomous (IA) systems in civil and military aviation. IA systems can provide automation of complex mission tasks-ranging across reduced crew operations, air-traffic management, and unmanned, autonomous aircraft-with most applications calling for collaboration and teaming among humans and IA agents. IA systems are expected to provide benefits in terms of safety, reliability, efficiency, affordability, and previously unattainable mission capability. There is also a potential for improving safety by removal of human errors. There are, however, several challenges in the safety assurance of these systems due to the highly adaptive and non-deterministic behavior of these systems, and vulnerabilities due to potential divergence of airplane state awareness between the IA system and humans. These systems must deal with external sensors and actuators, and they must respond in time commensurate with the activities of the system in its environment. One of the main challenges is that safety assurance, currently relying upon authority transfer from an autonomous function to a human to mitigate safety concerns, will need to address their mitigation by automation in a collaborative dynamic context. These challenges have a fundamental, multidimensional impact on the safety assurance methods, system architecture, and V&V capabilities to be employed. The goal of this report is to identify relevant issues to be addressed in these areas, the potential gaps in the current safety assurance techniques, and critical questions that would need to be answered to assure safety of IA systems. We focus on a scenario of reduced crew operation when an IA system is employed which reduces, changes or eliminates a human's role in transition from two-pilot operations.

Alves, Erin E.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Model Based Mission Assurance: Emerging Opportunities for Robotic Systems

The emergence of Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) in a Model Based Engineering framework has created new opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiencies across the assurance functions. The MBSE environment supports not only system architecture development, but provides for support of Systems Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis concurrently in the same framework. Linking to detailed design will further improve assurance capabilities to support failures avoidance and mitigation in flight systems. This also is leading new assurance functions including model assurance and management of uncertainty in the modeling environment. Further, the assurance cases, a structured hierarchal argument or model, are emerging as a basis for supporting a comprehensive viewpoint in which to support Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA).

Mission Assurance↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Flight Testing of In-Time Safety Assurance Technologies for UAS Operations

Ongoing research at NASA is driven by a strategic plan defined by the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate and a vision for future In-Time Aviation Safety Management Systems (IASMS) as described by the National Academies. In both visions, system safety awareness and provision are expanded through increased access to relevant data; integrated analysis and predictive capabilities; improved real-time detection and alerting of domain-specific hazards; decision support, and in some cases, automated risk mitigation strategies. One primary research focus is to develop means by which more timely (i.e., “in-time”) actions may be taken to mitigate precursors, anomalies, or trends that are observed during operations. In this paper, we describe such means as a collection of Services, Functions, and Capabilities (SFCs) that are supported by an underlying information system. For example, an integrated risk assessment capability is envisioned that continuously monitors safety-related metrics and margins and recommends timely operational changes. Assessment functions and/or services can be based on data analytics and predictive models derived from heterogeneous data sets that span relevant indicator metrics and their time histories. Likewise, on-board functions can identify and reduce susceptibility to precursor conditions that have led (and can lead) to aircraft loss-of-control or out-of-control accidents. This paper summarizes development and testing of such an information system tailored to hazards anticipated for future highly autonomous flight missions near and over densely populated areas. Testing is accomplished via simulation and by using small, unmanned aircraft operating over a test range at NASA’s Langley Research Center. Flight plans and test scenarios are defined to emulate several use-cases, including package delivery; reconnaissance; fire management; and urban air taxi vertiport operations. Two test phases are summarized with Phase 1 occurring in (2019-2020) and Phase 2 ongoing (2021-present). Results focus on SFC performance, technology readiness level assessment, and requirements discovery/validation. Companion papers are cited throughout for additional details on the recent testing.

safety management↗
NASA NTRS2015

A Vehicle Management End-to-End Testing and Analysis Platform for Validation of Mission and Fault Management Algorithms to Reduce Risk for NASA's Space Launch System

The engineering development of the new Space Launch System (SLS) launch vehicle requires cross discipline teams with extensive knowledge of launch vehicle subsystems, information theory, and autonomous algorithms dealing with all operations from pre-launch through on orbit operations. The characteristics of these spacecraft systems must be matched with the autonomous algorithm monitoring and mitigation capabilities for accurate control and response to abnormal conditions throughout all vehicle mission flight phases, including precipitating safing actions and crew aborts. This presents a large and complex system engineering challenge, which is being addressed in part by focusing on the specific subsystems involved in the handling of off-nominal mission and fault tolerance with response management. Using traditional model based system and software engineering design principles from the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), the Mission and Fault Management (M&FM) algorithms for the vehicle are crafted and vetted in specialized Integrated Development Teams (IDTs) composed of multiple development disciplines such as Systems Engineering (SE), Flight Software (FSW), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) and the major subsystems and vehicle elements such as Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), boosters, avionics, Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC), Thrust Vector Control (TVC), and liquid engines. These model based algorithms and their development lifecycle from inception through Flight Software certification are an important focus of this development effort to further insure reliable detection and response to off-nominal vehicle states during all phases of vehicle operation from pre-launch through end of flight. NASA formed a dedicated M&FM team for addressing fault management early in the development lifecycle for the SLS initiative. As part of the development of the M&FM capabilities, this team has developed a dedicated testbed that integrates specific M&FM algorithms, specialized nominal and off-nominal test cases, and vendor-supplied physics-based launch vehicle subsystem models. Additionally, the team has developed processes for implementing and validating these algorithms for concept validation and risk reduction for the SLS program. The flexibility of the Vehicle Management End-to-end Testbed (VMET) enables thorough testing of the M&FM algorithms by providing configurable suites of both nominal and off-nominal test cases to validate the developed algorithms utilizing actual subsystem models such as MPS. The intent of VMET is to validate the M&FM algorithms and substantiate them with performance baselines for each of the target vehicle subsystems in an independent platform exterior to the flight software development infrastructure and its related testing entities. In any software development process there is inherent risk in the interpretation and implementation of concepts into software through requirements and test cases into flight software compounded with potential human errors throughout the development lifecycle. Risk reduction is addressed by the M&FM analysis group working with other organizations such as S&MA, Structures and Environments, GNC, Orion, the Crew Office, Flight Operations, and Ground Operations by assessing performance of the M&FM algorithms in terms of their ability to reduce Loss of Mission and Loss of Crew probabilities. In addition, through state machine and diagnostic modeling, analysis efforts investigate a broader suite of failure effects and associated detection and responses that can be tested in VMET to ensure that failures can be detected, and confirm that responses do not create additional risks or cause undesired states through interactive dynamic effects with other algorithms and systems. VMET further contributes to risk reduction by prototyping and exercising the M&FM algorithms early in their implementation and without any inherent hindrances such as meeting FSW processor scheduling constraints due to their target platform - ARINC 653 partitioned OS, resource limitations, and other factors related to integration with other subsystems not directly involved with M&FM such as telemetry packing and processing. The baseline plan for use of VMET encompasses testing the original M&FM algorithms coded in the same C++ language and state machine architectural concepts as that used by Flight Software. This enables the development of performance standards and test cases to characterize the M&FM algorithms and sets a benchmark from which to measure the effectiveness of M&FM algorithms performance in the FSW development and test processes.

Trevino, Luis↗
NASA NTRS1985

Data Requirement (DR) MA-03: Payload missions integration

Project management and payload integration requirements definition activities are reported. Mission peculiar equipment; systems integration; ground operations analysis and requirement definition; safety and quality assurance; and support systems development are examined for payloads planned for the following missions: EOM-1; SL-2; Sl-3 Astro-1; MSL-2; EASE/ACCESS; MPESS; and the middeck ADSF flight.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1994

Budget estimates: Fiscal year 1994. Volume 3: Research and program management

The research and program management (R&PM) appropriation provides the salaries, other personnel and related costs, and travel support for NASA's civil service workforce. This FY 1994 budget funds costs associated with 23,623 full-time equivalent (FTE) work years. Budget estimates are provided for all NASA centers by categories such as space station and new technology investments, space flight programs, space science, life and microgravity sciences, advanced concepts and technology, center management and operations support, launch services, mission to planet earth, tracking and data programs, aeronautical research and technology, and safety, reliability, and quality assurance.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2017

Electrical, Electronic and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts in the New Space Paradigm: When is Better the Enemy of Good Enough?

As the space business rapidly evolves to accommodate a lower cost model of development and operation via concepts such as commercial space and small spacecraft (aka, CubeSats and swarms), traditional EEE parts screening and qualification methods are being scrutinized under a risk-reward trade space. In this presentation, two basic concepts will be discussed: (1) The movement from complete risk aversion EEE parts methods to managing and/or accepting risk via alternate approaches; and, (2) A discussion of emerging assurance methods to reduce overdesign as well emerging model based mission assurance (MBMA) concepts. center dot Example scenarios will be described as well as consideration for trading traditional versus alternate methods.

LaBel, Kenneth A.↗
NASA NTRS2015

A Vehicle Management End-to-End Testing and Analysis Platform for Validation of Mission and Fault Management Algorithms to Reduce Risk for NASAs Space Launch System

The engineering development of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) new Space Launch System (SLS) requires cross discipline teams with extensive knowledge of launch vehicle subsystems, information theory, and autonomous algorithms dealing with all operations from pre-launch through on orbit operations. The nominal and off-nominal characteristics of SLS's elements and subsystems must be understood and matched with the autonomous algorithm monitoring and mitigation capabilities for accurate control and response to abnormal conditions throughout all vehicle mission flight phases, including precipitating safing actions and crew aborts. This presents a large and complex systems engineering challenge, which is being addressed in part by focusing on the specific subsystems involved in the handling of off-nominal mission and fault tolerance with response management. Using traditional model-based system and software engineering design principles from the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), the Mission and Fault Management (M&FM) algorithms for the vehicle are crafted and vetted in Integrated Development Teams (IDTs) composed of multiple development disciplines such as Systems Engineering (SE), Flight Software (FSW), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) and the major subsystems and vehicle elements such as Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), boosters, avionics, Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC), Thrust Vector Control (TVC), and liquid engines. These model-based algorithms and their development lifecycle from inception through FSW certification are an important focus of SLS's development effort to further ensure reliable detection and response to off-nominal vehicle states during all phases of vehicle operation from pre-launch through end of flight. To test and validate these M&FM algorithms a dedicated test-bed was developed for full Vehicle Management End-to-End Testing (VMET). For addressing fault management (FM) early in the development lifecycle for the SLS program, NASA formed the M&FM team as part of the Integrated Systems Health Management and Automation Branch under the Spacecraft Vehicle Systems Department at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). To support the development of the FM algorithms, the VMET developed by the M&FM team provides the ability to integrate the algorithms, perform test cases, and integrate vendor-supplied physics-based launch vehicle (LV) subsystem models. Additionally, the team has developed processes for implementing and validating the M&FM algorithms for concept validation and risk reduction. The flexibility of the VMET capabilities enables thorough testing of the M&FM algorithms by providing configurable suites of both nominal and off-nominal test cases to validate the developed algorithms utilizing actual subsystem models such as MPS, GNC, and others. One of the principal functions of VMET is to validate the M&FM algorithms and substantiate them with performance baselines for each of the target vehicle subsystems in an independent platform exterior to the flight software test and validation processes. In any software development process there is inherent risk in the interpretation and implementation of concepts from requirements and test cases into flight software compounded with potential human errors throughout the development and regression testing lifecycle. Risk reduction is addressed by the M&FM group but in particular by the Analysis Team working with other organizations such as S&MA, Structures and Environments, GNC, Orion, Crew Office, Flight Operations, and Ground Operations by assessing performance of the M&FM algorithms in terms of their ability to reduce Loss of Mission (LOM) and Loss of Crew (LOC) probabilities. In addition, through state machine and diagnostic modeling, analysis efforts investigate a broader suite of failure effects and associated detection and responses to be tested in VMET to ensure reliable failure detection, and confirm responses do not create additional risks or cause undesired states through interactive dynamic effects with other algorithms and systems. VMET further contributes to risk reduction by prototyping and exercising the M&FM algorithms early in their implementation and without any inherent hindrances such as meeting FSW processor scheduling constraints due to their target platform - the ARINC 6535-partitioned Operating System, resource limitations, and other factors related to integration with other subsystems not directly involved with M&FM such as telemetry packing and processing. The baseline plan for use of VMET encompasses testing the original M&FM algorithms coded in the same C++ language and state machine architectural concepts as that used by FSW. This enables the development of performance standards and test cases to characterize the M&FM algorithms and sets a benchmark from which to measure their effectiveness and performance in the exterior FSW development and test processes. This paper is outlined in a systematic fashion analogous to a lifecycle process flow for engineering development of algorithms into software and testing. Section I describes the NASA SLS M&FM context, presenting the current infrastructure, leading principles, methods, and participants. Section II defines the testing philosophy of the M&FM algorithms as related to VMET followed by section III, which presents the modeling methods of the algorithms to be tested and validated in VMET. Its details are then further presented in section IV followed by Section V presenting integration, test status, and state analysis. Finally, section VI addresses the summary and forward directions followed by the appendices presenting relevant information on terminology and documentation.

Trevino, Luis↗
NASA NTRS2012

Does Commercial Space Really Need MOA?

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. 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. This has been the paradigm for robotic space exploration missions, but does the same apply to commercial space operations? This is the question which is the driver for this year's MOA track at the 18th Annual Improving Space Operations workshop in April at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the question we examine in this paper. Corollaries to this driving question are why shouldn't MOA apply and are there factors beyond mission success with acceptable risk which apply to commercial space operations that are not present in government scientific missions? To address these questions, areas we focus on include risk (both mission and profit) management for commercial space operations and the practical extension of robotic mission MOA to commercial space operations. Another key area to look at is command file errors which are a major concern for deep space robotic missions, but can we worry about them less with manned missions or unmanned supply mission? Further, with the growing concern about space debris, we delve into the role of MOA relative to End-of-Mission activities. This paper examines these topics and in particular the perspectives presented at the workshop to begin charting the appropriate course for MOA in the emerging sector of Commercial Space Operations.

commercial space↗
NASA NTRS1990

The EOS data and information system

The Earth Observing System (EOS) is proposed as a 1991 new initiative by NASA as part of the Mission to Planet Earth. One of the key components of the EOS program is the EOS Data and Information System (EOSDIS). Two independent Phase B studies of EOSDIS were conducted from January 1989 through April 1990. Some of the key challenges faced by EOSDIS are: satisfying the data and information needs of a diverse multidisciplinary scientific community integrating product generation algorithms for over two dozen instruments, keeping up with an orbital average data rate of over 50 Mb/sec and assuring prompt generation of standard products, reprocessing data as product generation algorithms change, and storing, and managing information about tens of Petabytes of data over the 15-year life of the mission.

Ramapriyan, H. K.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Engineering, technical, and management support services

This report summarizes by task the engineering, technical, and management support services provided by Vitro Corporation to NASA Headquarters Office of Safety, Reliability, Maintainability, and Quality Assurance (now called Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA)) (Code Q) under Contract Number NASW-4311 from the period February 10, 1994. Each task summary includes significant Vitro accomplishments, conclusions, and recommendations for future efforts in each of the divisions within OSMA.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2008

Web Based Tool for Mission Operations Scenarios

A conventional practice for spaceflight projects is to document scenarios in a monolithic Operations Concept document. Such documents can be hundreds of pages long and may require laborious updates. Software development practice utilizes scenarios in the form of smaller, individual use cases, which are often structured and managed using UML. We have developed a process and a web-based scenario tool that utilizes a similar philosophy of smaller, more compact scenarios (but avoids the formality of UML). The need for a scenario process and tool became apparent during the authors' work on a large astrophysics mission. It was noted that every phase of the Mission (e.g., formulation, design, verification and validation, and operations) looked back to scenarios to assess completeness of requirements and design. It was also noted that terminology needed to be clarified and structured to assure communication across all levels of the project. Attempts to manage, communicate, and evolve scenarios at all levels of a project using conventional tools (e.g., Excel) and methods (Scenario Working Group meetings) were not effective given limitations on budget and staffing. The objective of this paper is to document the scenario process and tool created to offer projects a low-cost capability to create, communicate, manage, and evolve scenarios throughout project development. The process and tool have the further benefit of allowing the association of requirements with particular scenarios, establishing and viewing relationships between higher- and lower-level scenarios, and the ability to place all scenarios in a shared context. The resulting structured set of scenarios is widely visible (using a web browser), easily updated, and can be searched according to various criteria including the level (e.g., Project, System, and Team) and Mission Phase. Scenarios are maintained in a web-accessible environment that provides a structured set of scenario fields and allows for maximum visibility across the project. One key aspect is that the tool was built for a scenario process that accounts for stakeholder input, review, comment, and concurrence. By creating well-designed opportunities for stakeholder input and concurrence and by making the scenario content easily accessible to all project personnel, we maximize the opportunities for stakeholders to both understand and agree on the concepts for how their mission is to be carried out.

Boyles, Carole A.↗
NASA NTRS2011

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↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Building Supply Chain Visibility for Risk Management: Illuminating the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Upon NASA Suppliers

NASA mission projects rely upon global supply chains subject to an array of risks that threaten to disrupt or deny the timely, affordable provision of products and services as required for mission success. Visibility into these supply chains is key to the management of risks, such as those stemming from the coronavirus pandemic and its associated effects upon suppliers. Accordingly, the Supplier Research and Analysis (SRA) Program within Goddard Space Flight Center’s Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) Directorate produced the COVID-19 pandemic/NASA suppliers dashboard as part of the NASA Meta Information System. The dashboard provides visibility and situational awareness to aid risk assessment, planning and decision-making over the course of the pandemic recovery phase. The approach of integrating data and information into visual dashboard displays has also been employed by the SRA Program to focus on specific risks pertaining to foreign-based suppliers. This webinar is presented by the NASA Office of SMA and its Supply Chain Risk Management Program, in collaboration with the NASA Safety Center and Goddard’s SMA Directorate.

supplier research and analysis, supply chain risk ↗
NASA NTRS1974

Earth Observatory Satellite system definition study. Report no. 5: System design and specifications. Part 1: Observatory system element specifications

The performance, design, and quality assurance requirements for the Earth Observatory Satellite (EOS) Observatory and Ground System program elements required to perform the Land Resources Management (LRM) A-type mission are presented. The requirements for the Observatory element with the exception of the instruments specifications are contained in the first part.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1994

Reliability analysis in the Office of Safety, Environmental, and Mission Assurance (OSEMA)

The technical personnel in the SEMA office are working to provide the highest degree of value-added activities to their support of the NASA Langley Research Center mission. Management perceives that reliability analysis tools and an understanding of a comprehensive systems approach to reliability will be a foundation of this change process. Since the office is involved in a broad range of activities supporting space mission projects and operating activities (such as wind tunnels and facilities), it was not clear what reliability tools the office should be familiar with and how these tools could serve as a flexible knowledge base for organizational growth. Interviews and discussions with the office personnel (both technicians and engineers) revealed that job responsibilities ranged from incoming inspection to component or system analysis to safety and risk. It was apparent that a broad base in applied probability and reliability along with tools for practical application was required by the office. A series of ten class sessions with a duration of two hours each was organized and scheduled. Hand-out materials were developed and practical examples based on the type of work performed by the office personnel were included. Topics covered were: Reliability Systems - a broad system oriented approach to reliability; Probability Distributions - discrete and continuous distributions; Sampling and Confidence Intervals - random sampling and sampling plans; Data Analysis and Estimation - Model selection and parameter estimates; and Reliability Tools - block diagrams, fault trees, event trees, FMEA. In the future, this information will be used to review and assess existing equipment and processes from a reliability system perspective. An analysis of incoming materials sampling plans was also completed. This study looked at the issues associated with Mil Std 105 and changes for a zero defect acceptance sampling plan.

Kauffmann, Paul J.↗
NASA NTRS2002

The Mars Technology Program

Future Mars missions require new capabilities that currently are not available. The Mars Technology Program (MTP) is an integral part of the Mars Exploration Program (MEP). Its sole purpose is to assure that required technologies are developed in time to enable the baselined and future missions. The MTP is a NASA-wide technology development program managed by JPL. It is divided into a Focused Program and a Base Program. The Focused Program is tightly tied to the proposed Mars Program mission milestones. It involves time-critical deliverables that must be developed in time for infusion into the proposed Mars 2005, and, 2009 missions. In addition a technology demonstration mission by AFRL will test a LIDAR as part of a joint NASNAFRL experiment. This program bridges the gap between technology and projects by vertically integrating the technology work with pre-project development in a project-like environment with critical dates for technology infusion. A Base Technology Program attacks higher riskhigher payoff technologies not in the critical path of missions.

technology Mars exploration lander rover sample re↗