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.
Human systems PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessment: a) Provides quantitative measures of probability, consequence, and uncertainty; and b) Communicates risk and informs decision-making. Human health risks rated highest in ISS PRA are based on 1997 assessment of clinical events in analog operational settings. Much work remains to analyze remaining human health risks identified in Bioastronautics Roadmap.
NASA is expanding its capability to perform PRA. This capability gives insight into the links of a suggested design and drives the refinement of the design by identifying optimal areas for investments. Clearly, it is more viable and less expensive to refine a design at the time that it is being conceived. Hence the utility of conducting PRA at the conceptual design phase. Concurrent engineering teams greatly reduce the design time and costs. However, there is currently no standardized means for building probabilistic risk models to assess risks associated with a design produced by such teams. The capability to produce a consistent and valid risk metric associated with such designs would greatly enhance the value of such design teams. This paper explains the experimental results obtained to date from building probabilistic risk models for sample studies conducted at the concurrent engineering design team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (TeamX).
Quantifying the probability of significant launch vehicle failure scenarios for a given design, while still in the design process, is critical to mission success and to the safety of the astronauts. Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is chosen from many system safety and reliability tools to verify the loss of mission (LOM) and loss of crew (LOC) requirements set by the NASA Program Office. To support the integrated vehicle PRA, probabilistic design analysis (PDA) models are developed by using vehicle design and operation data to better quantify failure probabilities and to better understand the characteristics of a failure and its outcome. This PDA approach uses a physics-based model to describe the system behavior and response for a given failure scenario. Each driving parameter in the model is treated as a random variable with a distribution function. Monte Carlo simulation is used to perform probabilistic calculations to statistically obtain the failure probability. Sensitivity analyses are performed to show how input parameters affect the predicted failure probability, providing insight for potential design improvements to mitigate the risk. The paper discusses the application of the PDA approach in determining the probability of failure for two scenarios from the NASA Ares I project
The HED (Howardite, Eucrite and Diogenite) meteorite clan likely originate from the asteroid 4-Vesta [1]. Howardites (polymict breccias of eucritic and diogenitic material) are believed to originate from the vestan surface, and many contain regolith-like features (impact and/or melt clasts, fragmental breccia clasts, carbonaceous chondrite fragments), which may relate to regolith-formation processes. Noble gas analysis can help determine true regolithic nature, as Solar Wind (SW) is im-planted into grains at the upper-surfaces of solar system bodies lacking an atmosphere or magnetic field. Howardites from Ves-ta s true regolith would thus show evidence for SW components. Thus far, we have identified 5 regolithic howardites: LEW 85313; MET 00423; PRA 04401; SCO 06040 and EET 87513; based on our noble gas analyses, with the latter 3 showing some evidence for a planetary(+SW) component, likely related to CM-like material present in the assemblage [2-5]. However, we did not find a good correlation between SW content and other petro-logic regolithic features. Nor did we find an obvious correlation between SW and high siderophile element contents (Ni greater than 300 micrograms/gram), or an Al2O3 range of 8-9 wt% and eucrite/diogenite (E/D) ratio of 2:1 as suggested by [6] to be further regolith indicators. Here, we report our latest noble gas data for two howardites GRO 95535, GRO 95602 and a polymict eucrite EET 87518 in continuing research aimed at better understanding the vestan regolith. Results: Noble gas analysis was performed on an MAP 215-50 noble gas mass spectrometer using furnace step-heating. Our results, shown in Table 1, are compared with SW- (LEW 85313) and planetary-dominated (PRA 04401 ~60% CM) howardites [2]. EET 87518 is dominated by cosmogenic components. By comparison, both howardites show strong evidence for SW, with total Ne-20/Ne-22 ~8.7-8.8 (SW: Ne-20/Ne-22 13.78 [7]), and identical release patterns to our other CM-poor SW-rich samples. This suggests that these samples are from the vestan regolith. As they have lower Ni contents than suggested by [6], this further illustrates that these parameters may show some bias [2].
Space radiation consists of solar particle events (SPEs), comprised largely of medium energy protons (less than several hundred MeV); and galactic cosmic ray (GCR), which includes high energy protons and high charge and energy (HZE) nuclei. For long duration missions, space radiation presents significant health risks including cancer mortality. Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is essential for radiation protection of crews on long term space missions outside of the protection of the Earth s magnetic field and for optimization of mission planning and costs. For the assessment of organ dosimetric quantities and cancer risks, the particle spectra at each critical body organs must be characterized. In implementing a PRA approach, a statistical model of SPE fluence was developed, because the individual SPE occurrences themselves are random in nature while the frequency distribution of SPEs depends strongly upon the phase within the solar activity cycle. Spectral variability of SPEs was also examined, because the detailed energy spectra of protons are important especially at high energy levels for assessing the cancer risk associated with energetic particles for large events. An overall cumulative probability of a GCR environment for a specified mission period was estimated for the temporal characterization of the GCR environment represented by the deceleration potential (theta). Finally, this probabilistic approach to space radiation cancer risk was coupled with a model of the radiobiological factors and uncertainties in projecting cancer risks. Probabilities of fatal cancer risk and 95% confidence intervals will be reported for various periods of space missions.
The DEFT methodology, system and computer readable medium extends the applicability of the PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessment) methodology to computer-based systems, by allowing DFT (Dynamic Fault Tree) nodes as pivot nodes in the Event Tree (ET) model. DEFT includes a mathematical model and solution algorithm, supports all common PRA analysis functions and cutsets. Additional capabilities enabled by the DFT include modularization, phased mission analysis, sequence dependencies, and imperfect coverage.
A risk analysis of the launch, orbital assembly, and Earth-departure phases of human Mars exploration campaign architectures was completed as an extension of a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) originally carried out under the NASA Constellation Program Ares V Project. The objective of the updated analysis was to study the sensitivity of loss-of-campaign risk to such architectural factors as composition of the propellant delivery portion of the launch vehicle fleet (Ares V heavy-lift launch vehicle vs. smaller/cheaper commercial launchers) and the degree of launcher or Mars-bound spacecraft element sparing. Both a static PRA analysis and a dynamic, event-based Monte Carlo simulation were developed and used to evaluate the probability of loss of campaign under different sparing options. Results showed that with no sparing, loss-of-campaign risk is strongly driven by launcher count and on-orbit loiter duration, favoring an all-Ares V launch approach. Further, the reliability of the all-Ares V architecture showed significant improvement with the addition of a single spare launcher/payload. Among architectures utilizing a mix of Ares V and commercial launchers, those that minimized the on-orbit loiter duration of Mars-bound elements were found to exceed the reliability of no spare all-Ares V campaign if unlimited commercial vehicle sparing was assumed
NASA Engineering requested a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to compare the difference in the risk of Loss of Crew (LOC) and Loss of Mission (LOM) between different designs of a fluid assembly. They were concerned that the configuration favored by the design team was more susceptible to leakage than a second proposed design, but realized that a quantitative analysis to compare the risks between the two designs might strengthen their argument. The analysis showed that while the second design did help improve the probability of LOC, it did not help from a probability of LOM perspective. This drove the analysis team to propose a minor design change that would drive the probability of LOM down considerably. The analysis also demonstrated that there was another major risk driver that was not immediately obvious from a typical engineering study of the design and was therefore unexpected. None of the proposed alternatives were addressing this risk. This type of trade study demonstrates the importance of performing a PRA in order to completely understand a system's design. It allows managers to use risk as another one of the commodities (e.g., mass, cost, schedule, fault tolerance) that can be traded early in the design of a new system.
Although there are ongoing efforts to extend the ISS life cycle through 2028, the International Space Station (ISS) end-of-life (EOL) cycle is currently scheduled for 2020. The EOL for the ISS will require de-orbiting the ISS. This will be the largest manmade object ever to be de-orbited, therefore safely de-orbiting the station will be a very complex problem. This process is being planned by NASA and its international partners. Numerous factors will need to be considered to accomplish this such as target corridors, orbits, altitude, drag, maneuvering capabilities, debris mapping etc. The ISS EOL Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) will play a part in this process by estimating the reliability of the hardware supplying the maneuvering capabilities. The PRA will model the probability of failure of the systems supplying and controlling the thrust needed to aid in the de-orbit maneuvering.
The theory of System Health Management (SHM) and of its operational subset Fault Management (FM) states that FM is implemented as a "meta" control loop, known as an FM Control Loop (FMCL). The FMCL detects that all or part of a system is now failed, or in the future will fail (that is, cannot be controlled within acceptable limits to achieve its objectives), and takes a control action (a response) to return the system to a controllable state. In terms of control theory, the effectiveness of each FMCL is estimated based on its ability to correctly estimate the system state, and on the speed of its response to the current or impending failure effects. This paper describes how this theory has been successfully applied on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Space Launch System (SLS) Program to quantitatively estimate the effectiveness of proposed abort triggers so as to select the most effective suite to protect the astronauts from catastrophic failure of the SLS. The premise behind this process is to be able to quantitatively provide the value versus risk trade‐off for any given abort trigger, allowing decision makers to make more informed decisions. All current and planned crewed launch vehicles have some form of vehicle health management system integrated with an emergency launch abort system to ensure crew safety. While the design can vary, the underlying principle is the same: detect imminent catastrophic vehicle failure, initiate launch abort, and extract the crew to safety. Abort triggers are the detection mechanisms that identify that a catastrophic launch vehicle failure is occurring or is imminent and cause the initiation of a notification to the crew vehicle that the escape system must be activated. While ensuring that the abort triggers provide this function, designers must also ensure that the abort triggers do not signal that a catastrophic failure is imminent when in fact the launch vehicle can successfully achieve orbit. That is, the abort triggers must have low false negative rates to be sure that real crew‐threatening failures are detected, and also low false positive rates to ensure that the crew does not abort from non‐crew‐threatening launch vehicle behaviors. The analysis process described in this paper is a compilation of over six years of lessons learned and refinements from experiences developing abort triggers for NASA's Constellation Program (Ares I Project) and the SLS Program, as well as the simultaneous development of SHM/FM theory. The paper will describe the abort analysis concepts and process, developed in conjunction with SLS Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) to define a common set of mission phase, failure scenario, and Loss of Mission Environment (LOME) combinations upon which the SLS Loss of Mission (LOM) Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) models are built. This abort analysis also requires strong coordination with the Multi‐Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and SLS Structures and Environments (STE) to formulate a series of abortability tables that encapsulate explosion dynamics over the ascent mission phase. The design and assessment of abort conditions and triggers to estimate their Loss of Crew (LOC) Benefits also requires in‐depth integration with other groups, including Avionics, Guidance, Navigation and Control(GN&C), the Crew Office, Mission Operations, and Ground Systems. The outputs of this analysis are a critical input to SLS S&MA's LOC PRA models. The process described here may well be the first full quantitative application of SHM/FM theory to the selection of a sensor suite for any aerospace system.
The International Space Station (ISS) end‐of‐life (EOL) cycle is currently scheduled for 2020, although there are ongoing efforts to extend ISS life cycle through 2028. The EOL for the ISS will require deorbiting the ISS. This will be the largest manmade object ever to be de‐orbited therefore safely deorbiting the station will be a very complex problem. This process is being planned by NASA and its international partners. Numerous factors will need to be considered to accomplish this such as target corridors, orbits, altitude, drag, maneuvering capabilities etc. The ISS EOL Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) will play a part in this process by estimating the reliability of the hardware supplying the maneuvering capabilities. The PRA will model the probability of failure of the systems supplying and controlling the thrust needed to aid in the de‐orbit maneuvering.
The International Space Station (ISS) Program has worked to prevent fire events and to mitigate their impacts should they occur. Hardware is designed to reduce sources of ignition, oxygen systems are designed to control leaking, flammable materials are prevented from flying to ISS whenever possible, the crew is trained in fire response, and fire response equipment improvements are sought out and funded. Fire prevention and mitigation are a top ISS Program priority - however, programmatic resources are limited; thus, risk trades are made to ensure an adequate level of safety is maintained onboard the ISS. In support of these risk trades, the ISS Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) team has modeled the likelihood of fire occurring in the ISS pressurized cabin, a phenomenological event that has never before been probabilistically modeled in a microgravity environment. This paper will discuss the genesis of the ISS PRA fire model, its enhancement in collaboration with fire experts, and the results which have informed ISS programmatic decisions and will continue to be used throughout the life of the program.
Probabilistic safety requirements currently formulated or proposed for space systems, nuclear reactor systems, nuclear weapon systems, and other types of systems that have a low-probability potential for high-consequence accidents depend on showing that the probability of such accidents is below a specified safety threshold or goal. Verification of compliance depends heavily upon synthetic modeling techniques such as PRA. To determine whether or not a system meets its probabilistic requirements, it is necessary to consider whether there are significant risks that are not fully considered in the PRA either because they are not known at the time or because their importance is not fully understood. The ultimate objective is to establish a reasonable margin to account for the difference between known risks and actual risks in attempting to validate compliance with a probabilistic safety threshold or goal. In this paper, we examine data accumulated over the past 60 years from the space program, from nuclear reactor experience, from aircraft systems, and from human reliability experience to formulate guidelines for estimating probabilistic margins to account for risks that are initially unknown or underappreciated. The formulation includes a review of the safety literature to identify the principal causes of such risks.
NASA Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) has the task of estimating the aleatory (randomness) and epistemic (lack of knowledge) uncertainty of launch vehicle loss of mission and crew risk, and communicating the results. Launch vehicles are complex engineered systems designed with sophisticated subsystems that are built to work together to accomplish mission success. Some of these systems or subsystems are in the form of heritage equipment, while some have never been previously launched. For these cases, characterizing the epistemic uncertainty is of foremost importance, and it is anticipated that the epistemic uncertainty of a modified launch vehicle design versus a design of well understood heritage equipment would be greater. For reasons that will be discussed, standard uncertainty propagation methods using Monte Carlo simulation produce counter intuitive results, and significantly underestimate epistemic uncertainty for launch vehicle models. Furthermore, standard PRA methods, such as Uncertainty-Importance analyses used to identify components that are significant contributors to uncertainty, are rendered obsolete, since sensitivity to uncertainty changes are not reflected in propagation of uncertainty using Monte Carlo methods. This paper provides a basis of the uncertainty underestimation for complex systems and especially, due to nuances of launch vehicle logic, for launch vehicles. It then suggests several alternative methods for estimating uncertainty and provides examples of estimation results. Lastly, the paper describes how to implement an Uncertainty-Importance analysis using one alternative approach, describes the results, and suggests ways to reduce epistemic uncertainty by focusing on additional data or testing of selected components.
NASA Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) has the task of estimating the aleatory (randomness) and epistemic (lack of knowledge) uncertainty of launch vehicle loss of mission and crew risk and communicating the results. Launch vehicles are complex engineered systems designed with sophisticated subsystems that are built to work together to accomplish mission success. Some of these systems or subsystems are in the form of heritage equipment, while some have never been previously launched. For these cases, characterizing the epistemic uncertainty is of foremost importance, and it is anticipated that the epistemic uncertainty of a modified launch vehicle design versus a design of well understood heritage equipment would be greater. For reasons that will be discussed, standard uncertainty propagation methods using Monte Carlo simulation produce counter intuitive results and significantly underestimate epistemic uncertainty for launch vehicle models. Furthermore, standard PRA methods such as Uncertainty-Importance analyses used to identify components that are significant contributors to uncertainty are rendered obsolete since sensitivity to uncertainty changes are not reflected in propagation of uncertainty using Monte Carlo methods.This paper provides a basis of the uncertainty underestimation for complex systems and especially, due to nuances of launch vehicle logic, for launch vehicles. It then suggests several alternative methods for estimating uncertainty and provides examples of estimation results. Lastly, the paper shows how to implement an Uncertainty-Importance analysis using one alternative approach, describes the results, and suggests ways to reduce epistemic uncertainty by focusing on additional data or testing of selected components.
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a modeling tool used to predict potential outcomes of a complex system based on a statistical understanding of many initiating events. Utilizing a Monte Carlo method, thousands of instances of the model are considered and outcomes are collected. PRA is considered static, utilizing probabilities alone to calculate outcomes. Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (dPRA) is an advanced concept where modeling predicts the outcomes of a complex system based not only on the probabilities of many initiating events, but also on a progression of dependencies brought about by progressing down a time line. Events are placed in a single time line, adding each event to a queue, as managed by a planner. Progression down the time line is guided by rules, as managed by a scheduler. The recently developed Integrated Medical Model (IMM) summarizes astronaut health as governed by the probabilities of medical events and mitigation strategies. Managing the software architecture process provides a systematic means of creating, documenting, and communicating a software design early in the development process. The software architecture process begins with establishing requirements and the design is then derived from the requirements.
A primary challenge NASA faces is communication between the disparate entities of engineers and human system experts in life sciences. Clear communication is critical for exploration mission success from the perspective of both risk analysis and data handling. The engineering community uses probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) models to inform their own risk analysis and has extensive experience managing mission data, but does not always fully consider human systems integration (HSI). The medical community, as a part of HSI, has been working 1) to develop a suite of tools to express medical risk in quantitative terms that are relatable to the engineering approaches commonly in use, and 2) to manage and integrate HSI data with engineering data. This talk will review the development of the Integrated Medical Model as an early attempt to bridge the communication gap between the medical and engineering communities in the language of PRA. This will also address data communication between the two entities in the context of data management considerations of the Medical Data Architecture. Lessons learned from these processes will help identify important elements to consider in future communication and integration of these two groups.
Study Objective: A catastrophic medical event depletes medical resources. What happens to the rest of the mission’s medical outcomes after such an event? Use Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to see if we can find out. What is the Integrated Medical Model? PRA model using Monte Carlo methodology; Used to assess mission risk due to in-flight medical events; User defined Design Reference Missions (DRM) (crew, duration, EVA (Extra-Vehicular Activity), etc.); Considers outcomes for 100 medical conditions that have or may occur in-flight; 100,000 trials conducted per DRM.