Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Policy Trends”

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.

110 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

Evaluating Process Effectiveness to Reduce Risk

It is well documented that government agencies do not have the same incentive as the private sector to focus on process effectiveness and continual improvement of those processes. It is also well documented whenever government agencies fail to deliver efficient, effective, consistent, and fair services to the citizens. In spite of the various "reinventing government" and "effectiveness initiatives" of the past decades, and in spite of the efforts on the part of many agencies to improve, government in general still lags behind industry in creating a culture of effective processes and systems. While the tragic events that unfolded recently in Flint, Michigan, teach us that running government "like a business" does not always take the needs of the citizenry into account, there are many lessons and techniques from the private sector that government agencies can use to improve. The incentive to improve, while mandated by various administrations1, needs to come from within the workforce, in order to effectively take root. The best, most effective incentive is to reduce, control or eliminate risk. Government agencies face some of the same risks as the private sector, while some are unique. While ISO 310002 has been around since 2009, risk has taken on increased visibility within the private sector with the advent of the emphasis on risk-based thinking in ISO 9001:20153. The relationship between risk-based thinking and effective processes is simple and direct. Those processes that are well thought out and standardized (i.e. Plan-Do-Check-Act), will have taken into account the applicable policy, statutory, regulatory, safety, quality and technical parameters, which may not occur to someone performing the process with minimal experience or training; and thus protect the employees, the public and the agency from statutory and regulatory violations; delay in providing services; non-delivery of services; harm to public or employee safety and health; cost overruns; breaches in security; loss of confidence in government; failure of publicly funded projects; damage to the environment; ethics violations, and the list goes on; with local, national and even international consequences. The Plan-Do-Check-Act process, also known as the "process approach" can be used at any time to establish and standardize a process, and it can also be used to check periodically for "process creep" (i.e., informal, unauthorized changes that have occurred over time), any necessary updates and improvements. While ISO 9001 compliance is not mandated for all government agencies, if interpreted correctly, it can be useful in establishing a framework and implementing effective management systems and processes.4 Another method that can be used to evaluate effectiveness is the scorecard definitions in Mallory's Process Management Standard5 as a basis for evaluating work on the process level on effective, and continuously improved and improving processes. With processes on the lower end of the scale, agencies are vulnerable to a great many risks, with employees and managers making up many of the rules as they go, leading to the above listed negative results. Without clear guidance for nominal operations, off-nominal situations can, and do, increase the likelihood of chaos. In an increasingly technical environment, with inter-agency communication and collaboration becoming the norm, agencies need to come to grips with the fact that processes can become rapidly outdated, and that the technical community should take on an increased role in the maturation of the agency's processes. Industry has long known that effective processes are also efficient, and process improvement methods such as Kaizen, Lean, Six Sigma, 5S, and mistake proofing lead to increased productivity, improved quality, and decreased cost. Again, government agencies have different concerns, but inefficiencies and mistakes can have dire and wide reaching consequences for the public that they serve. While no one goes to work planning to cause harm, it is up to agencies to establish upper level systems, which make establishment and compliance with processes possible. Again, Mallory provides us with a Systems Management Standard6, similar to the Process Management Standard, with a scale of 0-5 for systems effectiveness and maturity. Deming determined that "eighty-five percent of the reasons for failure are deficiencies in the systems and process rather than the employee. The role of management is to change the process rather than badgering individual employees to do better." 7 It is not just the working level employees who need effective processes, but the mid-and upper level managers as well. A disciplined management culture sets the tone for the employees, aids both routine and off-nominal decision-making, and incorporates risk -based thinking into the systems and processes as a matter of normal activity. Figure 1, illustrates the relationship between ineffective and effective processes and risk, through the use of the "stoplight" colors that are commonly used to show serious situations (red), situations which may be improving or deteriorating depending on trends (yellow), and situations that are under control and continuously improved (green).

Shepherd, Christena C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Probabilistic Modeling of a Three-Stage Human Landing System Architecture

Space Policy Directive-1 has led to NASA partnerships with commercial entities on procurement which includes the development of the Human Landing System (HLS) [1]. With the goal of delivering human crew to the lunar surface by 2024, system uncertainties become an important obstacle to the maturation of multiple new, driving technologies and mission concepts of the HLS program. As unmitigated uncertainties have previously led to failed development programs, these risks and their impacts must be understood and handled to ensure program success [2]. Sources of uncertainty include novel engine designs and configurations, increased reliance on cryogenic fluid management(CFM), and refueling technologies—which propagate as high-level performance metrics such as overall propellant mass and engine performance. Also, the occurrence of operational uncertainties—e.g. launch conditions or need to abort during the mission—can cause cascading effects on the rest of the mission that are difficult to definitively quantify, and are outside the scope of control. These concrete examples and other occurrences can be categorized as either epistemic or aleatory uncertainties.Epistemic uncertainty arises due to a lack of knowledge and can be alleviated with design and program maturation. Aleatory uncertainty is due to the inherent randomness of the system and cannot be directly reduced, unlike epistemic uncertainty. Robust design and probabilistic methods can compensate for aleatory effects. A taxonomy of uncertainty is referred to for this work [3]. In this paper, a probabilistic methodology to handle uncertainties has been demonstrated on a three-element HLS concept [1, 4], which allows tracking of current best estimates of the concept and assessment of concept design robustness against uncertainties. A sample case has been completed for this abstract, and an expansion on the methodology will be included in the final paper. This methodology has two key parts: first, the creation of a dynamic architecture model of a three-element HLS concept; and second, its use with surrogate modeling and range estimating techniques to capture and propagate uncertainties. This abstract will cover the basics of the approach used, and further details and justifications will be in the final paper.The mission profile associated with this three-element concept (Fig 1) was modeled as a set of mission events that facilitated mass changes, idles, or spacecraft maneuvers. The mission profile scope starts with each element’s NRHO orbit insertion and aggregation and ends at post-sortie rendezvous with Orion. More detail on the mission profile will be in the final paper. The DYnamic Rocket EQuation Tool (DYREQT), a space systems synthesis and sizing framework used by NASA, was used as the physics framework to model the HLS architecture for applying the probabilistic methodology [5, 6]. Specifically, a parametric representation of the lander, ascent, and transfer elements and the mission profile of each element was established, with vehicle and mission parameters available as inputs to allow for a dynamic model. Each vehicle stage was modeled with high-level performance metrics, using Isp and propellant mass fraction (PMF) to remain parametric. For the probabilistic analysis, uncertainties of interest within the HLS concept were enumerated and represented as parameters within the DYREQT model as inputs for vehicle stages or mission profile events. These parameters were frozen at their nominal values for the purposes of baselining architecture performance and sizing the vehicle appropriately based on reference documentation [1]. Range estimating—a probabilistic method that combines Monte Carlo sampling, focus on critical parameters, and heuristics to assess risk and opportunities—is traditionally used with Mass Equipment Lists (MELs), but has been adapted with operational parameters as well as vehicle parameters in theDYREQT model to capture mission uncertainty alongside vehicle uncertainty [7, 3]. This method was selected due to its application and insight on a system from a bottom-up perspective, independence from historical rules of thumb, and ability to generate sensitivities based on design decisions and uncertainties. As a sample case for the abstract, the boiloff rates of the vehicle elements and the loiter times during the mission (simulating launch time variations and changing window of opportunities) were used with range estimating to provide preliminary results. To perform the range estimation portion of this methodology (depicted in Fig. 3, further details in final paper), the DYREQT model was sampled using a Design of Experiments (DoE) to efficiently explore the architecture design space with respect to the sample set of uncertainty parameters; 5,000 cases via Latin Hypercube Sampling were computed on the DYREQT architecture model. Then, the results were used to create surrogate models, multivariate regressions that can visualize hypercube trends in the design space, of the architecture with respect to the uncertainty parameters. Range estimating was applied to the surrogates instead of the actual models, which saves computational expense due to the bulk of cases needed for the Monte Carlo simulation as part of range estimating. Uncertainty parameters were sampled independently from triangular distributions using the DoE ranges as ‘min’ and ‘max’, and the nominal value as ‘most likely’. Based engineering intuition, some uncertainty parameters are correlated—e.g. if the main propellant has a high boil-off rate, the oxidizer should follow suit as both are related to CFM technology.While a Monte Carlo simulation samples all inputs as independent, the results would show model correlations; thus, it is efficient to sample the inputs as correlated. Using a correlation matrix constructed for the uncertainty parameters, previously independent samples were transformed to perform a Correlated Monte Carlo. A table for the DoE ranges and probability distribution parameters is shown in Table 1, and more details on Correlated Monte Carlo Simulations will be discussed in the final paper. The model’s resulting DoE showed that multivariate polynomial equations fit via least squares method captured its behavior accurately for the sample case. For the Correlated Monte Carlo Simulation, a positive correlation between fuel and oxidizer boiloff rates was used as a demonstration. 10,000 cases were computed with the surrogates and the launched masses for each vehicle element was collated. The results can be displayed in a probability density function (PDF), showing the impact of the uncertainty parameters chosen. Integrating the PDFs will yield a cumulative distribution function (CDF) that shows the cumulative probability of a given value on the x-axis. For the sample case, the elements’ launch mass margin was calculated and represented in as CDFs, as a demonstrated representation of figures of merit for the HLS concept. For the lander and ascent elements, the NRHO mass insertion limit is 16t; the transfer element has a limit of 30t [1]. It can be seen with Figure 2 that this probabilistic methodology can provide insight into mass margin with respect to the uncertainties being modeled. Currently, the results show that the lander (descent) vehicle element has the most restrictive design space; it is the only element to show a 10% probability of negative margin. Further analysis on the Monte Carlo results will show sensitivities for driving constraints and parameters for architecture feasibility, which can lead to establishing potential mission rules.The combination of range estimating with a parametric architecture model for HLS demonstrated the capability of this probabilistic methodology in a sample case. As the HLS development progresses, this methodology has the potential for keeping current best estimates of architecture performance for awarded concepts due to the flexibility in DYREQT’s modeling framework and its parametric nature. Concept maturation and increased epistemic knowledge can be injected into the model probabilistic modeling, and thus continue to track probability of mission success.

Stephanie Y Zhu↗