Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Software trust”

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 NTRS2013

NASA Software Engineering Benchmarking Study

To identify best practices for the improvement of software engineering on projects, NASA's Offices of Chief Engineer (OCE) and Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) formed a team led by Heather Rarick and Sally Godfrey to conduct this benchmarking study. The primary goals of the study are to identify best practices that: Improve the management and technical development of software intensive systems; Have a track record of successful deployment by aerospace industries, universities [including research and development (R&D) laboratories], and defense services, as well as NASA's own component Centers; and Identify candidate solutions for NASA's software issues. Beginning in the late fall of 2010, focus topics were chosen and interview questions were developed, based on the NASA top software challenges. Between February 2011 and November 2011, the Benchmark Team interviewed a total of 18 organizations, consisting of five NASA Centers, five industry organizations, four defense services organizations, and four university or university R and D laboratory organizations. A software assurance representative also participated in each of the interviews to focus on assurance and software safety best practices. Interviewees provided a wealth of information on each topic area that included: software policy, software acquisition, software assurance, testing, training, maintaining rigor in small projects, metrics, and use of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, as well as a number of special topics that came up in the discussions. NASA's software engineering practices compared favorably with the external organizations in most benchmark areas, but in every topic, there were ways in which NASA could improve its practices. Compared to defense services organizations and some of the industry organizations, one of NASA's notable weaknesses involved communication with contractors regarding its policies and requirements for acquired software. One of NASA's strengths was its software assurance practices, which seemed to rate well in comparison to the other organizational groups and also seemed to include a larger scope of activities. An unexpected benefit of the software benchmarking study was the identification of many opportunities for collaboration in areas including metrics, training, sharing of CMMI experiences and resources such as instructors and CMMI Lead Appraisers, and even sharing of assets such as documented processes. A further unexpected benefit of the study was the feedback on NASA practices that was received from some of the organizations interviewed. From that feedback, other potential areas where NASA could improve were highlighted, such as accuracy of software cost estimation and budgetary practices. The detailed report contains discussion of the practices noted in each of the topic areas, as well as a summary of observations and recommendations from each of the topic areas. The resulting 24 recommendations from the topic areas were then consolidated to eliminate duplication and culled into a set of 14 suggested actionable recommendations. This final set of actionable recommendations, listed below, are items that can be implemented to improve NASA's software engineering practices and to help address many of the items that were listed in the NASA top software engineering issues. 1. Develop and implement standard contract language for software procurements. 2. Advance accurate and trusted software cost estimates for both procured and in-house software and improve the capture of actual cost data to facilitate further improvements. 3. Establish a consistent set of objectives and expectations, specifically types of metrics at the Agency level, so key trends and models can be identified and used to continuously improve software processes and each software development effort. 4. Maintain the CMMI Maturity Level requirement for critical NASA projects and use CMMI to measure organizations developing software for NASA. 5.onsolidate, collect and, if needed, develop common processes principles and other assets across the Agency in order to provide more consistency in software development and acquisition practices and to reduce the overall cost of maintaining or increasing current NASA CMMI maturity levels. 6. Provide additional support for small projects that includes: (a) guidance for appropriate tailoring of requirements for small projects, (b) availability of suitable tools, including support tool set-up and training, and (c) training for small project personnel, assurance personnel and technical authorities on the acceptable options for tailoring requirements and performing assurance on small projects. 7. Develop software training classes for the more experienced software engineers using on-line training, videos, or small separate modules of training that can be accommodated as needed throughout a project. 8. Create guidelines to structure non-classroom training opportunities such as mentoring, peer reviews, lessons learned sessions, and on-the-job training. 9. Develop a set of predictive software defect data and a process for assessing software testing metric data against it. 10. Assess Agency-wide licenses for commonly used software tools. 11. Fill the knowledge gap in common software engineering practices for new hires and co-ops.12. Work through the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) program with universities in strengthening education in the use of common software engineering practices and standards. 13. Follow up this benchmark study with a deeper look into what both internal and external organizations perceive as the scope of software assurance, the value they expect to obtain from it, and the shortcomings they experience in the current practice. 14. Continue interactions with external software engineering environment through collaborations, knowledge sharing, and benchmarking.

Rarick, Heather L.↗
NASA NTRS2021

Trust in Collaborative Automation in High Stakes Software Engineering Work

The amount of autonomy in software engineering tools is increasing as developers build increasingly complex systems. Research in other domains shows that too much or too little trust in autonomous tools can have negative consequences, but we are not aware of any study that has investigated trust in autonomous tools in the highly interactive context of a software engineering workplace. We present the results of a ten week ethnographic case study of engineers collaborating with autonomous tools to write flight software at a large national space exploration organization to support high stakes missions. We find that trust in an autonomous software engineering tool in this setting was influenced by four main factors: the tool’s transparency, social context, an organization’s associated processes, and its usability. We outline theoretical implications for future research into trust in autonomous software engineering tools, and practical implications for tool designers and organizations conducting high stakes work with autonomous tools.

Davidoff, Scott↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space ROS TOFU: Flying Space ROS with Containerized Hybrid Trust

Space ROS is a distribution of Robot Operating System 2 (ROS2) targeting the specific requirements of flight software and spaceborne robotics while maintaining the flexibility that has made ROS indispensible for robotics research and industrial system integration. With Space ROS, a project can leverage the existing ROS2 ecosystem to reduce redundant development while tackling increasingly complex demands for on-device intelligence; however, there is no substitute for flight heritage to combat the risk-aversion common to spaceflight projects, and Space ROS has yet to fly. To break the collective-action standoff and gain valuable flight experience, the Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy (DSA) team at NASA Ames Research Center developed Opportunistic Software Experiments for Spacecraft Autonomy Testbeds (OSE-SAT) architecture, utilizing containerization to execute lower-trust software under traditionally verified heritage flight software for demonstration on-orbit. OSE-SAT leverages a hybrid-trust model where flexible, complex components like Space ROS can run without risk to the host spacecraft while providing validated feedback to a highly scrutinized, trusted core. We leverage this testbed to demonstrate Space ROS in flight, building heritage, and experience for projects with "Trust On First Use" (TOFU) requirements for flight heritage. We present a Space ROS component for OSE-SAT, lessons learned integrating Space ROS into a flight software stack, and the results of the first known use of Space ROS in orbit.

small satellites↗
NASA NTRS2006

Leveraging Existing Mission Tools in a Re-Usable, Component-Based Software Environment

Emerging methods in component-based software development offer significant advantages but may seem incompatible with existing mission operations applications. In this paper we relate our positive experiences integrating existing mission applications into component-based tools we are delivering to three missions. In most operations environments, a number of software applications have been integrated together to form the mission operations software. In contrast, with component-based software development chunks of related functionality and data structures, referred to as components, can be individually delivered, integrated and re-used. With the advent of powerful tools for managing component-based development, complex software systems can potentially see significant benefits in ease of integration, testability and reusability from these techniques. These benefits motivate us to ask how component-based development techniques can be relevant in a mission operations environment, where there is significant investment in software tools that are not component-based and may not be written in languages for which component-based tools even exist. Trusted and complex software tools for sequencing, validation, navigation, and other vital functions cannot simply be re-written or abandoned in order to gain the advantages offered by emerging component-based software techniques. Thus some middle ground must be found. We have faced exactly this issue, and have found several solutions. Ensemble is an open platform for development, integration, and deployment of mission operations software that we are developing. Ensemble itself is an extension of an open source, component-based software development platform called Eclipse. Due to the advantages of component-based development, we have been able to vary rapidly develop mission operations tools for three surface missions by mixing and matching from a common set of mission operation components. We have also had to determine how to integrate existing mission applications for sequence development, sequence validation, and high level activity planning, and other functions into a component-based environment. For each of these, we used a somewhat different technique based upon the structure and usage of the existing application.

Greene, Kevin↗
NASA NTRS1995

Metrics and Benchmarks for Visualization

What is a "good" visualization? How can the quality of a visualization be measured? How can one tell whether one visualization is "better" than another? I claim that the true quality of a visualization can only be measured in the context of a particular purpose. The same image generated from the same data may be excellent for one purpose and abysmal for another. A good measure of visualization quality will correspond to the performance of users in accomplishing the intended purpose, so the "gold standard" is user testing. As a user of visualization software (or at least a consultant to such users) I don't expect visualization software to have been tested in this way for every possible use. In fact, scientific visualization (as distinct from more "production oriented" uses of visualization) will continually encounter new data, new questions and new purposes; user testing can never keep up. User need software they can trust, and advice on appropriate visualizations of particular purposes. Considering the following four processes, and their impact on visualization trustworthiness, reveals important work needed to create worthwhile metrics and benchmarks for visualization. These four processes are (1) complete system testing (user-in-loop), (2) software testing, (3) software design and (4) information dissemination. Additional information is contained in the original extended abstract.

Uselton, Samuel P.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Space Shuttle Software Development and Certification

Man-rated software, "software which is in control of systems and environments upon which human life is critically dependent," must be highly reliable. The Space Shuttle Primary Avionics Software System is an excellent example of such a software system. Lessons learn from more than 20 years of effort have identified basic elements that must be present to achieve this high degree of reliability. The elements include rigorous application of appropriate software development processes, use of trusted tools to support those processes, quantitative process management, and defect elimination and prevention. This presentation highlights methods used within the Space Shuttle project and raises questions that must be addressed to provide similar success in a cost effective manner on future long-term projects where key application development tools are COTS rather than internally developed custom application development tools

Orr, James K.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Information Security and Integrity Systems

Viewgraphs from the Information Security and Integrity Systems seminar held at the University of Houston-Clear Lake on May 15-16, 1990 are presented. A tutorial on computer security is presented. The goals of this tutorial are the following: to review security requirements imposed by government and by common sense; to examine risk analysis methods to help keep sight of forest while in trees; to discuss the current hot topic of viruses (which will stay hot); to examine network security, now and in the next year to 30 years; to give a brief overview of encryption; to review protection methods in operating systems; to review database security problems; to review the Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (Orange Book); to comment on formal verification methods; to consider new approaches (like intrusion detection and biometrics); to review the old, low tech, and still good solutions; and to give pointers to the literature and to where to get help. Other topics covered include security in software applications and development; risk management; trust: formal methods and associated techniques; secure distributed operating system and verification; trusted Ada; a conceptual model for supporting a B3+ dynamic multilevel security and integrity in the Ada runtime environment; and information intelligence sciences.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2012

Intelligent Data Visualization for Cross-Checking Spacecraft System Diagnosis

Any reasoning system is fallible, so crew members and flight controllers must be able to cross-check automated diagnoses of spacecraft or habitat problems by considering alternate diagnoses and analyzing related evidence. Cross-checking improves diagnostic accuracy because people can apply information processing heuristics, pattern recognition techniques, and reasoning methods that the automated diagnostic system may not possess. Over time, cross-checking also enables crew members to become comfortable with how the diagnostic reasoning system performs, so the system can earn the crew s trust. We developed intelligent data visualization software that helps users cross-check automated diagnoses of system faults more effectively. The user interface displays scrollable arrays of timelines and time-series graphs, which are tightly integrated with an interactive, color-coded system schematic to show important spatial-temporal data patterns. Signal processing and rule-based diagnostic reasoning automatically identify alternate hypotheses and data patterns that support or rebut the original and alternate diagnoses. A color-coded matrix display summarizes the supporting or rebutting evidence for each diagnosis, and a drill-down capability enables crew members to quickly view graphs and timelines of the underlying data. This system demonstrates that modest amounts of diagnostic reasoning, combined with interactive, information-dense data visualizations, can accelerate system diagnosis and cross-checking.

Ong, James C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Capabilities Assessments for Autonomous Missions: A Multi-Team Research Effort to Reduce Risk in the Human-System Integration Architecture for Future Deep-Space Missions

In future exploration missions beyond low earth-orbit, crew will have to execute complex operations and respond to off-nominal events, without real-time support from Mission Control. It is anticipated that increased reliance on automated systems, including human-centric vehicle and information architecture, will need to be designed to support the crew; increased risk to performance, health, and safety may occur if these are not implemented appropriately. The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element (HFBP) in the NASA Human Research Program supports research to characterize and mitigate such human health and performance risks, including the Risk of Adverse Outcome Due to Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA). The HSIA risk addresses the integration of onboard capability and the crew roles and responsibilities necessary to enable the crew to respond effectively and efficiently in the increasingly autonomous mission operations environment. In 2017, HFBP released the “Human Capabilities Assessments for Autonomous Missions” (HCAAM) research topic to address HSIA related questions. HCAAM is a major NASA research effort that has assembled a multidisciplinary team from seven institutions to work closely with design and engineering efforts on research towards developing and refining human performance standards, guidelines and automation tools. The scientific focus is on quantitative assessment of human capabilities relevant to future deep-space missions during which earth/spacecraft communication is so delayed and intermittent that the crew must be able to function autonomously. The integrated strategy of the HCAAM project characterizes human capabilities and limitations related to potential performance decrements during long duration exploration mission spaceflight as relevant to both routine and complex task performance; defines system characteristics that reduce the likelihood or impact of potential decrements in human performance capabilities; performs integrated assessment of intelligent system responses within the context of an operational environment with relevant NASA tools, systems, and data structures in order to determine positive or negative interactions and validate recommended approaches; and proposes specific updates to existing standards and guidelines for inclusion in NASA handbooks for the design of future spacecraft intelligent systems that provide crew performance assessment/feedback, and to also serve as decision-support aids for the onboard crew (i.e., NASA-STD-3001, and NASA/SP-Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH)). The scientific research vectors being addressed by the seven HCAAM teams include: - crew task performance (accuracy, efficiency) (crew + automation) - crew performance (accuracy, efficiency) - crew Situation Awareness - procedure design and multi-modal enhancement - concurrent tasking (mixed manual + some level of autonomy) - task handover - crew self-planning and time-lining - task design - trust in automation, real-time calibration - human multi-sensory feedback and guidance - human trust in on-board software-based intelligent assistants - virtual assistants The presentation will highlight plans and progress made in each of these research areas as well as the methods by which surrogate astronaut crews in the NASA JSC HERA spaceflight analog facility will function as human test subjects for all of the HCAAM research projects.

HCAAM VNSCOR↗
NASA NTRS2022

Event Report for The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Quantification Workshop

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a powerful emerging technology area which requires special attention to using it ethically. AI ethics is still an emerging field, and the partners for this workshop and report seek to move AI ethics discussion ahead by experimenting with ways to measure AI ethics criteria. The following document describes the outcomes and learnings from The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Quantification Workshop held at the National Institute for Aerospace (NIA), Hampton, Virginia on May 12th, 2022. The purpose of the workshop was for participants to evaluate and experiment-with the methodology and process presented by AIEthics.World in cooperation with Intel Corporation. The meeting participants learned about the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™ and applied the methodology to selected notional AI systems. The workshop facilitated the evaluation of the maturity of the AI system according to ethical considerations relevant to NASA, NIA and other participants. The workshop consisted of three main phases. The first phase focused on understanding and summarizing NASA’s ethical approaches, mission and values based on published documentation, discussions and individual insights & opinions of participants. This information was prioritized, weighted, ordered, and quantified in phase two, to formulate an alignment between human values (ethics) and their applicability to AI systems during all lifecycle phases. The first two phases were summarized as a form of ethical genealogy for artificial intelligence, specific to NASA’s ethical approaches. In the third and last phase of the workshop the participants evaluated notional examples of artificial intelligence to qualify and quantify its ability to adhere to the organizational ethics approaches, using the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™. The workshop uses the concept of genealogy, in the traditional sense: the study and traceability of lines of ancestors in the process of evolutionary development from earlier forms. However, as it is applied to an Ethical AI definition, it is providing the insights to the necessary and mandatory traceability of content, data, metrics, telemetry, elements, and structures which are used in the AI’s lifecycle to foster and measure AI ethics in all steps of its lifecycle. The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Quantification Workshop provided NASA with the opportunity to apply the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™, in combination with existing and well-known decision-making and quality control methods to identify the metrics and measurements for an Ethical AI and assess its ethical condition and quality aligned with NASA ethics approaches. The result of the workshop is the capacity for NASA to apply the maturity model assessment to its AI Systems as desired and if necessary, publish the ability of these AI Systems to adhere to the organizational ethical goals. AI ethics frameworks need to be customized for each application domain, for example, individual NASA Mission Directorates. General principles that work in one area such as AI/Machine Learning-based text analysis (the ethics of information-extraction) may need to be adapted for another such as sense-and-avoid decision-making in a flight environment. The workshop was conducted among approximately twenty NASA subject matter experts, so the elements noted above should be considered examples, not definitive NASA ethical AI principles, genealogy, etc. Generating a definitive AI ethics framework for an organization as diverse as NASA would require far more discussion, debate, review, etc. However, the workshop provided valuable insight into mechanisms and processes for quantifying AI ethical qualities.

Artificial Intelligence↗
NASA NTRS2005

Software Certification for Temporal Properties With Affordable Tool Qualification

It has been recognized that a framework based on proof-carrying code (also called semantic-based software certification in its community) could be used as a candidate software certification process for the avionics industry. To meet this goal, tools in the "trust base" of a proof-carrying code system must be qualified by regulatory authorities. A family of semantic-based software certification approaches is described, each different in expressive power, level of automation and trust base. Of particular interest is the so-called abstraction-carrying code, which can certify temporal properties. When a pure abstraction-carrying code method is used in the context of industrial software certification, the fact that the trust base includes a model checker would incur a high qualification cost. This position paper proposes a hybrid of abstraction-based and proof-based certification methods so that the model checker used by a client can be significantly simplified, thereby leading to lower cost in tool qualification.

Xia, Songtao↗
NASA NTRS1989

Recalibrating software reliability models

In spite of much research effort, there is no universally applicable software reliability growth model which can be trusted to give accurate predictions of reliability in all circumstances. Further, it is not even possible to decide a priori which of the many models is most suitable in a particular context. In an attempt to resolve this problem, techniques were developed whereby, for each program, the accuracy of various models can be analyzed. A user is thus enabled to select that model which is giving the most accurate reliability predictions for the particular program under examination. One of these ways of analyzing predictive accuracy, called the u-plot, in fact allows a user to estimate the relationship between the predicted reliability and the true reliability. It is shown how this can be used to improve reliability predictions in a completely general way by a process of recalibration. Simulation results show that the technique gives improved reliability predictions in a large proportion of cases. However, a user does not need to trust the efficacy of recalibration, since the new reliability estimates produced by the technique are truly predictive and so their accuracy in a particular application can be judged using the earlier methods. The generality of this approach would therefore suggest that it be applied as a matter of course whenever a software reliability model is used.

Brocklehurst, Sarah↗
NASA NTRS1990

Recalibrating software reliability models

In spite of much research effort, there is no universally applicable software reliability growth model which can be trusted to give accurate predictions of reliability in all circumstances. Further, it is not even possible to decide a priori which of the many models is most suitable in a particular context. In an attempt to resolve this problem, techniques were developed whereby, for each program, the accuracy of various models can be analyzed. A user is thus enabled to select that model which is giving the most accurate reliability predicitons for the particular program under examination. One of these ways of analyzing predictive accuracy, called the u-plot, in fact allows a user to estimate the relationship between the predicted reliability and the true reliability. It is shown how this can be used to improve reliability predictions in a completely general way by a process of recalibration. Simulation results show that the technique gives improved reliability predictions in a large proportion of cases. However, a user does not need to trust the efficacy of recalibration, since the new reliability estimates prodcued by the technique are truly predictive and so their accuracy in a particular application can be judged using the earlier methods. The generality of this approach would therefore suggest that it be applied as a matter of course whenever a software reliability model is used.

Brocklehurst, Sarah↗
NASA NTRS2009

Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Proof-Carrying Code and Software Certification

This NASA conference publication contains the proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Proof-Carrying Code and Software Certification, held as part of LICS in Los Angeles, CA, USA, on August 15, 2009. Software certification demonstrates the reliability, safety, or security of software systems in such a way that it can be checked by an independent authority with minimal trust in the techniques and tools used in the certification process itself. It can build on existing validation and verification (V&V) techniques but introduces the notion of explicit software certificates, Vvilich contain all the information necessary for an independent assessment of the demonstrated properties. One such example is proof-carrying code (PCC) which is an important and distinctive approach to enhancing trust in programs. It provides a practical framework for independent assurance of program behavior; especially where source code is not available, or the code author and user are unknown to each other. The workshop wiII address theoretical foundations of logic-based software certification as well as practical examples and work on alternative application domains. Here "certificate" is construed broadly, to include not just mathematical derivations and proofs but also safety and assurance cases, or any fonnal evidence that supports the semantic analysis of programs: that is, evidence about an intrinsic property of code and its behaviour that can be independently checked by any user, intermediary, or third party. These guarantees mean that software certificates raise trust in the code itself, distinct from and complementary to any existing trust in the creator of the code, the process used to produce it, or its distributor. In addition to the contributed talks, the workshop featured two invited talks, by Kelly Hayhurst and Andrew Appel. The PCC 2009 website can be found at http://ti.arc.nasa.gov /event/pcc 091.

Ewen, Denney, W.↗
NASA NTRS2006

A Robust Compositional Architecture for Autonomous Systems

Space exploration applications can benefit greatly from autonomous systems. Great distances, limited communications and high costs make direct operations impossible while mandating operations reliability and efficiency beyond what traditional commanding can provide. Autonomous systems can improve reliability and enhance spacecraft capability significantly. However, there is reluctance to utilizing autonomous systems. In part this is due to general hesitation about new technologies, but a more tangible concern is that of reliability of predictability of autonomous software. In this paper, we describe ongoing work aimed at increasing robustness and predictability of autonomous software, with the ultimate goal of building trust in such systems. The work combines state-of-the-art technologies and capabilities in autonomous systems with advanced validation and synthesis techniques. The focus of this paper is on the autonomous system architecture that has been defined, and on how it enables the application of validation techniques for resulting autonomous systems.

Brat, Guillaume↗
NASA NTRS2015

Multi-Spacecraft Autonomous Positioning System

As the number of spacecraft in simultaneous operation continues to grow, there is an increased dependency on ground-based navigation support. The current baseline system for deep space navigation utilizes Earth-based radiometric tracking, requiring long-duration observations to perform orbit determination and generate a state update. The age, complexity, and high utilization of the ground assets pose a risk to spacecraft navigation performance. In order to perform complex operations at large distances from Earth, such as extraterrestrial landing and proximity operations, autonomous systems are required. With increasingly complex mission operations, the need for frequent and Earth-independent navigation capabilities is further reinforced. The Multi-spacecraft Autonomous Positioning System (MAPS) takes advantage of the growing interspacecraft communication network and infrastructure to allow for Earth-autonomous state measurements to enable network-based space navigation. A notional concept of operations is given in figure 1. This network is already being implemented and routinely used in Martian communications through the use of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars Odyssey spacecraft as relays for surface assets. The growth of this communications architecture is continued through MAVEN, and future potential commercial Mars telecom orbiters. This growing network provides an initial Marslocal capability for inter-spacecraft communication and navigation. These navigation updates are enabled by cross-communication between assets in the network, coupled with onboard navigation estimation routines to integrate packet travel time to generate ranging measurements. Inter-spacecraft communication allows for frequent state broadcasts and time updates from trusted references. The architecture is a software-based solution, enabling its implementation on a wide variety of current assets, with the operational constraints and measurement accuracy determined by onboard systems.

Anzalone, Evan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dynamic Assurance of Autonomous Systems Through Ground Control Software

Assurance cases have emerged as a way to build trust in complex autonomous systems. Many assurance case justifications for such systems need to be constantly reevaluated based on the current system context and performance. Autonomous systems, especially those deployed in remote environments, often have a ground control system that enables monitoring and remote operations. In this paper, we propose a dynamic assurance framework that aims at connecting the assurance case with the ground control system. We use the ground control system to facilitate dynamic evaluation of quantitative assurance measures that support various justifications in the assurance case. We demonstrate the proposed dynamic assurance framework on the NASA Ames Research Center project Troupe. We use a combination of in-house and external tools to identify the assurance measures, formalize the related requirements, and generate monitors that feed the data to the external ground control system.

dynamic assurance case↗
NASA NTRS2015

Software Innovation in a Mission Critical Environment

Operating in mission-critical environments requires trusted solutions, and the preference for "tried and true" approaches presents a potential barrier to infusing innovation into mission-critical systems. This presentation explores opportunities to overcome this barrier in the software domain. It outlines specific areas of innovation in software development achieved by the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Engineering Directorate in support of NASA's major human spaceflight programs, including International Space Station, Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (Orion), and Commercial Crew Programs. Software engineering teams at JSC work with hardware developers, mission planners, and system operators to integrate flight vehicles, habitats, robotics, and other spacecraft elements for genuinely mission critical applications. The innovations described, including the use of NASA Core Flight Software and its associated software tool chain, can lead to software that is more affordable, more reliable, better modelled, more flexible, more easily maintained, better tested, and enabling of automation.

Fredrickson, Steven↗