Results for “avoidable risk” — Page 9

NASA NTRS2015

Implications of Climate Mitigation for Future Agricultural Production

Climate change is projected to negatively impact biophysical agricultural productivity in much of the world. Actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate future climate changes, are thus of central importance for agricultural production. Climate impacts are, however, not unidirectional; some crops in some regions (primarily higher latitudes) are projected to benefit, particularly if increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is assumed to strongly increase crop productivity at large spatial and temporal scales. Climate mitigation measures that are implemented by reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations lead to reductions both in the strength of climate change and in the benefits of carbon dioxide fertilization. Consequently, analysis of the effects of climate mitigation on agricultural productivity must address not only regions for which mitigation is likely to reduce or even reverse climate damages. There are also regions that are likely to see increased crop yields due to climate change, which may lose these added potentials under mitigation action. Comparing data from the most comprehensive archive of crop yield projections publicly available, we find that climate mitigation leads to overall benefits from avoided damages at the global scale and especially in many regions that are already at risk of food insecurity today. Ignoring controversial carbon dioxide fertilization effects on crop productivity, we find that for the median projection aggressive mitigation could eliminate approximately 81% of the negative impacts of climate change on biophysical agricultural productivity globally by the end of the century. In this case, the benefits of mitigation typically extend well into temperate regions, but vary by crop and underlying climate model projections. Should large benefits to crop yields from carbon dioxide fertilization be realized, the effects of mitigation become much more mixed, though still positive globally and beneficial in many food insecure countries.

Mueller, Christoph↗

NASA NTRS1992

Software reliability through fault-avoidance and fault-tolerance

Accomplishments in the following research areas are summarized: structure based testing, reliability growth, and design testability with risk evaluation; reliability growth models and software risk management; and evaluation of consensus voting, consensus recovery block, and acceptance voting. Four papers generated during the reporting period are included as appendices.

Vouk, Mladen A.↗

NASA NTRS1986

The Galileo single-event upset solution and risk assessment

The Galileo probe will be subject to radiation fields and energetic particle bombardment during its outward bound journey and in orbit around Jupiter and its moons. To avoid the occurrence and propagation of effects of single event upset (SEU) bit state changes induced by the bombardments attempts were made to harden the Galileo electronics against SEUs. The hazards are especially acute for Schottky diode and low-power Schottky TTL parts. The preventive action options which were scheduled are reviewed, noting the selection of CMOS chips as replacements for SEU-susceptible devices. The simulation and risk assessment that were performed to evaluate the potential success of the replacements are summarized, with emphasis on the data employed to ensure the accuracy of the assessments and the predicted effects of SEUs in the various Galileo subsystems.

Burdick, Garry M.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA CARA Prelaunch Analysis and Process

NASA implemented an official Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8079.1 in June 2023, establishing the minimum collision avoidance requirements and associated operational protocols for NASA space flight programs, projects, and spacecraft to protect the space environment by reducing the risk of collision to an acceptable level. Part of the requirement employs a two-fold approach to analyze the satellite design process with conjunction assessment and risk mitigation in mind, during the pre-launch process, led by the Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) Program for non-Human Space Flight (HSF) Missions. This presentation outlines CARA coordination with missions, informed by the NPR, that spans early mission development to operations. CARA is an Agency-level resource that provides support to all NASA non-HSF missions. CARA protects the orbital environment from collision between NASA non-HSF missions and other tracked on-orbit objects. During the pre-formulation and formulation phases, NASA missions undergo a series of conjunction assessment analyses captured in the Orbital Collision Avoidance Plan (OCAP) prior to transitioning to the implementation phase (typically at the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) or equivalent). The OCAP analyses consist of a thorough review of the spacecraft(s) orbit selection and placement, deployment, cataloguing performance, trackability, ephemeris generation, conjunction mitigation options, autonomous maneuvering, and risk assessment parameters which are performed by a dedicated CARA Analysis Team. The results of these analyses, CARA’s formal recommendations, and the mission’s methods for implementing them, are documented in the OCAP. The intent of engaging in this process so early in the mission design phase, is to ensure that conjunction assessment is considered from the outset, thus mitigating costly design changes and operational risks down the road. NASA missions are also required to coordinate their operational processes and conjunction mitigation procedures with CARA in a Conjunction Assessment Operations Implementation Agreement (CAOIA). The aim of this process is to document the conjunction assessment screening process, conjunction risk assessment parameters, conjunction mitigation steps, flight dynamics operations concepts and maneuvers, and the communication and coordination process between the mission’s project manager and CARA. The intent of the CAOIA document is for it to be completed iteratively, and as missions update these elements, corresponding changes are made in the CAOIA. With this process in place, the engagement and coordination between the missions and CARA from early in the design process into mission operations, helps to ensure that missions not only have a robust conjunction assessment concept of operations to reduce conjunction risk for space sustainability, but are also able to achieve their science goals and have a successful mission.

conjunction assessment↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA CARA Prelaunch Analysis and Process

NASA implemented an official Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8079.1 in June 2023, establishing the minimum collision avoidance requirements and associated operational protocols for NASA space flight programs, projects, and spacecraft to protect the space environment by reducing the risk of collision to an acceptable level. Part of the requirement employs a two-fold approach to analyze the satellite design process with conjunction assessment and risk mitigation in mind, during the pre-launch process, led by the Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) Program for non-Human Space Flight (HSF) Missions. This presentation outlines CARA coordination with missions, informed by the NPR, that spans early mission development to operations. CARA is an Agency-level resource that provides support to all NASA non-HSF missions. CARA protects the orbital environment from collision between NASA non-HSF missions and other tracked on-orbit objects. During the pre-formulation and formulation phases, NASA missions undergo a series of conjunction assessment analyses captured in the Orbital Collision Avoidance Plan (OCAP) prior to transitioning to the implementation phase (typically at the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) or equivalent). The OCAP analyses consist of a thorough review of the spacecraft(s) orbit selection and placement, deployment, cataloguing performance, trackability, ephemeris generation, conjunction mitigation options, autonomous maneuvering, and risk assessment parameters which are performed by a dedicated CARA Analysis Team. The results of these analyses, CARA’s formal recommendations, and the mission’s methods for implementing them, are documented in the OCAP. The intent of engaging in this process so early in the mission design phase, is to ensure that conjunction assessment is considered from the outset, thus mitigating costly design changes and operational risks down the road. NASA missions are also required to coordinate their operational processes and conjunction mitigation procedures with CARA in a Conjunction Assessment Operations Implementation Agreement (CAOIA). The aim of this process is to document the conjunction assessment screening process, conjunction risk assessment parameters, conjunction mitigation steps, flight dynamics operations concepts and maneuvers, and the communication and coordination process between the mission’s project manager and CARA. The intent of the CAOIA document is for it to be completed iteratively, and as missions update these elements, corresponding changes are made in the CAOIA. With this process in place, the engagement and coordination between the missions and CARA from early in the design process into mission operations, helps to ensure that missions not only have a robust conjunction assessment concept of operations to reduce conjunction risk for space sustainability, but are also able to achieve their science goals and have a successful mission.

conjunction assessment↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Viability of See and Avoid for Urban Air Mobility Operations

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is an emerging aviation concept that could supplement today’s ground and air transportation systems. For UAM, it is generally assumed that the private sector will manage separation and not rely on the Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control system. To date, discussions of initial operations focus on using the visual abilities of the pilot to “see and avoid” (SAA) other aircraft. Decades of research on SAA has demonstrated that it is inadequate for reliable detection of aircraft that might pose a collision risk. The literature on multi-object tracking is also reviewed for findings on how well humans can visually track objects. The research shows that humans have limited resources for tracking and that this may be affected by object characteristics and cognitive skills. The conclusion is that SAA is a risky method for avoiding midair collisions. It is recommended that flight deck displays and automated collision avoidance systems be implemented for all UAM aircraft at the outset of their introduction.

urban air mobility↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Viability of See-and-Avoid for Midair Collision Avoidance for UAM

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is an emerging aviation concept that could supplement today’s ground and air transportation systems. For UAM, it is generally assumed that the private sector will manage separation and not rely on the Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control system. To date, discussions of initial operations focus on using the visual abilities of the pilot to “see and avoid” (SAA) other aircraft. Decades of research on SAA has demonstrated that it is inadequate for reliable detection of aircraft that might pose a collision risk. The literature on multi-object tracking is also reviewed for findings on how well humans can visually track objects. The research shows that humans have limited resources for tracking and that this may be affected by object characteristics and cognitive skills. The conclusion is that SAA is a risky method for avoiding midair collisions. It is recommended that flight deck displays and automated collision avoidance systems be implemented for all UAM aircraft at the outset of their introduction.

urban air mobility↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Viability of See-and-Avoid for Midair Collision Avoidance for Urban Air Mobility (UAM)

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is an emerging aviation concept that could supplement today’s ground and air transportation systems. For UAM, it is generally assumed that the private sector will manage separation and not rely on the Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control system. To date, discussions of initial operations focus on using the visual abilities of the pilot to “see and avoid” (SAA) other aircraft. Decades of research on SAA has demonstrated that it is inadequate for reliable detection of aircraft that might pose a collision risk. The literature on multi-object tracking is also reviewed for findings on how well humans can visually track objects. The research shows that humans have limited resources for tracking and that this may be affected by object characteristics and cognitive skills. The conclusion is that SAA is a risky method for avoiding midair collisions. It is recommended that flight deck displays and automated collision avoidance systems be implemented for all UAM aircraft at the outset of their introduction.

urban air mobility↗

NASA NTRS2023

The Viability of See-and-Avoid for Urban Air Mobility Operations

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is an emerging aviation concept that could supplement today’s ground and air transportation systems. For UAM, it is generally assumed that the private sector will manage separation and not rely on the Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control system. To date, discussions of initial operations focus on using the visual abilities of the pilot to “see and avoid” (SAA) other aircraft. Decades of research on SAA has demonstrated that it is inadequate for reliable detection of aircraft that might pose a collision risk. The literature on multi-object tracking is also reviewed for findings on how well humans can visually track objects. The research shows that humans have limited resources for tracking and that this may be affected by object characteristics and cognitive skills. The conclusion is that SAA is a risky method for avoiding midair collisions. It is recommended that flight deck displays and automated collision avoidance systems be implemented for all UAM aircraft at the outset of their introduction.

urban air mobility↗

NASA NTRS2015

Forward Bay Cover Separation Modeling and Testing for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

Spacecraft multi-body separation events during atmospheric descent require complex testing and analysis to validate the flight separation dynamics models used to verify no re-contact. The NASA Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) architecture includes a highly-integrated Forward Bay Cover (FBC) jettison assembly design that combines parachutes and piston thrusters to separate the FBC from the Crew Module (CM) and avoid re-contact. A multi-disciplinary team across numerous organizations examined key model parameters and risk areas to develop a robust but affordable test campaign in order to validate and verify the FBC separation event for Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1). The FBC jettison simulation model is highly complex, consisting of dozens of parameters varied simultaneously, with numerous multi-parameter interactions (coupling and feedback) among the various model elements, and encompassing distinct near-field, mid-field, and far-field regimes. The test campaign was composed of component-level testing (for example gas-piston thrusters and parachute mortars), ground FBC jettison tests, and FBC jettison air-drop tests that were accomplished by a highly multi-disciplinary team. Three ground jettison tests isolated the testing of mechanisms and structures to anchor the simulation models excluding aerodynamic effects. Subsequently, two air-drop tests added aerodynamic and parachute elements, and served as integrated system demonstrations, which had been preliminarily explored during the Orion Pad Abort-1 (PA-1) flight test in May 2010. Both ground and drop tests provided extensive data to validate analytical models and to verify the FBC jettison event for EFT-1. Additional testing will be required to support human certification of this separation event, for which NASA and Lockheed Martin are applying knowledge from Apollo and EFT-1 testing and modeling to develop a robust human-rated FBC separation event.

Ali, Yasmin↗

NASA NTRS2018

Safe2Ditch Autonomous Crash Management System for Small Unmanned Aerial Systems: Concept Definition and Flight Test Results

Small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) have the potential for a large array of highly-beneficial applications. These applications are too numerous to comprehensively list, but include search and rescue, fire spotting, precision agriculture, etc. to name a few. Typically sUAS vehicles weigh less than 55 lbs and will be performing flight operations in the National Air Space (NAS). Certain sUAS applications, such as package delivery, will include operations in the close proximity of the general public. The full benefit from sUAS is contingent upon the resolution of several technological areas in order to provide an acceptable level of risk for widespread sUAS operations. Operations of sUAS vehicles pose risks to people and property on the ground as well as manned aviation. Several of the more significant sUAS technological areas include, but are not limited to: autonomous sense and avoid and deconfliction of sUAS from other sUAS and manned aircraft, communications and interfaces between the vehicle and human operators, and the overall reliability of the sUAS and constituent subsystems. While all of the technological areas listed contribute significantly to the safe execution of the sUAS flight operations, contingency or emergency systems can greatly contribute to sUAS risk mitigations to manage situations where the vehicle is in distress. The Safe2Ditch (S2D) system is an autonomous crash management system for sUAS. Its function is to enable sUAS to execute emergency landings and avoid injuring people on the ground, damaging property, and lastly preserving the sUAS and payload. A sUAS flight test effort was performed to test the integration of sub-elements of the S2D system with a representative sUAS multi-rotor.

Glaab, Louis J.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Separation Assurance and Collision Avoidance

Objective SACA-1: Determine the level of safety provided by tactical separation assurance safety monitoring systems for UAS missions. a) Rationale: Continuous mission-risk monitoring can provide equivalent levels of safety for UAS operations possibly reducing the burden on other safety systems. b) Approach: Utilize and adapt algorithms and approaches developed for the NextGen Airspace Systems Program for UAS applications.

Lauderdale, Todd↗

NASA NTRS2000

Dose limits for astronauts

Radiation exposures to individuals in space can greatly exceed natural radiation exposure on Earth and possibly normal occupational radiation exposures as well. Consequently, procedures limiting exposures would be necessary. Limitations were proposed by the Radiobiological Advisory Panel of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council in 1970. This panel recommended short-term limits to avoid deterministic effects and a single career limit (of 4 Sv) based on a doubling of the cancer risk in men aged 35 to 55. Later, when risk estimates for cancer had increased and were recognized to be age and sex dependent, the NCRP, in Report No. 98 in 1989, recommended a range of career limits based on age and sex from 1 to 4 Sv. NCRP is again in the process of revising recommendations for astronaut exposure, partly because risk estimates have increased further and partly to recognize trends in limiting radiation exposure occupationally on the ground. The result of these considerations is likely to be similar short-term limits for deterministic effects but modified career limits.

Review↗

NASA NTRS2008

The NASA Robotic Conjunction Assessment Process: Overview and Operational Experiences

Orbital debris poses a significant threat to spacecraft health and safety. Recent events such as China's anti-satellite test and the Breeze-M rocket explosion have led to an even greater awareness and concern in the satellite community. Therefore, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has established requirements that routine conjunction assessment screening shall be performed for all maneuverable spacecraft having perigees less than 2000 km or within 200 km of geosynchronous altitude. NASA s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) has developed an operational collision risk assessment process to protect NASA s high-value unmanned (robotic) assets that has been in use since January 2005. This paper provides an overview of the NASA robotic conjunction assessment process, including descriptions of the new tools developed to analyze close approach data and of the risk mitigation strategies employed. In addition, statistical data describing the number of conjunctions experienced are presented. A debris avoidance maneuver performed by Aura in June of 2008 is described in detail to illustrate the process.

Newman, Lauri Kraft↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Role of NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) in Advancing NASA’s Astrophysics Missions (Past, Present, and Future)

The NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) was established in 2003 (after the Columbia accident) to provide an independent technical resource for the resolution of challenging technical problems (through the use of studies, analysis, tests, etc.) for NASA programs and projects. Since its inception, NESC has completed nearly 1000 technical assessments for NASA’s Human Exploration and Operation Mission Directorate (HEOMD), Science Mission Directorate (SMD), Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), and Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD). Of the SMD related assessments, several were for the resolution of technical problems, analysis, or studies related to NASA’s astrophysics missions in various phases of the project from design to operation. Some of the recent examples of NESC technical support for NASA astrophysics missions have been for: Hubble Space Telescope (HST), Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO), Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, Kepler Space Telescope, Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), and Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). In this paper, we outline some of the technical challenges faced by these astrophysics missions and describe how NESC contributed to their resolution. The case studies cover a wide range of disciplines involving space telescopes, detectors, lasers, and attitude control systems. These efforts include innovative solutions for extending the life of the missions, technical resolution of challenging problems, strategies for risk mitigation, and failure investigations combined with lessons learned reports to advance discipline knowledge, enhance NASA capabilities, and avoid future problems.

NASA↗

NASA NTRS1985

Understanding and avoiding potential problems in implementing automation

Technology-driven efforts to implement automation often encounter problems due to lack of acceptance or begrudging acceptance by the personnel involved. It is argued in this paper that the level of automation perceived by an individual heavily influences whether or not the automation is accepted by that individual. The factors that appear to affect perceived level of automation are discussed. Issues considered include the impact of automation on the system and the individual, correlates of acceptance, problems and risks of automation, and factors influencing alienation. Based on an understanding of these issues, a set of eight guidelines is proposed as a possible means of avoiding problems in implementing automation.

Rouse, W. B.↗

NASA NTRS2011

An Earthling to an Astronaut: Medical Challenges

Humans can travel safely into space in low Earth orbit (LEO) or to near-Earth objects if several medical, physiological, environmental, and human factors issues risks are mitigated. Research must be performed in order to set standards in these four areas, and current NASA standards are contained in the Space Flight Human System Standards volumes 1 and 2, and crew medical certification standards. These three sets of standards drive all of the clinical, biomedical research and environmental technology development for the NASA human space flight program. These standards also drive the identification of specific risks to crew health and safety, and we currently manage 65 human system risks within the human space flight program. Each risk has a specific program of research, technology development, and development of operational procedures to mitigate the risks. Some of the more important risks tat will be discussed in this talk include exposure to radiation, behavioral health due to confinement in a closed cabin, physiological changes such as loss of bone, muscle and exercise capability, reduction in immune system capability, environmental threats of maintaining an adequate atmosphere and water for drinking, avoidance of toxic or infectious material, protection of hearing, and human factors issues of equipment and task design. A nutritious and varied food supply must also be provided. All of these risks will be discussed and current strategies for mitigating these risks for long-duration human space flight. In mitigating these 65 human system risks, novel approaches to problem solving must be employed to find the most appropriate research and technology based applications. Some risk mitigations are developed internally to NASA while others are found through research grants, technology procurements, and more recently open innovation techniques to seek solutions from the global technical community. Examples and results will be presented from all of these approaches including the more recent use of prizes to stimulate innovation.

Davis, Jeffrey R.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Comparison of Rolling Moment Characteristics During Roll Oscillations for a Low and a High Aspect Ratio Configuration

Improvements in testing and modeling of nonlinear and unsteady aerodynamic effects for flight dynamics predictions of vehicle performance is critical to enable the design and implementation of new, innovative vehicle concepts. Any configuration which exhibits significant flow separation, nonlinear aerodynamics, control interactions or attempts maneuvering through one or more conditions such as these is, at present, a challenge to test, model or predict flight dynamic responses prior to flight. Even in flight test experiments, adequate models are not available to study and characterize the complex nonlinear and time-dependent flow effects occurring during portions of the maneuvering envelope. Traditionally, airplane designs have been conducted to avoid these areas of the flight envelope. Better understanding and characterization of these flight regimes may not only reduce risk and cost of flight test development programs, but also may pave the way for exploitation of those characteristics that increase airplane capabilities. One of the hurdles is that the nonlinear/unsteady effects appear to be configuration dependent. This paper compares some of the dynamic aerodynamic stability characteristics of two very different configurations - representative of a fighter and a transport airplane - during dynamic body-axis roll wind tunnel tests. The fighter model shows significant effects of oscillation frequency which are not as apparent for the transport configuration.

Brandon, Jay M.↗