Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Programmatic safety requirements”

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 NTRS1996

Analysis of microgravity space experiments Space Shuttle programmatic safety requirements

This report documents the results of an analysis of microgravity space experiments space shuttle programmatic safety requirements and recommends the creation of a Safety Compliance Data Package (SCDP) Template for both flight and ground processes. These templates detail the programmatic requirements necessary to produce a complete SCDP. The templates were developed from various NASA centers' requirement documents, previously written guidelines on safety data packages, and from personal experiences. The templates are included in the back as part of this report.

Terlep, Judith A.↗
NASA NTRS2016

The NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Mission Assurance Process

In 2010, NASA established the Commercial Crew Program in order to provide human access to the International Space Station and low earth orbit via the commercial (non-governmental) sector. A particular challenge to NASA has been how to determine the commercial providers transportation system complies with Programmatic safety requirements. The process used in this determination is the Safety Technical Review Board which reviews and approves provider submitted Hazard Reports. One significant product of the review is a set of hazard control verifications. In past NASA programs, 100 percent of these safety critical verifications were typically confirmed by NASA. The traditional Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) model does not support the nature of the Commercial Crew Program. To that end, NASA SMA is implementing a Risk Based Assurance (RBA) process to determine which hazard control verifications require NASA authentication. Additionally, a Shared Assurance Model is also being developed to efficiently use the available resources to execute the verifications. This paper will describe the evolution of the CCP Mission Assurance process from the beginning of the Program to its current incarnation. Topics to be covered include a short history of the CCP; the development of the Programmatic mission assurance requirements; the current safety review process; a description of the RBA process and its products and ending with a description of the Shared Assurance Model.

Commercial Crew Program↗
NASA NTRS2014

The NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Shared Assurance Model for Safety

NASA established the Commercial Crew Program in order to provide human access to the International Space Station and low earth orbit via the commercial (nongovernmental) sector. A particular challenge to NASA is how to determine the commercial provider's transportation system complies with Programmatic safety requirements while at the same time allowing the provider the flexibility to demonstrate compliance. This will be accomplished through the use of Shared Assurance and Risk Based Assessment by NASA thus shifting more responsibility to the Provider. This model will be the focus of this presentation.

Programmatic safety requirements↗
NASA NTRS2016

The Evolution of the NASA Commercial Crew Program Mission Assurance Process

In 2010, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) established the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) in order to provide human access to the International Space Station and low Earth orbit via the commercial (non-governmental) sector. A particular challenge to NASA has been how to determine that the Commercial Provider's transportation system complies with programmatic safety requirements. The process used in this determination is the Safety Technical Review Board which reviews and approves provider submitted hazard reports. One significant product of the review is a set of hazard control verifications. In past NASA programs, 100% of these safety critical verifications were typically confirmed by NASA. The traditional Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) model does not support the nature of the CCP. To that end, NASA S&MA is implementing a Risk Based Assurance process to determine which hazard control verifications require NASA authentication. Additionally, a Shared Assurance Model is also being developed to efficiently use the available resources to execute the verifications.

Mission Assurance↗
NASA NTRS2015

Commercial Crew Program Crew Safety Strategy

The purpose of this presentation is to explain to our international partners (ESA and JAXA) how NASA is implementing crew safety onto our commercial partners under the Commercial Crew Program. It will show them the overall strategy of 1) how crew safety boundaries have been established; 2) how Human Rating requirements have been flown down into programmatic requirements and over into contracts and partner requirements; 3) how CCP SMA has assessed CCP Certification and CoFR strategies against Shuttle baselines; 4) Discuss how Risk Based Assessment (RBA) and Shared Assurance is used to accomplish these strategies.

Crew Safety↗
NASA NTRS2000

Software IV and V Research Priorities and Applied Program Accomplishments Within NASA

The mission of this research is to be world-class creators and facilitators of innovative, intelligent, high performance, reliable information technologies that enable NASA missions to (1) increase software safety and quality through error avoidance, early detection and resolution of errors, by utilizing and applying empirically based software engineering best practices; (2) ensure customer software risks are identified and/or that requirements are met and/or exceeded; (3) research, develop, apply, verify, and publish software technologies for competitive advantage and the advancement of science; and (4) facilitate the transfer of science and engineering data, methods, and practices to NASA, educational institutions, state agencies, and commercial organizations. The goals are to become a national Center Of Excellence (COE) in software and system independent verification and validation, and to become an international leading force in the field of software engineering for improving the safety, quality, reliability, and cost performance of software systems. This project addresses the following problems: Ensure safety of NASA missions, ensure requirements are met, minimize programmatic and technological risks of software development and operations, improve software quality, reduce costs and time to delivery, and improve the science of software engineering

Blazy, Louis J.↗
NASA NTRS1993

NASA safety program activities in support of the Space Exploration Initiatives Nuclear Propulsion program

The activities of the joint NASA/DOE/DOD Nuclear Propulsion Program Technical Panels have been used as the basis for the current development of safety policies and requirements for the Space Exploration Initiatives (SEI) Nuclear Propulsion Technology development program. The Safety Division of the NASA Office of Safety and Mission Quality has initiated efforts to develop policies for the safe use of nuclear propulsion in space through involvement in the joint agency Nuclear Safety Policy Working Group (NSPWG), encouraged expansion of the initial policy development into proposed programmatic requirements, and suggested further expansion into the overall risk assessment and risk management process for the NASA Exploration Program. Similar efforts are underway within the Department of Energy to ensure the safe development and testing of nuclear propulsion systems on Earth. This paper describes the NASA safety policy related to requirements for the design of systems that may operate where Earth re-entry is a possibility. The expected plan of action is to support and oversee activities related to the technology development of nuclear propulsion in space, and support the overall safety and risk management program being developed for the NASA Exploration Program.

Sawyer, J. C., Jr.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

X-57 Static Structural Requirements and Airworthiness Approach

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) (Edwards, California, U.S.A.) has been flying various types of aircraft, including experimental ones requiring structural modifications. Many of these aircraft aren’t typically certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the Department of Defense (DoD), but NASA can provide its own airworthiness certification utilizing a riskbased approach. The AFRC has established review processes and procedures to identify hazards, manage risks associated with flight programs, ensure safe flight operations, and satisfy programmatic requirements. The Aerostructures Branch at AFRC developed guidelines for the structural safety of flight, covering experimental aircraft, new components, payloads, and modifications. These guidelines detail structural design, analysis, instrumentation, ground testing, and flight-test operational aspects. The guidelines are followed for defining the airworthiness plan throughout the life cycle of a project. The guidelines can be tailored to the risk posture of each individual project. This paper documents the details of the structural airworthiness plan for the X-57 aircraft, including existing, modified, and newly developed structures. Additionally, it covers the design requirements and load cases specific to the X-57 aircraft.

Wesley W. Li↗
NASA NTRS2004

Assessment and Control of Spacecraft Charging Risks on the International Space Station

The International Space Station (ISS) operates in the F2 region of Earth's ionosphere, orbiting at altitudes ranging from 350 to 450 km at an inclination of 51.6 degrees. The relatively dense, cool F2 ionospheric plasma suppresses surface charging processes much of the time, and the flux of relativistic electrons is low enough to preclude deep dielectric charging processes. The most important spacecraft charging processes in the ISS orbital environment are: 1) ISS electrical power system interactions with the F2 plasma, 2) magnetic induction processes resulting from flight through the geomagnetic field and, 3) charging processes that result from interaction with auroral electrons at high latitude. Recently, the continuing review and evaluation of putative ISS charging hazards required by the ISS Program Office revealed that ISS charging could produce an electrical shock hazard to the ISS crew during extravehicular activity (EVA). ISS charging risks are being evaluated in an ongoing measurement and analysis campaign. The results of ISS charging measurements are combined with a recently developed model of ISS charging (the Plasma Interaction Model) and an exhaustive analysis of historical ionospheric variability data (ISS Ionospheric Specification) to evaluate ISS charging risks using Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) methods. The PRA combines estimates of the frequency of occurrence and severity of the charging hazards with estimates of the reliability of various hazard controls systems, as required by NASA s safety and risk management programs, to enable design and selection of a hazard control approach that minimizes overall programmatic and personnel risk. The PRA provides a quantitative methodology for incorporating the results of the ISS charging measurement and analysis campaigns into the necessary hazard reports, EVA procedures, and ISS flight rules required for operating ISS in a safe and productive manner.

Koontz, Steve↗
NASA NTRS2001

Phase 1 Space Fission Propulsion System Design Considerations

Fission technology can enable rapid, affordable access to any point in the solar system. If fission propulsion systems are to be developed to their full potential; however, near-term customers must be identified and initial fission systems successfully developed, launched, and operated. Studies conducted in fiscal year 2001 (IISTP, 2001) show that fission electric propulsion (FEP) systems operating at 80 kWe or above could enhance or enable numerous robotic outer solar system missions of interest. At these power levels it is possible to develop safe, affordable systems that meet mission performance requirements. In selecting the system design to pursue, seven evaluation criteria were identified: safety, reliability, testability, specific mass, cost, schedule, and programmatic risk. A top-level comparison of three potential concepts was performed: an SP-100 based pumped liquid lithium system, a direct gas cooled system, and a heatpipe cooled system. For power levels up to at least 500 kWt (enabling electric power levels of 125-175 kWe, given 25-35% power conversion efficiency) the heatpipe system has advantages related to several criteria and is competitive with respect to all. Hardware-based research and development has further increased confidence in the heatpipe approach. Successful development and utilization of a "Phase 1" fission electric propulsion system will enable advanced Phase 2 and Phase 3 systems capable of providing rapid, affordable access to any point in the solar system.

Houts, Mike↗
NASA NTRS2022

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportuni-ties for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Oÿce of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamina-tion, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR com-munity will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Elaine Seasly↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportunities for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamination, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR community will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Planetary Protection↗
NASA NTRS2022

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportunities for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamination, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR community will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Elaine Seasly↗
NASA NTRS2002

Phase 1 Space Fission Propulsion Energy Source Design

Fission technology can enable rapid, affordable access to any point in the solar system. If fission propulsion systems are to be developed to their full potential; however, near-term customers must be identified and initial fission systems successfully developed, launched, and operated. Studies conducted in fiscal year 2001 (IISTP, 2001) show that fission electric propulsion (FEP) systems with a specific mass at or below 50 kg/kWjet could enhance or enable numerous robotic outer solar system missions of interest. At the required specific mass, it is possible to develop safe, affordable systems that meet mission requirements. To help select the system design to pursue, eight evaluation criteria were identified: system integration, safety, reliability, testability, specific mass, cost, schedule, and programmatic risk. A top-level comparison of four potential concepts was performed: a Testable, Passive, Redundant Reactor (TPRR), a Testable Multi-Cell In-Core Thermionic Reactor (TMCT), a Direct Gas Cooled Reactor (DGCR), and a Pumped Liquid Metal Reactor.(PLMR). Development of any of the four systems appears feasible. However, for power levels up to at least 500 kWt (enabling electric power levels of 125-175 kWe, given 25-35% power conversion efficiency) the TPRR has advantages related to several criteria and is competitive with respect to all. Hardware-based research and development has further increased confidence in the TPRR approach. Successful development and utilization of a "Phase I" fission electric propulsion system will enable advanced Phase 2 and Phase 3 systems capable of providing rapid, affordable access to any point in the solar system.

Houts, Mike↗
NASA NTRS2007

Comprehensive Shuttle Foam Debris Reduction Strategies

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) was clear in its assessment of the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia on February 3, 2003. Foam liberated from the External Tank (ET) impacting the brittle wing leading edge (WLE) of the orbiter causing the vehicle to disintegrate upon re-entry. Naturally, the CAB pointed out numerous issues affecting this exact outcome in hopes of correcting systems of systems failures any one of which might have altered the outcome. However, Discovery s recent return to flight (RTF) illustrates the primacy of erosion of foam and the risk of future undesirable outcomes. It is obvious that the original RTF focused approach to this problem was not equal to a comprehensive foam debris reduction activity consistent with the high national value of the Space Shuttle assets. The root cause is really very simple when looking at the spray-on foam insulation for the entire ET as part of the structure (e.g., actual stresses > materials allowable) rather than as some sort of sizehime limited ablator. This step is paramount to accepting the CAB recommendation of eliminating debris or in meeting any level of requirements due to the fundamental processes ensuring structural materials maintain their integrity. Significant effort has been expended to identify root cause of the foam debris In-Flight Anomaly (FA) of STS-114. Absent verifiable location specific data pre-launch (T-0) and in-flight, only a most probable cause can be identified. Indeed, the literature researched corroborates NASNTM-2004-2 13238 disturbing description of ill defined materials characterization, variable supplier constituents and foam processing irregularities. Also, foam is sensitive to age and the exposed environment making baseline comparisons difficult without event driven data. Conventional engineering processes account for such naturally occurring variability by always maintaining positive margins. Success in a negative margin range is not consistently achieved. Looking at the ET S spray-on foam insulation as part of the structural system (e.g., glass half full mentality) will create an environment where ET debris levels as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) can be realized. ALARA is a NASA requirements philosophy deployed for the complex, mission altering radiation exposure requirements for life safety of astronauts. In the Shuttle s case, reasonableness is established by exhaustive engineering rigor, allowable debris size/quantity, technology maturity and programmatic constraints. A more robust urethane foam thermal protection system (TPS) will enhance the hctionality of the new Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) Upper Stage. This paper will outline the strategy for a comprehensive effort to reduce ET foam debris and outline steps leading to an improved foam TPS. The NASA must remain committed to such an approach no matter what becomes of the next flight s actual debris field lest we fall back into a false sense of security. This commitment along with full implementation of all the other CAB recommendations such as orbiter hardening will significantly improve the Shuttle system, the engineering workforce, future capabilities & alternate policy offramps, national human resource protection, high value national asset protection and increase the level of service to the overall NASA mission.

Semmes, Edmund B.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Designing for human presence in space: An introduction to environmental control and life support systems

Human exploration and utilization of space requires habitats to provide appropriate conditions for working and living. These conditions are provided by environmental control and life support systems (ECLSS) that ensure appropriate atmosphere composition, pressure, and temperature; manage and distribute water, process waste matter, provide fire detection and suppression; and other functions as necessary. The functions that are performed by ECLSS are described and basic information necessary to design an ECLSS is provided. Technical and programmatic aspects of designing and developing ECLSS for space habitats are described including descriptions of technologies, analysis methods, test requirements, program organization, documentation requirements, and the requirements imposed by medical, mission, safety, and system needs. The design and development process is described from initial trade studies through system-level analyses to support operation. ECLSS needs for future space habitats are also described. Extensive listings of references and related works provide sources for more detailed information on each aspect of ECLSS design and development.

Wieland, Paul↗
NASA NTRS2010

Current Trends in Satellite Laser Ranging

Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) techniques are used to accurately measure the distance from ground stations to retroreflectors on satellites and the moon. SLR is one of the fundamental techniques that define the international Terrestrial Reference Frame (iTRF), which is the basis upon which we measure many aspects of global change over space, time, and evolving technology. It is one of the fundamental techniques that define at a level of precision of a few mm the origin and scale of the ITRF. Laser Ranging provides precision orbit determination and instrument calibration/validation for satellite-borne altimeters for the better understanding of sea level change, ocean dynamics, ice budget, and terrestrial topography. Laser ranging is also a tool to study the dynamics of the Moon and fundamental constants. Many of the GNSS satellites now carry retro-reflectors for improved orbit determination, harmonization of reference frames, and in-orbit co-location and system performance validation. The GNSS Constellations will be the means of making the reference frame available to worldwide users. Data and products from these measurements support key aspects of the GEOSS 10-Year implementation Plan adopted on February 16, 2005, The ITRF has been identified as a key contribution of the JAG to GEOSS and the ILRS makes a major contribution for its development since its foundation. The ILRS delivers weekly additional realizations that are accumulated sequentially to extend the ITRF and the Earth Orientation Parameter (EOP) series with a daily resolution. Additional products are currently under development such as precise orbits of satellites, EOP with daily availability, low-degree gravitational harmonics for studies of Earth dynamics and kinematics, etc. SLR technology continues to evolve toward the next generation laser ranging systems as programmatic requirements become more stringent. Ranging accuracy is improving as higher repetition rate, narrower pulse lasers and faster detectors are implemented. Automation and pass interleaving at some stations is already expanding temporal coverage. Web-based safety keys are allowing the SLR network stations to range to optically vulnerable satellites. Some stations are experimenting with two-wavelength operation as a means of better understanding the atmospheric refraction and with very low power laser to improve eye-safety conditions. New retroreflector designs are improving the signal link and enable daylight ranging. Dramatic improvements have also been made with lunar ranging with the new APOLLO Site in New ?Mexico, USA and the upgraded lunar station "MEO" in Grasse,

Pearlman, M. R.↗
NASA NTRS1993

'Emerging technologies for the changing global market' - Prioritization methodology for chemical replacement

This project served to define an appropriate methodology for effective prioritization of technology efforts required to develop replacement technologies mandated by imposed and forecast legislation. The methodology used is a semiquantitative approach derived from quality function deployment techniques (QFD Matrix). This methodology aims to weight the full environmental, cost, safety, reliability, and programmatic implications of replacement technology development to allow appropriate identification of viable candidates and programmatic alternatives. The results will be implemented as a guideline for consideration for current NASA propulsion systems.

Cruit, Wendy↗