SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The following presentation describes three out of numerous documents that the Safety and Mission Assurance organization utilizes to mitigate possible hazards that can be present in Exploration Ground Systems.
Hazard analysis addresses hazards that arise in the design, development, manufacturing, construction, facilities, transportation, operations and disposal activities associated with hardware, software, maintenance, operations and environments. An integrated hazard is an event or condition that is caused by or controlled by multiple systems, elements, or subsystems. Integrated hazard analysis (IHA) is especially daunting and ambitious for large, complex systems such as NASA s Constellation program which incorporates program, systems and element components that impact others (International Space Station, public, International Partners, etc.). An appropriate IHA should identify all hazards, causes, controls and verifications used to mitigate the risk of catastrophic loss of crew, vehicle and/or mission. Unfortunately, in the current age of increased technology dependence, there is the tendency to sometimes overlook the necessary and sufficient qualifications of the integrator, that is, the person/team that identifies the parts, analyzes the architectural structure, aligns the analysis with the program plan and then communicates/coordinates with large and small components, each contributing necessary hardware, software and/or information to prevent catastrophic loss. As viewed from both Challenger and Columbia accidents, lack of appropriate communication, management errors and lack of resources dedicated to safety were cited as major contributors to these fatalities. From the accident reports, it would appear that the organizational impact of managers, integrators and safety personnel contributes more significantly to mission success and mission failure than purely technological components. If this is so, then organizations who sincerely desire mission success must put as much effort in selecting managers and integrators as they do when designing the hardware, writing the software code and analyzing competitive proposals. This paper will discuss the necessary and sufficient requirements of one of the significant contributors to mission success, the IHA integrator. Discussions will be provided to describe both the mindset required as well as deleterious assumptions/behaviors to avoid when integrating within a large scale system.
Integrated hazard analysis (IHA) is a process used to identify and control unacceptable risk. As such, it does not occur in a vacuum. IHA approaches must be tailored to fit the system being analyzed. Physical, resource, organizational and temporal constraints on large-scale integrated systems impose additional direct or derived requirements on the IHA. The timing and interaction between engineering and safety organizations can provide either benefits or hindrances to the overall end product. The traditional approach for formal phase safety review timing and content, which generally works well for small- to moderate-scale systems, does not work well for very large-scale integrated systems. This paper proposes a modified approach to timing and content of formal phase safety reviews for IHA. Details of the tailoring process for IHA will describe how to avoid temporary disconnects in major milestone reviews and how to maintain a cohesive end-to-end integration story particularly for systems where the integrator inherently has little to no insight into lower level systems. The proposal has the advantage of allowing the hazard analysis development process to occur as technical data normally matures.
The present instruments of safety and reliability risk control for a majority of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) programs/projects consist of Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Hazard Analysis (HA), Critical Items List (CIL), and Hazard Report (HR). This extensive analytical approach was introduced in the early 1970's and was implemented for the Space Shuttle Program by NHB 5300.4 (1D-2. Since the Challenger accident in 1986, the process has been expanded considerably and resulted in introduction of similar and/or duplicated activities in the safety/reliability risk analysis. A study initiated in 1995, to search for an alternative to the current FMEA/CIL Hazard Analysis methodology generated a proposed method on April 30, 1996. The objective of this Summer Faculty Study was to participate in and conduct an independent evaluation of the proposed alternative to simplify the present safety and reliability risk control procedure.
This viewgraph presentation reviews The NASA Hazard Analysis process. The contents include: 1) Significant Incidents and Close Calls in Human Spaceflight; 2) Subsystem Safety Engineering Through the Project Life Cycle; 3) The Risk Informed Design Process; 4) Types of NASA Hazard Analysis; 5) Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA); 6) Hazard Analysis Process; 7) Identify Hazardous Conditions; 8) Consider All Interfaces; 9) Work a Preliminary Hazard List; 10) NASA Generic Hazards List; and 11) Final Thoughts
A fire hazard analysis, required for many U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, is a complex, cumbersome, and costly process. Fire hazard analyses may be viewed as a checkbox, but ideally and in spirit with the DOE-STD-1066, the fire hazard analysis (FHA) should be a part of the workflow and used to help in modifications, maintenance, and improving operational safety. With current FHA development processes, it is both time and cost prohibitive for true integration. A tool called Fire Risk Investigation in 3D or FRI3D was developed under the DOE Light Water Reactor Sustainability program to simplify and automate many aspects of a fire probabilistic risk analysis for existing nuclear power plants. The FRI3D tool automates fire scenarios by combining approved fire simulation codes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission fire calculations methods, 3D modeling and visualization, and probabilistic risk analysis models into a single workflow supported with a user interface. FRI3D was initially designed for used in combination with a PRA, this case study, evaluated using FRI3D for a plant modification, determined the benefits that detailed fire modeling can have for U.S. Department of Energy facilities with or without a PRA model. It also looked at what tasks from DOE requirements could be reduced using the tool and what is needed to integrate fire hazard analysis into site workflow.
One of the characteristics of an effective safety program is the recognition and control of hazards before mishaps or failures occur. Conducting potentially hazardous tests necessitates a thorough hazard analysis in order to prevent injury to personnel, and to prevent damage to facilities and equipment. The primary purpose of this hazard analysis is to define and address the potential hazards and controls associated with the Building 34 Vacuum Glove Box Assembly, and to provide the applicable team of personnel with the documented results. It is imperative that each member of the team be familiar with the hazards and controls associated with his/her particular tasks, assignments and activities while interfacing with facility test systems, equipment and hardware. In fulfillment of the stated purposes, the goal of this hazard analysis is to identify all hazards that have the potential to harm personnel, damage the facility or its test systems or equipment, test articles, Government or personal property, or the environment. This analysis may also assess the significance and risk, when applicable, of lost test objectives when substantial monetary value is involved. The hazards, causes, controls, verifications, and risk assessment codes have been documented on the hazard analysis work sheets in Appendix A of this document. The preparation and development of this report is in accordance with JPR 1700.1, "JSC Safety and Health Handbook" and JSC 17773 Rev D "Instructions for Preparation of Hazard Analysis for JSC Ground Operations".
Traditional hazards analysis (HA) methods, originally developed to address physical and operational risks, often fall short when it comes to identifying and mitigating cyber threats. These cyber threats pose unique and evolving risks to critical infrastructure and industrial control systems (ICS). This report explores the integration of Cyber-Informed Engineering (CIE) principles into existing HA methods to enhance their ability to address cyber-induced risks. CIE provides organizations with a practical, cost-effective approach to closing the gap between traditional HA methods and the need for cyber risk mitigation. By leveraging existing safety processes and controls, CIE allows users to examine and mitigate cyber vulnerabilities without overhauling existing HA methods. This report identifies areas where HA and CIE naturally align and where their approaches diverge. It emphasizes how CIE principles can be used to adapt HA methods, broadening their scope to include cyber risks and enabling the mitigation of cyber- induced impacts alongside traditional hazards and failure scenarios. This report examines how CIE can be applied across various HA methods—such as Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOP), Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA), Hazard and Consequence Analysis for Digital Systems (HAZCADS), and Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA). It provides strategies for integrating CIE to strengthen the identification, assessment, and mitigation of cyber-induced risks. The findings offer a structured entry point for organizations to embed CIE concepts into hazards and safety analyses, as well as broader engineering processes, ultimately supporting the design and operation of a more resilient infrastructure.
Traditional hazards analysis (HA) methods, originally developed to address physical and operational risks, often fall short when it comes to identifying and mitigating cyber threats. These cyber threats pose unique and evolving risks to critical infrastructure and industrial control systems (ICS). This report explores the integration of Cyber-Informed Engineering (CIE) principles into existing HA methods to enhance their ability to address cyber-induced risks. CIE provides organizations with a practical, cost-effective approach to closing the gap between traditional HA methods and the need for cyber risk mitigation. By leveraging existing safety processes and controls, CIE allows users to examine and mitigate cyber vulnerabilities without overhauling existing HA methods. This report identifies areas where HA and CIE naturally align and where their approaches diverge. It emphasizes how CIE principles can be used to adapt HA methods, broadening their scope to include cyber risks and enabling the mitigation of cyber- induced impacts alongside traditional hazards and failure scenarios. This report examines how CIE can be applied across various HA methods—such as Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOP), Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA), Hazard and Consequence Analysis for Digital Systems (HAZCADS), and Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA). It provides strategies for integrating CIE to strengthen the identification, assessment, and mitigation of cyber-induced risks. The findings offer a structured entry point for organizations to embed CIE concepts into hazards and safety analyses, as well as broader engineering processes, ultimately supporting the design and operation of a more resilient infrastructure.
The Space Propulsion Hazards Analysis Manual (SPHAM) is a compilation of methods and data directed at hazards analysis and safety for space propulsion and associated vehicles, but broadly applicable to other environments and systems. Methods are described of compiling relevant regulatory documentation, deriving design requirements and specifications, modeling accident scenarios in formal risk assessments, and correlation real-time data to risk probability modeling. Also, SPHAM provides methods for predicting post-accident blast, fragmentation, thermal, and environmental damage. Included in the appendices are an exhaustive bibliography, hazardous properties information on selected space propulsion commodities, and system descriptions of various launch vehicles, upper stages, and spacecrafts.
The physical and combustion properties of hydrogen give rise to hazards that must be considered when designing and operating a hydrogen system. One of the major concerns in the use of hydrogen is that of fire or detonation because of hydrogen's wide flammability range, low ignition energy, and flame speed. Other concerns include the contact and interaction of hydrogen with materials, such as the hydrogen embrittlement of materials and the formation of hydrogen hydrides. The low temperature of liquid and slush hydrogen bring other concerns related to material compatibility and pressure control; this is especially important when dissimilar, adjoining materials are involved. The potential hazards arising from these properties and design features necessitate a proper hydrogen hazards analysis before introducing a material, component, or system into hydrogen service. The objective of this guide is to describe the NASA Johnson Space Center White Sands Test Facility hydrogen hazards analysis method that should be performed before hydrogen is used in components and/or systems. The method is consistent with standard practices for analyzing hazards. It is recommended that this analysis be made before implementing a hydrogen component qualification procedure. A hydrogen hazards analysis is a useful tool for hydrogen-system designers, system and safety engineers, and facility managers. A hydrogen hazards analysis can identify problem areas before hydrogen is introduced into a system-preventing damage to hardware, delay or loss of mission or objective, and possible injury or loss of life.
One of the characteristics of an effective safety program is the recognition and control of hazards before mishaps or failures occur. Conducting potentially hazardous tests necessitates a thorough hazard analysis in order to protect our personnel from injury and our equipment from damage. The purpose of this hazard analysis is to define and address the potential hazards and controls associated with the Z1 Suit Port Test in Chamber B located in building 32, and to provide the applicable team of personnel with the documented results. It is imperative that each member of the team be familiar with the hazards and controls associated with his/her particular tasks, assignments, and activities while interfacing with facility test systems, equipment, and hardware. The goal of this hazard analysis is to identify all hazards that have the potential to harm personnel and/or damage facility equipment, flight hardware, property, or harm the environment. This analysis may also assess the significance and risk, when applicable, of lost test objectives when substantial monetary value is involved. The hazards, causes, controls, verifications, and risk assessment codes have been documented on the hazard analysis work sheets in appendix A of this document. The preparation and development of this report is in accordance with JPR 1700.1, JSC Safety and Health Handbook.
Hazard analysis technique in Apollo applications program emphasizing flight crew safety hazards
The results are presented of the hazards analysis which was concerned only with hazards to personnel and not with loss of equipment or property. Hazards characterization includes the definition of a hazard, the hazard levels, and the hazard groups. The analysis methodology is described in detail. The methodology was used to prepare the top level functional flow diagrams, to perform the first level hazards assessment, and to develop a list of conditions and situations requiring individual hazard studies. The 39 individual hazard study results are presented in total.
The Space Propulsion Hazards Analysis Manual (SPHAM) contains an exhaustive bibliography, hazardous properties information on selected space propulsion commodities, and system descriptions of various launch vehicles, upper stages, and spacecrafts.
The System Wide Safety (SWS) Safety Demonstrator (SD) Series drives development of an increasingly capable In-Time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) focusing on humanitarian applications, starting with wildfire response (SD-1). The goals of this report are to (1) provide an early hazard analysis and mitigation evaluation of wildfire response to support these efforts and (2) provide a demonstration of capabilities of the Fault Model Design Tools (fmdtools) and Manager for Intelligent Knowledge Access (MIKA) tools. fmdtools provides a modeling, simulation, and resiliency analysis framework in which a wildfire response model, the System Modeling and Analysis of Resiliency in Scalable Traffic Management for Emergency Response Operations (SMARt-STEReO), is built. MIKA is an intelligent knowledge manager with several capabilities, including assisting in hazard analysis by extracting and analyzing hazards from historical incident reports. The following topics are covered in the report: Understanding Wildfire Hazard Dynamics. We provide a description and simulated examples of how hazards occur in the SMARt-STEReO model of wildfire response and their effect on its outcome. This provides a common mental model and focuses the analysis presented in the remainder of the report. Wildfire Hazard Identification. MIKA identifies wildfire hazards from three relevant datasets: the ICS-209-PLUS, SAFECOM, and SAFENET. Hazards are manually organized into a taxonomy and MIKA analyzes each hazard’s effects, likelihood, severity, and risk. Evaluating Mitigation Strategies. The SMARt-STEReO wildfire response model built in fmdtools evaluates a subset of identified hazards. Specifically, we simulate the effect of communications faults and equipment faults on operator safety, the effect of changing winds and flammability, and a scenario with multiple ignition points and heavy smoke. Tool Limitations and Usage Considerations. We provide a discussion of appropriate tool use cases as well as limitations and considerations for usage. The tool findings are used to synthesize recommendations for wildfire response operations, which can be captured as part of an IASMS. Key recommendations are as follows: Hazards are identified from a broad spectrum of sources including aircraft subsystems, operational sources, and ground crew operations. Highest risk operational environment hazards identified are Evacuations. The highest risk manned aerial operations hazard categorized is Jumper Operations Mishap. Ground crew hazards that are highest risk are Burns, Cargo Operations Overhead, Dehydration, Entrapment, Falling Objects, Heart Attacks, Heat Exhaustion, Inadequate Training or Certification, Vehicle Breakdown, and Vehicle Collision. Modelled containment failures arise from a mismatch between the difficulty of the firefighting scenario and the capacity (e.g., speed, effectiveness, awareness) of the response. In firefighting scenarios where containment is possible (e.g., because the fire does not spread too quickly), these mismatches can occur because of a change in environmental conditions (e.g., wind, flammability, etc) or because of planning, equipment, or communications faults. Improvements to communications increase the capacity of the firefighting response by reducing the time needed to respond to the fire. While surveillance does not increase this capacity by itself, it increases operator safety by increasing state awareness, enabling firefighters to evade approaching fires. Increasing both has a synergistic effect. In general, these performance and resilience increases generalize over fault scenarios as well as unforeseen changes to circumstances (i.e., wind, aridity, etc.). However, these improvements need to be designed so as not to make the system prone to persistent large-scale communications outages, which can reduce performance.
Design manual and hazards analysis for in-pile water cooled capsule in HT-1 tube of Plum Brook reactor facility for testing instrument actuation in radiation environment
This Hazard Analysis document encompasses the Mark III Space Suit Assembly (SSA) and associated ancillary equipment. It has been prepared using JSC17773, "Preparing Hazard Analyses for JSC Ground Operation", as a guide. The purpose of this document is to present the potential hazards involved in ground (23 % maximum O2, One-g) operations of the Mark III and associated ancillary support equipment system. The hazards listed in this document are specific to suit operations only; each supporting facility (Bldg. 9, etc.) is responsible for test specific Hazard Analyses. A "hazard" is defined as any condition that has the potential for harming personnel or equipment. This analysis was performed to document the safety aspects associated with manned use of the Mark III for pressurized and unpressurized ambient, ground-based, One-g human testing. The hazards identified herein represent generic hazards inherent to all standard JSC test venues for nominal ground test configurations. Non-standard test venues or test specific configurations may warrant consideration of additional hazards analysis prior to test. The cognizant suit engineer is responsible for the safety of the astronaut/test subject, space suit, and suit support personnel. The test requester, for the test supported by the suit test engineer and suited subject, is responsible for overall safety and any necessary Test Readiness Reviews (TRR).