Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Risk acceptability”

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

An Approach for Performance Based Glove Mobility Requirements

The Space Suit Assembly (SSA) Development Team at NASA Johnson Space Center has invested heavily in the advancement of rear-entry planetary exploration suit design but largely deferred development of extravehicular activity (EVA) glove designs, and accepted the risk of using the current flight gloves, Phase VI, for exploration missions. However, as design reference missions mature, the risks of using heritage hardware have highlighted the need for developing robust new glove technologies. To address the technology gap, the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate's Game-Changing Development Program provided start-up funding for the High Performance EVA Glove (HPEG) Element as part of the Next Generation Life Support (NGLS) Project in the fall of 2013. The overarching goal of the HPEG Element is to develop a robust glove design that increases human performance during EVA and creates pathway for implementation of emergent technologies, with specific aims of increasing pressurized mobility to 60% of barehanded capability, increasing the durability in on-pristine environments, and decreasing the potential of gloves to cause injury during use. The HPEG Element focused initial efforts on developing quantifiable and repeatable methodologies for assessing glove performance with respect to mobility, injury potential, thermal conductivity, and abrasion resistance. The team used these methodologies to establish requirements against which emerging technologies and glove designs can be assessed at both the component and assembly levels. The mobility performance testing methodology was an early focus for the HPEG team as it stems from collaborations between the SSA Development team and the JSC Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) that began investigating new methods for suited mobility and fit early in the Constellation Program. The combined HPEG and ABF team used lessons learned from the previous efforts as well as additional reviews of methodologies in physical and occupational therapy arenas to develop a protocol that assesses gloved range of motion, strength, dexterity, tactility, and fit in comparative quantitative terms and also provides qualitative insight to direct hardware design iterations. The protocol was evaluated using five experienced test subjects wearing the EMU pressurized to 4.3psid with three different glove configurations. The results of the testing are presented to illustrate where the protocol is and is not valid for benchmark comparisons. The process for requirements development based upon the results is also presented along with suggested performance values for the High Performance EVA Gloves currently in development.

Aitchison, Lindsay↗
NASA NTRS2015

SLS-SPEC-159 Cross-Program Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE) Revision D

This document is derived from the former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Constellation Program (CxP) document CxP 70023, titled "The Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE), Revision C." The original document has been modified to represent updated Design Reference Missions (DRMs) for the NASA Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Programs. The DSNE completes environment-related specifications for architecture, system-level, and lower-tier documents by specifying the ranges of environmental conditions that must be accounted for by NASA ESD Programs. To assure clarity and consistency, and to prevent requirements documents from becoming cluttered with extensive amounts of technical material, natural environment specifications have been compiled into this document. The intent is to keep a unified specification for natural environments that each Program calls out for appropriate application. This document defines the natural environments parameter limits (maximum and minimum values, energy spectra, or precise model inputs, assumptions, model options, etc.), for all ESD Programs. These environments are developed by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Natural Environments Branch (MSFC organization code: EV44). Many of the parameter limits are based on experience with previous programs, such as the Space Shuttle Program. The parameter limits contain no margin and are meant to be evaluated individually to ensure they are reasonable (i.e., do not apply unrealistic extreme-on-extreme conditions). The natural environments specifications in this document should be accounted for by robust design of the flight vehicle and support systems. However, it is understood that in some cases the Programs will find it more effective to account for portions of the environment ranges by operational mitigation or acceptance of risk in accordance with an appropriate program risk management plan and/or hazard analysis process. The DSNE is not intended as a definition of operational models or operational constraints, nor is it adequate, alone, for ground facilities which may have additional requirements (for example, building codes and local environmental constraints). "Natural environments," as the term is used here, refers to the environments that are not the result of intended human activity or intervention. It consists of a variety of external environmental factors (most of natural origin and a few of human origin) which impose restrictions or otherwise impact the development or operation of flight vehicles and destination surface systems. These natural environments include the following types of environments: Terrestrial environments at launch, abort, and normal landing sites (winds, temperatures, pressures, surface roughness, sea conditions, etc.); Space environments (ionizing radiation, orbital debris, meteoroids, thermosphere density, plasma, solar, Earth, and lunar-emitted thermal radiation, etc.); Destination environments (Lunar surface and orbital, Mars atmosphere and surface, near Earth asteroids, etc.). Many of the environmental specifications in this document are based on models, data, and environment descriptions contained in the CxP 70044, Constellation Program Natural Environment Definition for Design (NEDD). The NEDD provides additional detailed environment data and model descriptions to support analytical studies for ESD Programs. For background information on specific environments and their effects on spacecraft design and operations, the environment models, and the data used to generate the specifications contained in the DSNE, the reader is referred to the NEDD paragraphs listed in each section of the DSNE. Also, most of the environmental specifications in this document are tied specifically to the ESD DRMs in ESD-10012, Revision B, Exploration Systems Development Concept of Operations (ConOps). Coordination between these environment specifications and the DRMs must be maintained. This document should be compatible with the current ESD DRMs, but updates to the mission definitions and variations in interpretation may require adjustments to the environment specifications.

Roberts, Barry C.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Development and Testing of Harpoon-Based Approaches for Collecting Comet Samples

Comets, having bright tails visible to the unassisted human eye, are considered to have been known about since pre-historic times. In fact 3,000-year old written records of comet sightings have been identified. In comparison, asteroids, being so dim that telescopes are required for observation, were not discovered until 1801. Yet, despite their later discovery, a space mission returned the first samples of an asteroid in 2010 and two more asteroid sample return missions have already been launched. By contrast no comet sample return mission has ever been funded, despite the fact that comets in certain ways are far more scientifically interesting than asteroids. Why is this? The basic answer is the greater difficulty, and consequently higher cost, of a comet sample return mission. Comets typically are in highly elliptical heliocentric orbits which require much more time and propulsion for Space Craft (SC) to reach from Earth and then return to Earth as compared to many asteroids which are in Earth-like orbits. It is also harder for a SC to maneuver safely near a comet given the generally longer communications distances and the challenge of navigating in the comet's, when the comet is close to perihelion, which turns out to be one of the most interesting times for a SC to get close to the comet surface. Due to the science value of better understanding the sublimation of volatiles near the comet surface, other contributions to higher cost as desire to get sample material from both the comet surface and a little below, to preserve the stratigraphy of the sample, and to return the sample in a storage state where it does not undergo undesirable alterations, such as aqueous. In response to these challenges of comet sample return missions, the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GFSC) has worked for about a decade (2006 to this time) to develop and test approaches for comet sample return that would enable such a mission to be scientifically valuable, while having acceptably low risk and an affordable cost. A harpoon-based approach for gathering comet samples appears to offer the most effective way of accomplishing this goal. As described below, with a decade of development, analysis, testing and refinement, the harpoon approach has evolved from a promising concept to a practical element of a realistic comet sample return mission. Note that the following material includes references to videos, all of which are contained in different sections of the video supplement identified in the references. Each video will be identified as "SS##", where "SS" means the supplement section and "##" will be the number of the section.

Purves, Lloyd↗
NASA NTRS2017

Guidelines and Suggestions for Balloon Gondola Design

This paper discusses the current gondola design requirements for the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility (CSBF). The CSBF is responsible for launching and supporting balloon borne scientific instruments and has some current updated guidelines that will be discussed in this presentation. As the sophistication of Payload systems have increased in size and complexity new guidelines have been implemented in order to make these instruments stay within the acceptable launch risks. Additionally, there is a requirement to submit a proper stress analysis report that states the flight design requirements have been met. Suggestions are discussed in this presentation that establish the proper guidelines to submit these.

Guidelines for Balloon Gondola Design↗
NASA NTRS2017

Radiation Hardness Assurance (RHA): Challenges and New Considerations

Use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components and emerging technologies often require space flight missions to accept elevated risk. The Radiation Hardness Assurance (RHA) flow includes environment definition, hazard evaluation, requirements definition, evaluation of design, and design trades to accommodate and mitigate the risk a project or program takes. Depending on the mission profile and environment, different missions may not necessarily benefit from the same risk reduction efforts or cost reduction attempts. While this poses challenges for the radiation engineer, it also presents opportunities to tailor the RHA flow to minimize risk based on the environment or design criticality while remaining within budget. This presentation will focus on an approach to RHA amidst the present challenges, using the same RHA flow as in the past, with examples from recent radiation test results. The current challenges and the types of risk will be identified. How these risks drive requirements development and realization will be explained with examples of device results and data for single event effects (SEE) and in one case total ionizing dose (TID).

Radiation Hardness Assurance (RHA); Risk Managemen↗
NASA NTRS2017

SLS-SPEC-159 Cross-Program Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE) Revision E

The DSNE completes environment-related specifications for architecture, system-level, and lower-tier documents by specifying the ranges of environmental conditions that must be accounted for by NASA ESD Programs. To assure clarity and consistency, and to prevent requirements documents from becoming cluttered with extensive amounts of technical material, natural environment specifications have been compiled into this document. The intent is to keep a unified specification for natural environments that each Program calls out for appropriate application. This document defines the natural environments parameter limits (maximum and minimum values, energy spectra, or precise model inputs, assumptions, model options, etc.), for all ESD Programs. These environments are developed by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Natural Environments Branch (MSFC organization code: EV44). Many of the parameter limits are based on experience with previous programs, such as the Space Shuttle Program. The parameter limits contain no margin and are meant to be evaluated individually to ensure they are reasonable (i.e., do not apply unrealistic extreme-on-extreme conditions). The natural environments specifications in this document should be accounted for by robust design of the flight vehicle and support systems. However, it is understood that in some cases the Programs will find it more effective to account for portions of the environment ranges by operational mitigation or acceptance of risk in accordance with an appropriate program risk management plan and/or hazard analysis process. The DSNE is not intended as a definition of operational models or operational constraints, nor is it adequate, alone, for ground facilities which may have additional requirements (for example, building codes and local environmental constraints). "Natural environments," as the term is used here, refers to the environments that are not the result of intended human activity or intervention. It consists of a variety of external environmental factors (most of natural origin and a few of human origin) which impose restrictions or otherwise impact the development or operation of flight vehicles and destination surface systems.

Roberts, Barry C.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Improved Calibration through SMAP RFI Change Detection

Anthropogenic Radio-Frequency Interference (RFI) drove both the SMAP (Soil Moisture Active Passive) microwave radiometer hardware and Level 1 science algorithm designs to use new technology and techniques for the first time on a spaceflight project. Care was taken to provide special features allowing the detection and removal of harmful interference in order to meet the error budget. Nonetheless, the project accepted a risk that RFI and its mitigation would exceed the 1.3-K error budget. Thus, RFI will likely remain a challenge afterwards due to its changing and uncertain nature. To address the challenge, we seek to answer the following questions: How does RFI evolve over the SMAP lifetime? What calibration error does the changing RFI environment cause? Can time series information be exploited to reduce these errors and improve calibration for all science products reliant upon SMAP radiometer data? In this talk, we address the first question.

Passive L-band radiometer↗
NASA NTRS2018

Realistic Covariance Generation for the GPM Spacecraft

A covariance realism process for NASA's Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) spacecraft is detailed. The GPM spacecraft is in a low earth orbit, and performs collision avoidance maneuvers few times a year. Currently GPM is below the International Space Station (ISS). So, in addition to cataloged debris objects, GPM must contend with smallsat/cubesat objects that are deployed from the ISS. Both operational scenarios require complete knowledge of the expected GPM prediction errors as a function of time. In this study, we present a method for generating realistic predicted covariance that uses linear propagation of the covariance with the addition of process noise. Further analyses are presented for the process noise ''tuning'' that generates an inflation factor based on the observed error statistics of the predictive satellite trajectories when compared to the definitive ones. Different tuning strategies are considered and compared via a Goodness-of-Fit testing for the Gaussian properties of the scaled covariance. SpaceNav's realistic covariance generation approach takes into account the contribution of predicted maneuver errors in the increased propagation uncertainty. Corresponding maneuver uncertainty is injected into the state uncertainty, and is used within the collision avoidance process to determine the collision risk for close approach events that follow a maneuver. This is a critical step in the maneuver planning process that provides the satellite operator with an accurate quantification of the collision probability for planned maneuvers. Using this information, an informed decision can be made to proceed with a maneuver if the collision risk is acceptable. This approach is validated by Monte-Carlo simulations and results are presented.

spacecraft uncertainty propagation↗
NASA NTRS2001

Developments and activities in solar sail propulsion

NASA's drive to reduce mission costs and accept the risk of incorporating innovative, high payoff technologies into its missions while simultaneously undertaking ever more difficult missions has sparked a greatly renewed interest in solar sails. This paper summarizes these on-going developments in solar sails.

solar↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Having a Come-Apart: Lessons Learned from Additively Manufactured Hardware Failures

NASA has been engaged with additively manufactured (AM) process and component development since the 2000’s. AM offers various technical advantages, such as enhanced hardware design complexity, part consolidation, and processing of novel alloys in addition to programmatic advantages for reduction in processing time and cost. The focus of much of the AM development at NASA has been to mature the various processes, characterize material properties, develop standards, produce demonstrator parts, and integrate AM hardware in liquid rocket engines. These aspects have been demonstrated through process and design iterations using a methodical characterization, test-fail-fix cycles, as well as application and dissemination of lessons learned. In addition to these fundamental demonstrations of the AM process and hardware development, alloys that provide performance advantages in the high temperature and high-pressure environments have been matured for use in rocket engines. These environments are challenging for any alloy and any design, and the AM process is required to fully meet the intended design requirements. The importance of proper AM process was made evident in the failure of a Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) copper-alloy combustion chamber during a hot-fire test due to a degraded material quality resulted from an AM process issue. The hot-fire test aimed to demonstrate high duty cycle under a risk-tolerant development project, where consequences of component failure would be minimal. However, the unintentional component failure emphasized the necessity of robust material characterization and rigorous process control procedures for the safe use of AM components in critical applications. In part, such concerns motivate the AM certification approach that NASA has recently adopted in NASA-STD-6030 “Additive Manufacturing Requirements for Spaceflight Systems”. This presentation provides an overview of the previously mentioned failure, a discussion on the evaluation of the failed chamber and supplemental chambers produced at the same time, a representative material samples that included intentional build witness lines, and a summary of the key results and recommendations from the evaluations. NASA continues to approach AM processes and designs with a level of risk and acceptance of failures that is appropriate for the project objectives, with the overall goal of safe implementation of AM technology and transferring AM technology into commercial space applications. The objective of this presentation is to provide awareness to the community working critical and non-critical AM components and the lessons learned on proper implementation of AM.

Additive Manufacturing↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Metal Additive Manufacturing for Rocket Engines: Successes and Failures

NASA has been developing additive manufacturing (AM) for various technical and programmatic advantages for complex rocket engine and aerospace components. This maturation has focused on various AM processes, new alloys, characterizing material properties, developing standards, producing demonstrator parts, and integrating AM hardware in liquid rocket engines through test-fail-fix cycles, as well as application and dissemination of lessons learned of the AM lifecycle. The importance of proper AM processing was made evident in the failure of a Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) copper-alloy combustion chamber during a hot-fire test due to a degraded material quality. The hot-fire test aimed to demonstrate high duty cycle under a risk-tolerant development project, where consequences of component failure would be minimal. However, the unintentional component failure emphasized the necessity of robust material characterization and rigorous process control procedures for the safe use of AM components in critical applications. This presentation provides an overview of the development failure, a discussion on the evaluation of the failed chamber and supplemental chambers produced at the same time, a representative material samples that included intentional build witness lines, and a summary of the key results and recommendations from the evaluations. NASA continues to approach AM processes and designs with a level of risk and acceptance of failures that is appropriate for the project objectives, with the overall goal of safe implementation of AM technology and transferring AM technology into commercial space applications. This presentation with provide critical awareness to the community lessons learned on proper implementation of AM.

L-PBF↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Successes and Failures of Metal Additive Manufacturing for Rocket Engines

NASA has been developing additive manufacturing (AM) for various technical and programmatic advantages for complex rocket engine and aerospace components. This maturation has focused on various AM processes, new alloys, characterizing material properties, developing standards, producing demonstrator parts, and integrating AM hardware in liquid rocket engines through test-fail-fix cycles, as well as application and dissemination of lessons learned of the AM lifecycle. The importance of proper AM processing was made evident in the failure of a Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) copper-alloy combustion chamber during a hot-fire test due to a degraded material quality. The hot-fire test aimed to demonstrate high duty cycle under a risk-tolerant development project, where consequences of component failure would be minimal. However, the unintentional component failure emphasized the necessity of robust material characterization and rigorous process control procedures for the safe use of AM components in critical applications. This presentation provides an overview of the development failure, a discussion on the evaluation of the failed chamber and supplemental chambers produced at the same time, a representative material samples that included intentional build witness lines, and a summary of the key results and recommendations from the evaluations. NASA continues to approach AM processes and designs with a level of risk and acceptance of failures that is appropriate for the project objectives, with the overall goal of safe implementation of AM technology and transferring AM technology into commercial space applications. This presentation with provide critical awareness to the community lessons learned on proper implementation of AM.

Additive Manufacturing↗
NASA NTRS2024

How NASA Accounts for Weather Throughout Artemis Mission

Development and operations of NASA spacecraft and launch vehicles are influenced by the natural environment (i.e. weather) across all applicable mission phases. Defining the natural environments provides engineers the applicable factors, along with exposure ranges, that must be accounted for in the hardware design. Effects from exposure to these environments must be addressed through structural design of the hardware, mitigated through operational controls, or accepted as risk by the governing program. Managing and mitigating these environmental factors was crucial to ensure the safe and successful launch of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, the transit of the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) around the moon and the recovery of MPCV after landing off the California coast in November 2022. A summary of how the Artemis I mission accounts for both the terrestrial and space environments, as well as the impacts, will be provided.

Ryan K Decker↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TBIRD, a rapid prototyping approach for design, assembly, and test of a LEO-to-ground lasercom CubeSat

The TeraByte InfraRed Delivery (TBIRD) system is a 3U payload on a 6U CubeSat launched in May 2022 which has now demonstrated space to ground links of >1 Terabyte (TB) per pass at a max data rate of 200Gbps. As a CubeSat mission, the development of the TBIRD payload was focused on low SWaP and a “rapid prototyping” approach which accepted higher risks to accelerate the schedule and reduce costs. The optomechanical design process followed standard in-house processes to develop a system that would be robust to LEO environmental loads, with a focus on the stability of the transmit (Tx) and receive (Rx) channel performance metrics. The driving requirement of maintaining 20μrad pointing error between the TX and Rx channels forced specific attention to thermal and mechanical load changes over operational conditions, which drove major design decisions. This paper describes some of engineering challenges overcome and approaches used to make TBIRD a successful program, as well as some of the tradeoffs of rapid prototyping precision optical payloads. TBIRD successfully met and exceeded the total downlink requirements listed above, with a bandwidth of 200Gbps and a total downlink of 4.8TB of information in a single pass.

TBIRD↗
DOE OSTI1995

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 36, No. 2, July-December 1995]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. THE CHORNOBYL ACCIDENT: 195 The Chornobyl Accident Revisited, Part III: Chernobyl Source Term Release Dynamics and Reconstruction of Events During the Active Phase, A. R. Sich; GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 218 Second ANS Workshop on the Safety of Soviet-Designed Nuclear Power Plants, R. A. Bari; 234 Elements of a Nuclear Criticality Safety Program, C. M. Hopper; 243 Rickover, Excellence, and Criticality Safety Programs, R. E. Wilson; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 249 Transient Analysis of the PIUS Advanced Reactor Design with the TRAC-PF1/MOD2 Code, B. E. Boyack, J. L Steiner, S. C. Harmony, H. J. Stumpf, and J. F. Lime; 278 The Hierarchy-By-Interval Approach to Identifying Important Models that Need Improvement in Severe-Accident Simulation Codes, T. J. Heames, M. Khatib-Rahbar, J. E. Kelly, R. P. Jenks-Johnson, and Y.-S. Chen; 290 RELAP5/MOD3 Code Coupling Model, R. P. Martin; 299 Missiles Caused by Severe Pressurized-Water Reactor Accidents, R. Krieg; DESIGN FEATURES: 310 Validation of COMMIX with Westinghouse AP-600 PCCS Test Data, J. G. Sun, T. H. Chien, J. Ding, and W T. Sha; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 321 Spent Nuclear Fuel Characterization for a Bounding Reference Assembly for the Receiving Basin for Off-Site Fuel, S. D. Kahook, R. L. Garrett, L. R. Canas, and M J. Beckum; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 332 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 335 Reactor Coolant System Blowdown at Wolf Creek on September 17, 1994, J. V. Kauffman and S. L. Israel; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 344 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Oueener; 349 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1995; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 320 Symposium on Acceptability of Risk From Radiation—Application to Manned Space Flight; 320 24th DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning and Treatment Conference; 361 Radiation Biology and Radiation Protection— Modern Developments and Tendencies in Radiation Biology; 362 1997 IEEE Sixth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants; 354 The Authors; 360 Reviewers of Nuclear Safety, Vol. 36.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗