Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Probabilistic risk assessment”

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 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. To determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators, and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules, and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗
NASA NTRS2001

Probabilistic Approaches for Evaluating Space Shuttle Risks

The objectives of the Space Shuttle PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessment) are to: (1) evaluate mission risks; (2) evaluate uncertainties and sensitivities; (3) prioritize contributors; (4) evaluate upgrades; (5) track risks; and (6) provide decision tools. This report discusses the significance of a Space Shuttle PRA and its participants. The elements and type of losses to be included are discussed. The program and probabilistic approaches are then discussed.

William Vesely↗
NASA NTRS2009

Johnson Space Center's Risk and Reliability Analysis Group 2008 Annual Report

The Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) Directorate s Risk and Reliability Analysis Group provides both mathematical and engineering analysis expertise in the areas of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) analysis, and data collection and analysis. The fundamental goal of this group is to provide National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) decisionmakers with the necessary information to make informed decisions when evaluating personnel, flight hardware, and public safety concerns associated with current operating systems as well as with any future systems. The Analysis Group includes a staff of statistical and reliability experts with valuable backgrounds in the statistical, reliability, and engineering fields. This group includes JSC S&MA Analysis Branch personnel as well as S&MA support services contractors, such as Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and SoHaR. The Analysis Group s experience base includes nuclear power (both commercial and navy), manufacturing, Department of Defense, chemical, and shipping industries, as well as significant aerospace experience specifically in the Shuttle, International Space Station (ISS), and Constellation Programs. The Analysis Group partners with project and program offices, other NASA centers, NASA contractors, and universities to provide additional resources or information to the group when performing various analysis tasks. The JSC S&MA Analysis Group is recognized as a leader in risk and reliability analysis within the NASA community. Therefore, the Analysis Group is in high demand to help the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) continue to fly safely, assist in designing the next generation spacecraft for the Constellation Program (CxP), and promote advanced analytical techniques. The Analysis Section s tasks include teaching classes and instituting personnel qualification processes to enhance the professional abilities of our analysts as well as performing major probabilistic assessments used to support flight rationale and help establish program requirements. During 2008, the Analysis Group performed more than 70 assessments. Although all these assessments were important, some were instrumental in the decisionmaking processes for the Shuttle and Constellation Programs. Two of the more significant tasks were the Space Transportation System (STS)-122 Low Level Cutoff PRA for the SSP and the Orion Pad Abort One (PA-1) PRA for the CxP. These two activities, along with the numerous other tasks the Analysis Group performed in 2008, are summarized in this report. This report also highlights several ongoing and upcoming efforts to provide crucial statistical and probabilistic assessments, such as the Extravehicular Activity (EVA) PRA for the Hubble Space Telescope service mission and the first fully integrated PRAs for the CxP's Lunar Sortie and ISS missions.

Valentine, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2005

Assessing the Relative Risk of Aerocapture Using Probabalistic Risk Assessment

A recent study performed for the Aerocapture Technology Area in the In-Space Propulsion Technology Projects Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center investigated the relative risk of various capture techniques for Mars missions. Aerocapture has been proposed as a possible capture technique for future Mars missions but has been perceived by many in the community as a higher risk option as compared to aerobraking and propulsive capture. By performing a probabilistic risk assessment on aerocapture, aerobraking and propulsive capture, a comparison was made to uncover the projected relative risks of these three maneuvers. For mission planners, this knowledge will allow them to decide if the mass savings provided by aerocapture warrant any incremental risk exposure. The study focuses on a Mars Sample Return mission currently under investigation at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). In each case (propulsive, aerobraking and aerocapture), the Earth return vehicle is inserted into Martian orbit by one of the three techniques being investigated. A baseline spacecraft was established through initial sizing exercises performed by JPL's Team X. While Team X design results provided the baseline and common thread between the spacecraft, in each case the Team X results were supplemented by historical data as needed. Propulsion, thermal protection, guidance, navigation and control, software, solar arrays, navigation and targeting and atmospheric prediction were investigated. A qualitative assessment of human reliability was also included. Results show that different risk drivers contribute significantly to each capture technique. For aerocapture, the significant drivers include propulsion system failures and atmospheric prediction errors. Software and guidance hardware contribute the most to aerobraking risk. Propulsive capture risk is mainly driven by anomalous solar array degradation and propulsion system failures. While each subsystem contributes differently to the risk of each technique, results show that there exists little relative difference in the reliability of these capture techniques although uncertainty for the aerocapture estimates remains high given the lack of in-space demonstration.

Percy, Thomas K.↗
NASA NTRS2000

A systematic risk management approach employed on the CloudSat project

The CloudSat Project has developed a simplified approach for fault tree analysis and probabilistic risk assessment. A system-level fault tree has been constructed to identify credible fault scenarios and failure modes leading up to a potential failure to meet the nominal mission success criteria.

risk management fault tree analysis probabilistic ↗
NASA NTRS2002

An Approach to Risk-Based Design Incorporating Damage Tolerance Analyses

Incorporating risk-based design as an integral part of spacecraft development is becoming more and more common. Assessment of uncertainties associated with design parameters and environmental aspects such as loading provides increased knowledge of the design and its performance. Results of such studies can contribute to mitigating risk through a system-level assessment. Understanding the risk of an event occurring, the probability of its occurrence, and the consequences of its occurrence can lead to robust, reliable designs. This paper describes an approach to risk-based structural design incorporating damage-tolerance analysis. The application of this approach to a candidate Earth-entry vehicle is described. The emphasis of the paper is on describing an approach for establishing damage-tolerant structural response inputs to a system-level probabilistic risk assessment.

Knight, Norman F., Jr.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Novel Approach to Simulating Diagnostic Capabilities in Medical Resource Risk Assessment

Diagnostics represent a key subset of medical resources considered for helping mitigate and control spaceflight medical risk. Historically, when modeling the medical risk domain for spaceflight, diagnostic resources have been handled like any other medical resource used for treatment. That is to say, the resource being unavailable will result in the related condition having suboptimal treatment outcomes. However in the real world, should a diagnostic resource be unavailable, a more analogous effect would be that the condition might be misdiagnosed, and thus inappropriate treatment applied. This talk presents an alternative means of representing diagnostic resources within the Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) that can simulate the effect both in risk, resource consumption, and competition for resources of a missing or depleted diagnostic. The scenario where a differential diagnosis may not be possible for abdominal conditions that use an ultrasound machine as a diagnostic tool is considered. Two approaches for modeling the effect of not having a diagnostic capability on the medical system are demonstrated. In the “simple” approach, it is assumed that any abdominal condition requiring the ultrasound machine for diagnosis is mis-diagnosed and treated as an appendicitis. This is represented by replacing the treatment for the affected conditions with the treatment for appendicitis, thereby changing the optimized medical set available for treatment for the remainder of the mission. In the “complex” approach, MEDPRAT treatment clusters are utilized to capture and represent overlapping treatment between the misdiagnosed condition and appendicitis. This elicits both the effect that inappropriate treatment is applied, resulting in wasted resource consumption, and that treatment which was truly needed for the misdiagnosed condition was not applied, which reduces the treatment effectiveness. In this talk, results comparing the simple and complex diagnostic capability approach to a baseline where the diagnostic is treated as a traditional resource is presented. Either approach provides an option for a more analogous representation of diagnostic resources and provides insight into how the modeled spaceflight medical resources and outcomes change when that diagnostic is unavailable.

C. M. Gasiewski↗
NASA NTRS2005

Taking the Risk Out of Risk Assessment

The ability to understand risks and have the right strategies in place when risky events occur is essential in the workplace. More and more organizations are being confronted with concerns over how to measure their risks or what kind of risks they can take when certain events transpire that could have a negative impact. NASA is one organization that faces these challenges on a daily basis, as effective risk management is critical to the success of its missions especially the Space Shuttle missions. On July 29, 1996, former NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin charged NASA s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance with developing a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) tool to support decisions on the funding of Space Shuttle upgrades. When issuing the directive, Goldin said, "Since I came to NASA [in 1992], we've spent billions of dollars on Shuttle upgrades without knowing how much they improve safety. I want a tool to help base upgrade decisions on risk." Work on the PRA tool began immediately. The resulting prototype, the Quantitative Risk Assessment System (QRAS) Version 1.0, was jointly developed by NASA s Marshall Space Flight Center, its Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, and researchers at the University of Maryland. QRAS software automatically expands the reliability logic models of systems to evaluate the probability of highly detrimental outcomes occurring in complex systems that are subject to potential accident scenarios. Even in its earliest forms, QRAS was used to begin PRA modeling of the Space Shuttle. In parallel, the development of QRAS continued, with the goal of making it a world-class tool, one that was especially suited to NASA s unique needs. From the beginning, an important conceptual goal in the development of QRAS was for it to help bridge the gap between the professional risk analyst and the design engineer. In the past, only the professional risk analyst could perform, modify, use, and perhaps even adequately understand PRA. NASA wanted to change this by developing a PRA tool that would be friendlier, more understandable, and more useful to the broader engineering community. This concept ultimately led to the look, feel, and functionality that QRAS has today.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2010

Control of Risks Through the Use of Procedures: A Method for Evaluating the Change in Risk

This paper considers how procedures can be used to control risks faced by an organization and proposes a means of recognizing if a particular procedure reduces risk or contributes to the organization's exposure. The proposed method was developed out of the review of work documents and the governing procedures performed in the wake of the Columbia accident by NASA and the Space Shuttle prime contractor, United Space Alliance, LLC. A technique was needed to understand the rules, or procedural controls, in place at the time in the context of how important the role of each rule was. The proposed method assesses procedural risks, the residual risk associated with a hazard after a procedure's influence is accounted for, by considering each clause of a procedure as a unique procedural control that may be beneficial or harmful. For procedural risks with consequences severe enough to threaten the survival of the organization, the method measures the characteristics of each risk on a scale that is an alternative to the traditional consequence/likelihood couple. The dual benefits of the substitute scales are that they eliminate both the need to quantify a relationship between different consequence types and the need for the extensive history a probabilistic risk assessment would require. Control Value is used as an analog for the consequence, where the value of a rule is based on how well the control reduces the severity of the consequence when operating successfully. This value is composed of two parts: the inevitability of the consequence in the absence of the control, and the opportunity to intervene before the consequence is realized. High value controls will be ones where there is minimal need for intervention but maximum opportunity to actively prevent the outcome. Failure Likelihood is used as the substitute for the conventional likelihood of the outcome. For procedural controls, a failure is considered to be any non-malicious violation of the rule, whether intended or not. The model used for describing the Failure Likelihood considers how well a task was established by evaluating that task on five components. The components selected to define a well established task are: that it be defined, assigned to someone capable, that they be trained appropriately, that the actions be organized to enable proper completion and that some form of independent monitoring be performed. Validation of the method was based on the information provided by a group of experts in Space Shuttle ground processing when they were presented with 5 scenarios that identified a clause from a procedure. For each scenario, they recorded their perception of how important the associated rule was and how likely it was to fail. They then rated the components of Control Value and Failure Likelihood for all the scenarios. The order in which each reviewer ranked the scenarios Control Value and Failure Likelihood was compared to the order in which they ranked the scenarios for each of the associated components; inevitability and opportunity for Control Value and definition, assignment, training, organization and monitoring for Failure Likelihood. This order comparison showed how the components contributed to a relative relationship to the substitute risk element. With the relationship established for Space Shuttle ground processing, this method can be used to gauge if the introduction or removal of a particular rule will increase or decrease the .risk associated with the hazard it is intended to control.

Praino, Gregory T.↗
NASA NTRS2009

The Integrated Medical Model: A Risk Assessment and Decision Support Tool for Space Flight Medical Systems

The Integrated Medical Model (IMM) is a decision support tool that is useful to mission planners and medical system designers in assessing risks and designing medical systems for space flight missions. The IMM provides an evidence based approach for optimizing medical resources and minimizing risks within space flight operational constraints. The mathematical relationships among mission and crew profiles, medical condition incidence data, in-flight medical resources, potential crew functional impairments, and clinical end-states are established to determine probable mission outcomes. Stochastic computational methods are used to forecast probability distributions of crew health and medical resource utilization, as well as estimates of medical evacuation and loss of crew life. The IMM has been used in support of the International Space Station (ISS) medical kit redesign, the medical component of the ISS Probabilistic Risk Assessment, and the development of the Constellation Medical Conditions List. The IMM also will be used to refine medical requirements for the Constellation program. The IMM outputs for ISS and Constellation design reference missions will be presented to demonstrate the potential of the IMM in assessing risks, planning missions, and designing medical systems. The implementation of the IMM verification and validation plan will be reviewed. Additional planned capabilities of the IMM, including optimization techniques and the inclusion of a mission timeline, will be discussed. Given the space flight constraints of mass, volume, and crew medical training, the IMM is a valuable risk assessment and decision support tool for medical system design and mission planning.

Kerstman, Eric↗
NASA NTRS2004

Assessment and Control of Spacecraft Charging Risks on the International Space Station

The International Space Station (ISS) operates in the F2 region of Earth's ionosphere, orbiting at altitudes ranging from 350 to 450 km at an inclination of 51.6 degrees. The relatively dense, cool F2 ionospheric plasma suppresses surface charging processes much of the time, and the flux of relativistic electrons is low enough to preclude deep dielectric charging processes. The most important spacecraft charging processes in the ISS orbital environment are: 1) ISS electrical power system interactions with the F2 plasma, 2) magnetic induction processes resulting from flight through the geomagnetic field and, 3) charging processes that result from interaction with auroral electrons at high latitude. Recently, the continuing review and evaluation of putative ISS charging hazards required by the ISS Program Office revealed that ISS charging could produce an electrical shock hazard to the ISS crew during extravehicular activity (EVA). ISS charging risks are being evaluated in an ongoing measurement and analysis campaign. The results of ISS charging measurements are combined with a recently developed model of ISS charging (the Plasma Interaction Model) and an exhaustive analysis of historical ionospheric variability data (ISS Ionospheric Specification) to evaluate ISS charging risks using Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) methods. The PRA combines estimates of the frequency of occurrence and severity of the charging hazards with estimates of the reliability of various hazard controls systems, as required by NASA s safety and risk management programs, to enable design and selection of a hazard control approach that minimizes overall programmatic and personnel risk. The PRA provides a quantitative methodology for incorporating the results of the ISS charging measurement and analysis campaigns into the necessary hazard reports, EVA procedures, and ISS flight rules required for operating ISS in a safe and productive manner.

Koontz, Steve↗
NASA NTRS2024

Risk of Bone Fracture due to Spaceflight-induced Changes to Bone

The Human Research Program (HRP) is taking a biomechanical approach to assessing subsequent fracture risk in active astronauts as a consequence of spaceflight exposure. Triennial testing of active and retired astronauts continues as Space Medicine monitors for a premature diagnosis of primary osteoporosis, which is associated with age-related bone loss and skeletal fragility. This updated 2023 Fracture Evidence Report has expanded the description of skeletal changes to capture the full effects of spaceflight on bone: • Recent analysis of fractures from health records of the full astronaut cohort, suggests an increased incidence rate of hip and spine fractures in astronauts following longer spaceflight duration flights compared to incident rates found in shorter duration flights. • Routine preflight-to-postflight surveillance by DXA (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) does not provide the full detection of loss and recovery in the long-duration (LD) astronaut nor the full recovery of hip trabecular bone. • The inclusion of hip quantitative computed tomography (QCT) in flight studies delineates effects of spaceflight, of countermeasures, and of post-flight recovery on cortical and trabecular bone parameters—some of which are verified predictors of hip fracture in the aged. • QCT detects and compares the distinct countermeasure effects of the pharmaceutical alendronate and of resistive exercise (on the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device, ARED) in specific cortical and trabecular bone sub-regions during spaceflight. • A published comparison of QCT-determined loss rates of hip trabecular bone in LD astronauts compared to terrestrial cohorts suggest that accelerated loss rates in trabecular volumetric BMD (vBMD) during spaceflight might be analogous to skeletal effects of accelerated loss rates in females due to menopause, potentially leading to disruptions in trabecular microarchitecture. • A dataset of finite element (FE) estimates of hip bone strength in aging terrestrial cohorts (spanning astronaut age-range) provides comparative context for changes in the FE of hip bone strength in LD astronauts, including comparison (force unit of newton) to percentiles (50th, 75th, and 100th) of sex-matched aged humans with hip fractures. • Risk of fracture, due to the mechanical overloading of bones, is being updated with IMPACT, the next-generation tool suite for probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) for exploration missions being created by the Exploration and Medical Capability Element (ExMC) at NASA. IMPACT is currently in development and will not be included in this 2024 update. The risk for fracture necessitates understanding the relationship between applied loads to bone and the biomechanical competence of bone. The Risk for Early Onset Osteoporosis focuses on the weakened condition of bone (including development of new technologies, measurements of novel skeletal attributes, translation of multiple measures to an index of bone fragility, and interpretations of data used to reflect a weakened bone), while the Risk for Fracture assesses factors that influence the probability an astronaut would encounter applied loads exceeding the biomechanical competence of bones, resulting in fracture. This Evidence Report combines the research gaps and tasks associated with both risks.

Fracture↗
NASA NTRS1985

Protecting intellectual property in space; Proceedings of the Aerospace Computer Security Conference, McLean, VA, March 20, 1985

The primary purpose of the Aerospace Computer Security Conference was to bring together people and organizations which have a common interest in protecting intellectual property generated in space. Operational concerns are discussed, taking into account security implications of the space station information system, Space Shuttle security policies and programs, potential uses of probabilistic risk assessment techniques for space station development, key considerations in contingency planning for secure space flight ground control centers, a systematic method for evaluating security requirements compliance, and security engineering of secure ground stations. Subjects related to security technologies are also explored, giving attention to processing requirements of secure C3/I and battle management systems and the development of the Gemini trusted multiple microcomputer base, the Restricted Access Processor system as a security guard designed to protect classified information, and observations on local area network security.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1990

Information and problem report usage in system saftey engineering division

Five basic problems or question areas are examined. They are as follows: (1) Evaluate adequacy of current problem/performance data base; (2) Evaluate methods of performing trend analysis; (3) Methods and sources of data for probabilistic risk assessment; and (4) How is risk assessment documentation upgraded and/or updated. The fifth problem was to provide recommendations for each of the above four areas.

Morrissey, Stephen J.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Dynamic systems-engineering process - The application of concurrent engineering

A system engineering methodology is described which enables users, particulary NASA and DOD, to accommodate changing needs; incorporate emerging technologies; identify, quantify, and manage system risks; manage evolving functional requirements; track the changing environment; and reduce system life-cycle costs. The approach is a concurrent, dynamic one which starts by constructing a performance model defining the required system functions and the interrelationships. A detailed probabilistic risk assessment of the system elements and their interrelationships is performed, and quantitative analysis of the reliability and maintainability of an engineering system allows its different technical and process failure modes to be identified and their probabilities to be computed. Decision makers can choose technical solutions that maximize an objective function and minimize the probability of failure under resource constraints.

Wiskerchen, Michael J.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Risk analysis of an RTG on the Space Shuttle

As part of the effort to review the Ulysses Final Safety Analysis Report and to understand the risk of plutonium release from the Ulysses spacecraft General Purpose Heat Source-Radioisotope Thermal Generator (GPHS-RTG), the Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel (INSRP) and the author performed an integrated, quantitative analysis of the uncertainties of the calculated risk of plutonium release from Ulysses. Using state-of-the-art probabilistic risk assessment technology, the uncertainty analysis accounted for both variability and uncertainty of the key parameters of the risk analysis. The results show tht INSRP had high confidence that risk of fatal cancers from potential plutonium release associated with calculated launch and deployment accident scenarios is low.

Frank, Michael V.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Risk-based Spacecraft Fire Safety Experiments

Viewgraphs on risk-based spacecraft fire safety experiments are presented. Spacecraft fire risk can never be reduced to a zero probability. Probabilistic risk assessment is a tool to reduce risk to an acceptable level.

Apostolakis, G.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Uncertainty analysis for Ulysses safety evaluation report

As part of the effort to review the Ulysses Final Safety Analysis Report and to understand the risk of plutonium release from the Ulysses spacecraft General Purpose Heat Source-Radioisotope Thermal Generator, the Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel (INSRP) performed an integrated, quantitative analysis of the uncertainties of the calculated risk of plutonium release from Ulysses. Using state-of-art probabilistic risk assessment technology, the uncertainty analysis accounted for both variability and uncertainty of the key parameters of the risk analysis. The results show that INSRP had high confidence that risk of fatal cancers from potential plutonium release associated with calculated launch and deployment accident scenarios is low.

Frank, Michael V.↗