Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Audit Report”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2002

Software Assists in Extensive Environmental Auditing

The Base Enivronmental Management System (BEMS) is a Web-based application program for managing and tracking audits by the Environmental Office of Stennis Space Center in conformity with standard 14001 of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 14001). (This standard specifies requirements for an environmental-management system.) BEMS saves time by partly automating what were previously manual processes for creating audit checklists; recording and tracking audit results; issuing, tracking, and implementing corrective-action requests (CARs); tracking continuous improvements (CIs); and tracking audit results and statistics. BEMS consists on an administration module and an auditor module. As its name suggests, the administration module is used to administer the audit. It helps administrators to edit the list of audit questions; edit the list of audit locations; assign manditory questions to locations; track, approve, and edit CARs; and edit completed audits. The auditor module is used by auditors to perform audits and record audit results: It helps the auditors to create audit checklists, complete audits, view completed audits, create CARs, record and acknowledge CIs, and generate reports from audit results.

Callac, Christopher↗
NASA NTRS2002

Software Assists in Extensive Environmental Auditing

The Base Environmental Management System (BEMS) is a Web-based application program for managing and tracking audits by the Environmental Office of Stennis Space Center in conformity with standard 14001 of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 14001). (This standard specifies requirements for an environmental-management system.) BEMS saves time by partly automating what were previously manual processes for creating audit checklists; recording and tracking audit results; issuing, tracking, and implementing corrective-action requests (CARs); tracking continuous improvements (CIs); and tracking audit results and statistics. BEMS consists of an administration module and an auditor module. As its name suggests, the administration module is used to administer the audit. It helps administrators to edit the list of audit questions; edit the list of audit locations; assign mandatory questions to locations; track, approve, and edit CARs; and edit completed audits. The auditor module is used by auditors to perform audits and record audit results: it helps the auditors to create audit checklists, complete audits, view completed audits, create CARs, record and acknowledge CIs, and generate reports from audit results.

Callac, Christopher↗
NASA NTRS2003

Software Assists in Extensive Environmental Auditing

The Base Environmental Management System (BEMS) is a Web-based application program for managing and tracking audits by the Environmental Office of Stennis Space Center in conformity with standard 14001 of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 14001). (This standard specifies requirements for an environmental-management system.) BEMS saves time by partly automating what were previously manual processes for creating audit checklists; recording and tracking audit results; issuing, tracking, and implementing corrective-action requests (CARs); tracking continuous improvements (CIs); and tracking audit results and statistics. BEMS consists of an administration module and an auditor module. As its name suggests, the administration module is used to administer the audit. It helps administrators to edit the list of audit questions; edit the list of audit locations; assign mandatory questions to locations; track, approve, and edit CARs; and edit completed audits. The auditor module is used by auditors to perform audits and record audit results: it helps the auditors to create audit checklists, complete audits, view completed audits, create CARs, record and acknowledge CIs, and generate reports from audit results.

Callac, Christopher↗
NASA NTRS2014

Virtualization - A Key Cost Saver in NASA Multi-Mission Ground System Architecture

With science team budgets being slashed, and a lack of adequate facilities for science payload teams to operate their instruments, there is a strong need for innovative new ground systems that are able to provide necessary levels of capability processing power, system availability and redundancy while maintaining a small footprint in terms of physical space, power utilization and cooling.The ground system architecture being presented is based off of heritage from several other projects currently in development or operations at Goddard, but was designed and built specifically to meet the needs of the Science and Planetary Operations Control Center (SPOCC) as a low-cost payload command, control, planning and analysis operations center. However, this SPOCC architecture was designed to be generic enough to be re-used partially or in whole by other labs and missions (since its inception that has already happened in several cases!)The SPOCC architecture leverages a highly available VMware-based virtualization cluster with shared SAS Direct-Attached Storage (DAS) to provide an extremely high-performing, low-power-utilization and small-footprint compute environment that provides Virtual Machine resources shared among the various tenant missions in the SPOCC. The storage is also expandable, allowing future missions to chain up to 7 additional 2U chassis of storage at an extremely competitive cost if they require additional archive or virtual machine storage space.The software architecture provides a fully-redundant GMSEC-based message bus architecture based on the ActiveMQ middleware to track all health and safety status within the SPOCC ground system. All virtual machines utilize the GMSEC system agents to report system host health over the GMSEC bus, and spacecraft payload health is monitored using the Hammers Integrated Test and Operations System (ITOS) Galaxy Telemetry and Command (TC) system, which performs near-real-time limit checking and data processing on the downlinked data stream and injects messages into the GMSEC bus that are monitored to automatically page the on-call operator or Systems Administrator (SA) when an off-nominal condition is detected. This architecture, like the LTSP thin clients, are shared across all tenant missions.Other required IT security controls are implemented at the ground system level, including physical access controls, logical system-level authentication authorization management, auditing and reporting, network management and a NIST 800-53 FISMA-Moderate IT Security plan Risk Assessment Contingency Plan, helping multiple missions share the cost of compliance with agency-mandated directives.The SPOCC architecture provides science payload control centers and backup mission operations centers with a cost-effective, standardized approach to virtualizing and monitoring resources that were traditionally multiple racks full of physical machines. The increased agility in deploying new virtual systems and thin client workstations can provide significant savings in personnel costs for maintaining the ground system. The cost savings in procurement, power, rack footprint and cooling as well as the shared multi-mission design greatly reduces upfront cost for missions moving into the facility. Overall, the authors hope that this architecture will become a model for how future NASA operations centers are constructed!

Ground System Architecture↗
NASA NTRS1990

NASA Audit Follow-up Handbook

This NASA Audit Follow-up Handbook is issued pursuant to the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-50, Audit Follow-up, dated September 29, 1982. It sets forth policy, uniform performance standards, and procedural guidance to NASA personnel for use when considering reports issued by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), other executive branch audit organizations, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), and the General Accounting Office (GAO). It is intended to: specify principal roles; strengthen the procedures for management decisions (resolution) on audit findings and corrective action on audit report recommendations; emphasize the importance of monitoring agreed upon corrective actions to assure actual accomplishment; and foster the use of audit reports as effective tools of management. A flow chart depicting the NASA audit and management decision process is in Appendix A. This handbook is a controlled handbook issued in loose-leaf form and will be revised by page changes. Additional copies for internal use may be obtained through normal distribution channels.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1972

Failure analysis of solid rocket apogee motors

The analysis followed five selected motors through initial design, development, test, qualification, manufacture, and final flight reports. An audit was conducted at the manufacturing plants to complement the literature search with firsthand observations of the current philosophies and practices that affect reliability of the motors. A second literature search emphasized acquisition of spacecraft and satellite data bearing on solid motor reliability. It was concluded that present practices at the plants yield highly reliable flight hardware. Reliability can be further improved by new developments of aft-end bonding and initiator/igniter nondestructive test methods, a safe/arm device, and an insulation formulation. Minimum diagnostic instrumentation is recommended for all motor flights. Surplus motors should be used in margin testing. Criteria should be established for pressure and zone curing. The motor contractor should be represented at launch. New design analyses should be made of stretched motors and spacecraft/motor pairs.

Martin, P. J.↗
NASA NTRS2020

KSC Integration Office Documentation and Support

This report details the process of document management within the KSC Integration Office throughout my internship in the fall term of the year 2020. During this term, I was mentored by Felix A. Soto-Toro and my main objective was to support the Audit Liaison Representatives (ALR) in their documentation processes. I worked alongside the members of the KSC Integration Office to streamline the auditing process in order to facilitate the interchangement of documents and communication between auditors and our agency. My approach to this situation was to document the events of each audit in a report, which would be updated weekly every Monday following a specific format. As support I was required to gather, organize, and release data relevant to current audits in an online server for ALRs to use across the entire NASA Agency.

Ana C Arvelo Serrano↗
NASA NTRS1995

Annual report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Members, House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. Status of open recommendations: Improving operations of federal departments and agencies

Each year, GAO's work contributes to many legislative and executive branch actions that result in significant financial savings and other improvements in government operations. Some, but not all, are identified through GAO's system for periodically following up to determine the status of actions taken on the recommendations made in its audit and evaluation reports. In fiscal year 1994, GAO made 1,450 recommendations, but, more importantly, about 4,400 GAO recommendations made over the past 5 years have been implemented. This report includes summary information on the status of all GAO recommendations that have not been fully implemented and highlights some of the key ones. This information should help congressional and agency leaders prepare for upcoming appropriations and oversight activities and stimulate further actions to achieve the desired improvements in government operations. In addition to including printed issue area summaries highlighting the ipact of GAO's work and the key open recommendations, this volume includes a set of computer diskettes with details on all open recommendations.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2021

Modernizing NASA’s Space Flight Safety and Mission Success (S&MS) Assurance Framework In Line With Evolving Acquisition Strategies and Systems Engineering Practices

This paper presents the objectives-driven, case-based safety and mission success (S&MS) assurance framework being developed by the NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA), including its motivations and its implementation via a S&MS Assurance Standard that is under development, supplemented by supporting standards including an S&MS Analysis Management Standard that is also under development. A need to evolve NASA’s S&MS assurance framework has emerged in recent years, resulting from the need to accommodate new acquisition models; the need to accommodate evolving systems engineering (SE) practices; the need to stipulate acceptable levels of S&MS risk; the need for improved integration of S&MS into SE; and the need for clearer risk acceptance accountability. The objectives-driven, case-based S&MS assurance framework proposed here is responsive to that need. Its key features include: • The establishment, by NASA Acquirers, of fundamental S&MS performance objectives that define limits of acceptability for the likelihoods that mission technical objectives will be accomplished and that people, assets, and environments put at risk by the mission will not be adversely affected; • The development and approval of Providers’ S&MS plans for meeting Acquirers’ S&MS performance objectives, including commitments to support Acquirer audit, investigation, and reporting needs; • The development, by Providers, of S&MS assurance cases that argue, supported by evidence, that the Provider has met, or is on track to meeting, the fundamental S&MS objectives; • The evaluation, throughout the program/project life cycle, of Provider S&MS assurance cases as the primary S&MS-related technical basis for Acquirer risk acceptance and the granting to the Provider of authority to proceed through the program/project life cycle. This proposed S&MS assurance framework is notable for its lack of prescription of traditional S&MS requirements and strategies such as defined failure tolerances, margins, or analysis requirements. Instead, Providers are given latitude to propose their own strategies for meeting the fundamental S&MS performance objectives, subject to independent review and Acquirer approval. The result is a framework for S&MS assurance that is at once both rigorous and flexible.

Assurance Case↗
NASA NTRS1976

A distributed data base management capability for the deep space network

The Configuration Control and Audit Assembly (CCA) is reported that has been designed to provide a distributed data base management capability for the DSN. The CCA utilizes capabilities provided by the DSN standard minicomputer and the DSN standard nonreal time high level management oriented programming language, MBASIC. The characteristics of the CCA for the first phase of implementation are described.

Bryan, A. I.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Exposing Hidden Parts of the SE Process: MBSE Patterns and Tools for Tracking and Traceability

An interesting benefit of applying Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is that the rigor and coordination intrinsic to MBSE forces us to apply Systems Engineering to our own traditional activities, processes, and products, which results in richer, more expressive models, more powerful reasoning, and a clearer and more effective Systems Engineering (SE) process. Our MBSE frameworks and languages contain semantic richness sufficient to describe our systems at any particular point in time, often with an emphasis on the description of the system at major milestones. This is unarguably a real asset. However, when we apply MBSE in service of missions that are in development, rapidly evolving, of a larger scale, and where interpersonal communication is a critical part of the design process, we discover that our frameworks and languages are still not quite rich enough to enable us to ask the kinds of questions and get the kinds of answers we want in order to address the concerns of day to day work. This paper will discuss some patterns and tools we have developed to help address some of the not-always-explicit SE concerns that we have identified through our MBSE work. Particularly, this paper will discuss flexible yet practical methods for defining and capturing maturity, workflow, and agreement traceability within our system models, extensible ways to perform and track model audits, and ways to report and interact with this knowledge in the context of MBSE applied to support NASA’s Europa Project.

Jackson, Maddalena↗
NASA NTRS2016

Exposing Hidden Parts of the SE Process: MBSE Patterns and Tools for Tracking and Traceability

An interesting benefit of applying Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is that the rigor and coordination intrinsic to MBSE forces us to apply Systems Engineering to our own traditional activities, processes, and products, which results in richer, more expressive models, more powerful reasoning, and a clearer and more effective Systems Engineering (SE) process. Our MBSE frameworks and languages contain semantic richness sufficient to describe our systems at any particular point in time, often with an emphasis on the description of the system at major milestones. This is unarguably a real asset. However, when we apply MBSE in service of missions that are in development, rapidly evolving, of a larger scale, and where interpersonal communication is a critical part of the design process, we discover that our frameworks and languages are still not quite rich enough to enable us to ask the kinds of questions and get the kinds of answers we want in order to address the concerns of day to day work. This paper will discuss some patterns and tools we have developed to help address some of the not-always-explicit SE concerns that we have identified through our MBSE work. Particularly, this paper will discuss flexible yet practical methods for defining and capturing maturity, workflow, and agreement traceability within our system models, extensible ways to perform and track model audits, and ways to report and interact with this knowledge in the context of MBSE applied to support NASA’s Europa Project

Jackson, Maddalena↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Identifying Aspects of Positive Pilot Behavior within the Aviation Safety Reporting System

The National Airspace System (NAS) is constantly evolving as air traffic continues to ramp up to pre-pandemic numbers and projected to grow to unprecedented levels in the coming years. As well as increasing demand to the current system, emerging operations such as Unmanned Autonomous Systems are also expected to add to complexity in the airspace. To address these issues, the industry and government agencies supporting the NAS will need to rely upon additional automation and new technologies to address future operational requirements, while continuing to be a world-leading safe transportation system. As these new technologies are implemented, the system continues to rely on human pilots and controllers in the loop to monitor the system and intervene in situations the automation cannot handle. The goal of proactively addressing safety is of foremost concern to ensure passenger confidence. The industry has implemented various Safety Monitoring Systems to identify safety risks and proactively address them before they result in a serious incident or accident. One such program is the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). ASRS is a long-established system where pilots and controllers voluntarily and anonymously report safety incidents they experienced and observed during line operations by providing rich text narratives describing the events, the environment, and conditions leading to the safety event of concern. These narratives provide insight and context around events of interest and can be used to identify emerging problems. They can trigger investigations within Flight Operational Quality Assurance or Flight Data Monitoring programs. However, this process typically focuses on the adverse events and the unsafe aspects of the operations surrounding the reported or detected events. This perspective of investigating factors that went wrong around an adverse event is commonly referred to as Safety I. Alternatively, characterizing successful actions that operators perform every day under varying conditions that keep the system within safe operating bounds is a concept referred to as Safety II. The benefit of the Safety II view is that the scope is much larger than that of Safety I since a vast majority of the operations result in successful flights. Many of the successful techniques used to manage operational threats are not documented in standard operating procedures or taught during training. They are typically acquired over time by working with experienced pilots during line operations or in many cases after experiencing a problem for the first time and reacting to it in situ, drawing from years of experience to manage the threat. In an attempt to quantify these positive actions, we are proposing an approach to extracting key behaviors within ASRS reports that can support the Safety II concept. Our analysis assumes that ASRS reports contain some descriptions of corrective actions that operators performed to prevent a situation from leading to an accident. Leveraging recent advances in Natural Language Process modeling, we have developed an approach to extract positive sentiment from reports, embed these positive statements in a vector space where they can be numerically analyzed, and clustering these statements into similar contextual categories. From these contextualized categories we can attempt to summarized and distilled aspects of the positive behavior. The goal is to identify categories of behavior that describe consistent operator techniques that supports the Safety II concept. With this information, airlines may enable learning from these positive actions, or address procedures that need to be changed to avoid having pilots implement a workaround. These insights can provide a lens into what is “going right” in the operations that may otherwise not be known widely within the community. It is envisioned that this approach can be extended to other narrative programs such as Line Operation Safety Audit or Learning Improvement Team reports where similar observed behavior can be analyzed to extract positive actions and inform the overall operations.

NLP↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Identifying Aspects of Positive Pilot Behavior within the Aviation Safety Reporting System

The National Airspace System (NAS) is constantly evolving as air traffic continues to ramp up to pre-pandemic numbers and projected to grow to unprecedented levels in the coming years. As well as increasing demand to the current system, emerging operations such as Unmanned Autonomous Systems are also expected to add to complexity in the airspace. To address these issues, the industry and government agencies supporting the NAS will need to rely upon additional automation and new technologies to address future operational requirements, while continuing to be a world-leading safe transportation system. As these new technologies are implemented, the system continues to rely on human pilots and controllers in the loop to monitor the system and intervene in situations the automation cannot handle. The goal of proactively addressing safety is of foremost concern to ensure passenger confidence. The industry has implemented various Safety Monitoring Systems to identify safety risks and proactively address them before they result in a serious incident or accident. One such program is the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). ASRS is a long-established system where pilots and controllers voluntarily and anonymously report safety incidents they experienced and observed during line operations by providing rich text narratives describing the events, the environment, and conditions leading to the safety event of concern. These narratives provide insight and context around events of interest and can be used to identify emerging problems. They can trigger investigations within Flight Operational Quality Assurance or Flight Data Monitoring programs. However, this process typically focuses on the adverse events and the unsafe aspects of the operations surrounding the reported or detected events. This perspective of investigating factors that went wrong around an adverse event is commonly referred to as Safety I. Alternatively, characterizing successful actions that operators perform every day under varying conditions that keep the system within safe operating bounds is a concept referred to as Safety II. The benefit of the Safety II view is that the scope is much larger than that of Safety I since a vast majority of the operations result in successful flights. Many of the successful techniques used to manage operational threats are not documented in standard operating procedures or taught during training. They are typically acquired over time by working with experienced pilots during line operations or in many cases after experiencing a problem for the first time and reacting to it in situ, drawing from years of experience to manage the threat. In an attempt to quantify these positive actions, we are proposing an approach to extracting key behaviors within ASRS reports that can support the Safety II concept. Our analysis assumes that ASRS reports contain some descriptions of corrective actions that operators performed to prevent a situation from leading to an accident. Leveraging recent advances in Natural Language Process modeling, we have developed an approach to extract positive sentiment from reports, embed these positive statements in a vector space where they can be numerically analyzed, and clustering these statements into similar contextual categories. From these contextualized categories we can attempt to summarized and distilled aspects of the positive behavior. The goal is to identify categories of behavior that describe consistent operator techniques that supports the Safety II concept. With this information, airlines may enable learning from these positive actions, or address procedures that need to be changed to avoid having pilots implement a workaround. These insights can provide a lens into what is “going right” in the operations that may otherwise not be known widely within the community. It is envisioned that this approach can be extended to other narrative programs such as Line Operation Safety Audit or Learning Improvement Team reports where similar observed behavior can be analyzed to extract positive actions and inform the overall operations.

NLP↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Identifying Aspects of Positive Pilot Behavior within the Aviation Safety Reporting System

The National Airspace System (NAS) is constantly evolving as air traffic continues to ramp up to pre-pandemic numbers and projected to grow to unprecedented levels in the coming years. As well as increasing demand to the current system, emerging operations such as Unmanned Autonomous Systems are also expected to add to complexity in the airspace. To address these issues, the industry and government agencies supporting the NAS will need to rely upon additional automation and new technologies to address future operational requirements, while continuing to be a world-leading safe transportation system. As these new technologies are implemented, the system continues to rely on human pilots and controllers in the loop to monitor the system and intervene in situations the automation cannot handle. The goal of proactively addressing safety is of foremost concern to ensure passenger confidence. The industry has implemented various Safety Monitoring Systems to identify safety risks and proactively address them before they result in a serious incident or accident. One such program is the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). ASRS is a long-established system where pilots and controllers voluntarily and anonymously report safety incidents they experienced and observed during line operations by providing rich text narratives describing the events, the environment, and conditions leading to the safety event of concern. These narratives provide insight and context around events of interest and can be used to identify emerging problems. They can trigger investigations within Flight Operational Quality Assurance or Flight Data Monitoring programs. However, this process typically focuses on the adverse events and the unsafe aspects of the operations surrounding the reported or detected events. This perspective of investigating factors that went wrong around an adverse event is commonly referred to as Safety I. Alternatively, characterizing successful actions that operators perform every day under varying conditions that keep the system within safe operating bounds is a concept referred to as Safety II. The benefit of the Safety II view is that the scope is much larger than that of Safety I since a vast majority of the operations result in successful flights. Many of the successful techniques used to manage operational threats are not documented in standard operating procedures or taught during training. They are typically acquired over time by working with experienced pilots during line operations or in many cases after experiencing a problem for the first time and reacting to it in situ, drawing from years of experience to manage the threat. In an attempt to quantify these positive actions, we are proposing an approach to extracting key behaviors within ASRS reports that can support the Safety II concept. Our analysis assumes that ASRS reports contain some descriptions of corrective actions that operators performed to prevent a situation from leading to an accident. Leveraging recent advances in Natural Language Process modeling, we have developed an approach to extract positive sentiment from reports, embed these positive statements in a vector space where they can be numerically analyzed, and clustering these statements into similar contextual categories. From these contextualized categories we can attempt to summarized and distilled aspects of the positive behavior. The goal is to identify categories of behavior that describe consistent operator techniques that supports the Safety II concept. With this information, airlines may enable learning from these positive actions, or address procedures that need to be changed to avoid having pilots implement a workaround. These insights can provide a lens into what is “going right” in the operations that may otherwise not be known widely within the community. It is envisioned that this approach can be extended to other narrative programs such as Line Operation Safety Audit or Learning Improvement Team reports where similar observed behavior can be analyzed to extract positive actions and inform the overall operations.

NLP↗
NASA NTRS2004

The Office of Inspector General (OIG)

The NASA Office of Inspector General is the Federal Law Enforcement Agency at NASA which conducts criminal and regulatory investigations in which NASA is a victim. The OIG prevents and detects crime, fiaud, waste and abuse and assists NASA management in promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in its programs and operations. Investigations (OI) and the Office of Audits (OA). The investigations side deals with criminal Investigations, administrative investigations, and civil investigations. The Audits side deals with inspections and assessments as well as the Auditing of NASA Programs and Activities. Our mission at the OIG is to conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and investigations relating to agency programs and operations; to promote economy, effectiveness and efficiency within the agency; to prevent and detect crime, fraud, waste and abuse in agency programs and operations; to review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to agency programs and operations. We are also responsible for keeping the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems in agency programs and operations. deal with False Claims, False Statements, Conspiracy, Theft, Computer Crime, Mail Fraud, the Procurement Integrity Act, the Anti-Kickback Act, as well as noncompliance with NASA Management Instructions, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Most of the casework that is dealt with in our office is generated through gum shoe work or cases that we generate on our own. These cases can come from Law Enforcement Referrals, GIDEP Reports, EPlMS (NASA Quality System), Defense Contract Audit Agency, Newspaper Articles, and Confidential Information. In many cases, confidentiality is the biggest factor to informants coming forward. We are able to maintain confidentiality because the 01 is independent of NASA Management and doesn t report to the Center Directors, therefore the informant s mangers and supervisors are unaware of the informants actions. The only time when an informant s confidentiality may be compromised is when it is needed in a Court of Law and is released through a Judicial Court Order. During my tenure here at the NASA OIG/OI at Glenn Research Center, I have been involved in many different tasks. They have ranged from updating Suspected Unapproved Parts case files to independently interviewing NASA employees to turn up general background information. The 01 has the duty of informing NASA aeronautical safety managers of potential Nonconforming products. My mission is to compile a database of Nonconformance reports for distribution. The background information that I turn up from my interviews is then used to determine NASA s susceptibility to acceptance of unapproved parts. The IG organization is divided up into two separate disciplines, the Office of 01 investigations primarily focus on violations of Federal laws. Some of these violations

Macisco, Christopher A.↗
NASA NTRS2002

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Fiscal Year 2001 Accountability Report

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is an independent Agency established to plan and manage the future of the Nation's civil aeronautics and space program. This Accountability Report covers Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 (October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2001), with discussion of some subsequent events. The Report contains an overview addressing the Agency's critical programs and financial performance and includes highlights of performance organized by goals and objectives of the Enterprises and Crosscutting Processes. The Report also summarizes NASA's stewardship over budget and financial resources, including audited financial statements and footnotes. The financial statements reflect an overall position of offices and activities, including assets and liabilities, as well as results of operations, pursuant to requirements of Federal law (31 U.S.C. 3515(b)). The auditor's opinions on NASA's financial statements, reports on internal controls, and compliance with laws and regulations are included in this report.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2001

National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2001 Accountability Report

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is an independent Agency established to plan and manage the future of the Nation's civil aeronautics and space program. This Accountability Report covers Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 (October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2001), with discussion of some subsequent events The Report contains an overview addressing the Agency's critical programs and financial performance and includes highlights of performance organized by goals and objectives of the Enterprises and Crosscutting Processes. The Report also summarizes NASA's stewardship over budget and financial resources, including audited financial statements and footnotes. The financial statements reflect an overall position of offices and activities, including assets and liabilities, as well as results of operations, pursuant to requirements of Federal law (31 U.S.C. 3515(b)). The auditor's opinions on NASA's financial statements, reports on internal controls, and compliance with laws and regulations are included in this Report.

Source record↗