Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)”

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 NTRS2016

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. In order 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↗
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 NTRS2017

And the Human Saves the Day or Maybe They Ruin It, The Importance of Humans in the Loop

Flying a mission in space requires a massive commitment of resources, and without the talent and commitment of the people involved in this effort we would never leave the atmosphere of Earth as safely as we have. When we use the phrase "humans in the loop", it could apply to almost any endeavor since everything starts with humans developing a concept, completing the design process, building or implementing a product and using the product to achieve a goal or purpose. Narrowing the focus to spaceflight, there are a variety of individuals involved throughout the preparations for flight and the flight itself. All of the humans involved add value and support for program success. The paper discusses the concepts of human involvement in technological programs, how a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) accounts for the human in the loop for potential missions using a technique called Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) and the tradeoffs between having a human in the loop or not. Human actions can increase or decrease the overall risk via initiating events or mitigating them, thus removing the human from the loop doesn't always lowers the risk.

DeMott, Diana L.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Bridging the Engineering and Medicine Gap

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.

Walton, M.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Modeling the Risk of U.S. Offshore Oil & Gas Exploration-Well Drilling, Commercial Nuclear Plants, and Human Spaceflight

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) has been applied in different industries for many years. Each industry and technology area presents varying challenges and priorities, and the risk models therefore need to be somewhat different. This paper compares aspects of risk modeling of offshore drilling, nuclear plant operation, and human spaceflight. Risk models in all three technology areas have certain high-level similarities: (1) they employ redundancy and diversity in their means to prevent or mitigate risk, including a mix of active and passive systems designed to respond to off-normal evolutions; (2) they are affected by human reliability; (3) their models require consideration of coupling between scenario structure and scenario phenomenology. But in examining the models in more detail, one sees important differences in methodology and emphasis. For purposes of comparison, this paper discusses aspects of a risk model of an offshore drilling operation in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, focusing on where such a development differs in important ways from models of commercial U.S. nuclear plants and models developed for human spaceflight.

Boyer, Roger L.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Synthesizing a New Launch Vehicle Failure Probability Based on Historical Flight Data

New launch vehicles have historically had significantly higher failure rates in early flights than what has been predicted using Probabilistic Risk Assessment - PRA. This is because PRAs typically model a mature vehicle where a significant portion of the early failure probability contributors have been eliminated due to testing and improvements after actual field operation. To capture a more accurate early flight failure probability estimate, this paper develops a method that estimates ascent failure probability starting with the first flight based on historical launch vehicle records. With new launch vehicles being developed, such as the Space Launch System - SLS, a PRA model must be extended to cover early flight failure probability contributions that are either not covered in the mature-vehicle PRA or are underestimated. These failure probability contributions include design errors, quality control deficiencies, installation errors, and environmental impacts. There are also failure dependencies due to systemic errors that still exist due to limited entire-system testing.

Cross, Robert B.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Modeling the Risk of U.S. Offshore Oil & Gas Exploration-Well Drilling, Commercial Nuclear Plants, and Human Spaceflight

Nuclear power, offshore oil & gas exploration, and human spaceflight all have high consequence potential if something goes wrong. Each has had at least one major incident that pointed to a need for improved risk assessment. Careful risk analysis is very important for technologies having complexity, uncertainty, and high consequence potential. All rely on multiple barriers/controls/redundancy to minimize risk. NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) has moved towards risk informed regulation with Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) as a major input.

PRA↗
NASA NTRS2018

The Growth of Mass and Reliability Source Database and Me

Mass and Reliability Source (MaRS) is a database which draws together information from multiple other sources and databases (MADS, VMDB, ISS PART, Bayesian PowerPoint, etc.). Information such as mass, operating hours, and failure data are compiled to create a tool for the building of probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) models. MaRS also has great potential for deep space mission planning. Understanding the lowest point of failure within an ORU helps to inform the efficient selection of spare parts necessary for a journey where mass and volume are at a premium and resupply is not possible.

George, Cory A.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Comparative Analysis of Static and Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment

This study examines three different methodologies for producing loss-of-mission (LOM) and loss-of-crew (LOC) risks estimates for probabilistic risk assessments (PRA) of crewed spacecraft. The three bottom-up, component-based PRA approaches examined are a traditional static fault tree, a dynamic Monte Carlo simulation, and a fault tree hybrid that incorporates some dynamic elements. These approaches were used to model the reaction control system thruster pod of a generic crewed spacecraft and mission, and a comparative analysis of the methods is presented. The methodologies are assessed in terms of the process of modeling a system, the actionable information produced for the design team, and the overall fidelity of the quantitative risk evaluation generated. The system modeling process is compared in terms of the effort required to generate the initial model, update the model in response to design changes, and support mass-versus-risk trade studies. The results are compared by examining the top-level LOM/LOC estimates and the relative risk driver rankings at the failure mode level. The fidelity of each modeling methodology is discussed in terms of its capability to handle real-world system dynamics such as cold-sparing, changes in mission operations due to loss of redundancy, and common cause failure modes. The paper also discusses the applicability of each methodology to different phases of system development and shows that a single methodology may not be suitable for all of the many purposes of a spacecraft PRA. The fault tree hybrid approach is shown to be best suited to the needs of early assessments during conceptual design phases. As the design begins to mature, the level of detail represented in the risk model must go beyond redundancy and nominal mission operations to include dynamic, time- and state-dependent system responses as well as diverse system capabilities. This is best accomplished using the dynamic simulation approach, since these phenomena are not easily captured by static methods. Ultimately, once the design has been finalized and the goal of the PRA is to provide design validation and requirement verification, more traditional, static fault tree approaches may become as appropriate as the simulation method.

Mattenberger, Christopher J.↗
NASA NTRS2019

The Effect of Heroic Medical Care on Mission Medical Outcomes

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.

Reyes, David P.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Enabling Space Exploration Medical System Development Using a Tool Ecosystem

The NASA Human Research Program’s (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element is utilizing a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to enhance the development of systems engineering products that will be used to advance medical system designs for exploration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit. In support of future missions, the team is capturing content such as system behaviors, functional decompositions, architecture, system requirements and interfaces, and recommendations for clinical capabilities and resources in Systems Modeling Language (SysML) models. As these products mature, SysML models provide a way for ExMC to capture relationships among the various products, which includes supporting more integrated and multi-faceted views of future medical systems. In addition to using SysML models, HRP and ExMC are developing supplementary tools to support two key functions: 1) prioritizing current and future research activities for exploration missions in an objective manner; and 2) enabling risk-informed and evidence-based trade space analysis for future space vehicles, missions, and systems. This paper will discuss the long-term HRP and ExMC vision for the larger ecosystem of tools, which include dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) capabilities, additional SysML models, a database of system component options, and data visualizations. It also includes a review of an initial Pilot Project focused on enabling medical system trade studies utilizing data that is coordinated across tools for consistent outputs (e.g., mission risk metrics that are associated with medical system mass values and medical conditions addressed). This first Pilot Project demonstrated successful operating procedures and integration across tools. Finally, the paper will also cover a second Pilot Project that utilizes tool enhancements such as medical system optimization capabilities, post-processing, and visualization of generated data for subject matter expert review, and increased integration amongst the tools themselves.

Amador, Jennifer R.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Enabling Space Exploration Medical System Development Using a Tool Ecosystem

The NASA Human Research Program's (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element is utilizing a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to enhance the development of systems engineering products that will be used to advance medical system designs for exploration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit. In support of future missions, the team is capturing content such as system behaviors, functional decompositions, architecture, system requirements and interfaces, and recommendations for clinical capabilities and resources in Systems Modeling Language (SysML) models. As these products mature, SysML models provide a way for ExMC to capture relationships among the various products, which includes supporting more integrated and multi-faceted views of future medical systems. In addition to using SysML models, HRP and ExMC are developing supplementary tools to support two key functions: 1) prioritizing current and future research activities for exploration missions in an objective manner; and 2) enabling risk-informed and evidence-based trade space analysis for future space vehicles, missions, and systems. This paper will discuss the long-term HRP and ExMC vision for the larger ecosystem of tools, which include dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) capabilities, additional SysML models, a database of system component options, and data visualizations. It also includes a review of an initial Pilot Project focused on enabling medical system trade studies utilizing data that is coordinated across tools for consistent outputs (e.g., mission risk metrics that are associated with medical system mass values and medical conditions addressed). This first Pilot Project demonstrated successful operating procedures and integration across tools. Finally, the paper will also cover a second Pilot Project that utilizes tool enhancements such as medical system optimization capabilities, post-processing, and visualization of generated data for subject matter expert review, and increased integration amongst the tools themselves.

Amador, Jennifer R.↗
NASA NTRS2019

"Making Safety Happen" Through Probabilistic Risk Assessment at NASA

NASA is using Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) as one of the tools in its Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) tool belt to identify and quantify risks associated with human spaceflight. This paper discusses some of the challenges and benefits associated with developing and using PRA for NASA human space programs. Some programs have entered operation prior to developing a PRA, while some have implemented PRA from the start of the program. It has been observed that the earlier a design change is made in the concept or design phase, the less impact it has on cost and schedule. Not finding risks until the operation phase yields much costlier design changes and major delays, which can result in discussions of just accepting the risk. Risk contributors identified by PRA are not just associated with hardware failures. They include but are not limited to crew fatality due to medical causes, the environment the vehicle and crew are exposed to, the software being used, and the reliability of the crew performing required actions. Some programs have entered operation prior to developing a PRA, and while PRA can still provide a benefit for operations and future design trades, the benefit of implementing PRA from the start of the program provides the added benefit of informing design and reducing risk early in program development. Currently, NASA’s International Space Station (ISS) program is in its 20th year of on-orbit operations around the Earth and has several new programs in the design phase preparing to enter the operation phase all of which have active (or living) PRAs. These programs incorporate PRA as part of their Risk-Informed, Decision-Making (RIDM) process. For new NASA human spaceflight programs discussion begins with mission concept, establishing requirements, forming the PRA team, and continues through the design cycles into the operational phase. Several examples of PRA related applications and observed lessons are included.

Applications↗
NASA NTRS2020

Bayesian Framework For Bioburden Density Calculations To Perform Planetary Protection Probabilistic Risk Assessment

The planetary protection discipline aims to minimize the microbial contamination on spacecraft to prevent the inadvertent contamination of other planetary bodies, known as forward planetary protection (PP). Planetary protection probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) relies on two core methodologies-the contamination probability event tree analysis and statistical parameter estimation. Planetary protection engineers combine several techniques to estimate the bioburden present on spacecraft components. A direct assay to enumerate CFU (colony forming units) is the preferred methodology, but given a similar processing environment the bioburden present on certain components is inferred using: (1) a NASA defined bioburden estimate based upon the biological cleanliness of the manufacturing/assembly environment or (2) sampled data from a similar spacecraft component. The paper presents an empirical Bayesian framework to systematically treat bioburden estimation and its uncertainties on different levels starting with measurement procedures to combining different components to subsystems and whole spacecraft. It is shown that the Bayesian approach can effectively handle estimations and their uncertainties at different levels and produce a reliable estimate for bioburden to be used to evaluate the probability of contamination.

Seuylemezian, Arman↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

IMPACT - Information for the Development of Human Health and Performance Systems

IMPACT is a suite of computational and systems engineering tools. Currently being developed for NASA Exploration Medical Capabilities (ExMC) and could be extended to other Human Research Program (HRP) elements. The purpose is to provide a data-driven means to inform human health and performance risk mitigation during exploration missions considering resource constraints in the medical system. IMPACT enables systematic trade studies to evaluate options. IMPACT uses Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) as a systematic methodology to evaluate risks. IMPACT is currently under development to inform decision-makers the risks involved with trade-options that have likelihoods and consequences backed by scientific research in a medical evidence library. IMPACT supports multi-segment analysis to determine probabilities and risks in different mission segments. There are currently 122 medical conditions and 900 resources in the IMPACT Medical Database. IMPACT modeling is using mission segments and multiple vehicles for the NASA Artemis campaign and could support future complex missions in deep space.

IMPACT PRA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Root Cause Analysis of the Data Refinement Process – Medical Conditions Capability Resource Tables

The medical system for spaceflight thus far has been designed to support missions in low earth orbit (LEO). Crew capabilities are limited and heavily dependent on the team of medical support staff at Mission Control Center (MCC) to guide diagnosis and management. However, missions to the Moon and Mars will suffer from several constraints that will make this ground support focused approach to care ineffective. In order to update and modify medical system design, NASA has relied on Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) modeling to mitigate medical risk through trade space analysis. Specifically, capability resource tables (CRT’s) were developed to create a dataset of resources required to manage a list of accepted medical conditions significant in exploration spaceflight. With 120 conditions, this dataset contained hundreds of capabilities and thousands of resources with tens of thousands of cells of data. Initially these tables were built in excel for high throughput during development, but ultimately had to be transferred, managed, and modified into the Evidence Library database for modeling purposes. The process of collating and reviewing the Evidence Library revealed numerous errors in the dataset that had to be corrected through iterative changes. Several error types emerged during this process and can be broken into specific classifications defined as “input”, “transcription”, “structural”, “branching”, and “information”. In reviewing these error types through the root cause analysis (RCA) approach, we were able to identify the contributors to these errors which included single data review points, changing product end goals, limited software selection, time constraints and several others. By reviewing and evaluating the underlying causes we can provide possible system improvements that can be implemented for current and future data management in PRA model inputs.

A. Anderson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Brace For Impact – It’s Coming, Do You Know What to Do With It?

Long-duration human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for providing in-mission medical care. Compared with the International Space Station, the greater distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and significant limitations on the evacuation of ill or injured crew. Spacecraft mass, volume, and power will be curtailed while higher demands will be placed on the crew’s knowledge, skills, and abilities. In this higher risk environment, it is important to define and quantitatively estimate human system risk attributable to medical conditions. IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and medical trade space analysis tool being developed by NASA to advance medical system design for exploration missions. IMPACT has made a number of enhancements on the Integrated Medical Model, the PRA tool currently used by NASA. These updates include a novel medical evidence base baselined to a long duration, deep space exploration environment; an expanded medical condition list; and a trade space analysis capability (e.g. comparing risk profiles and mass/volume constraints for medical capabilities and resources). IMPACT core functionality includes quantification of a medical capability set and assisting with identification of specific medical resources/hardware for exploration missions. In addition, IMPACT provides sophisticated trade space capabilities to estimate how human system risk varies with changes to the mission architecture or medical capability set. This presentation will provide a brief overview of the IMPACT tool, discuss representative use cases, and show example results.

Benjamin Easter↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Impact Outputs for A Representative Extended Duration Artemis Mission

BACKGROUND: As NASA and private industry begin preparation for long-duration spaceflight, quantifying the impact that potential human health and performance capabilities have on crew health outcomes is imperative for medical risk mitigation. NASA’s Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces tool (IMPACT) applies Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) methodology to estimate these outcomes. OVERVIEW: As NASA prepares to return to the Moon, medical system planning has already begun for extended Artemis missions, which will see humans spending months at a time in cis-lunar space and on the surface of the Moon. The Long Duration Lunar Orbital and Lunar Surface (LDLOLS) design reference mission (DRM) lasts 9 months, including 3 months on the lunar surface, and involves 2 male and 2 female crewmembers. LDLOLS assumes no extravehicular activities (EVAs) in orbit, but, while on the lunar surface, involves 2-4 EVAs/month in a pressurized rover and 2-4 EVAs/month in an unpressurized rover or on foot. This DRM assumes a physician level Crew Medical Officer with commensurate knowledge, skills, and abilities. The IMPACT tool was utilized to estimate in-flight medical risk for this mission. More specifically, 100,000 simulations of this DRM were modeled, and overall estimates for loss of crew life (LOCL), need for evacuation (RTDC; return to definitive care), and crew task time lost (TTL; a measure of disability) were calculated. A recommended medical capability set, with appropriate mass and volume constraints, was also generated. DISCUSSION: This abstract reviews the IMPACT-derived risk for these mission outcomes with and without treatment, a macroscopic look at the total mass and volume necessary for full diagnostic and treatment capability, and how these change with input mission parameters.

J G Steller↗