Programmatic risk balancing
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
programmatic risk integration↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “programmatic risk integration”
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.
Programmatic risk balancing
This paper presents the first tool demonstration and assessment for balancing programmatic risk.
programmatic risk integration↗
JCL Implementation On A Human Spaceflight Program
Joint Confidence Level (JCL) analysis focuses on the integration of traditionally stove-piped programmatic components (schedule, cost and risk) to establish projected resource and schedule requirements at various confidence levels and to identify programmatic cost and schedule risk drivers. SLS Program consists of multiple Prime Contractors managed by independent SLS Elements which are integrated using SE&I and Program Management. SLS further integrates with GSDO and MPCV through ESD integrated working groups.
Kulpa, Vyga↗
Fuel Fabrication Capability Research and Development Plan
The purpose of this document is to provide a comprehensive review of the mission of the Fuel Fabrication Capability (FFC) within the Global Threat Reduction Initiative Convert Program, along with research and development (R&D) needs that have been identified as necessary to ensuring mission success. The design and fabrication of successful nuclear fuels must be closely linked endeavors. Therefore, the overriding motivation behind the FFC R&D program described in this plan is to foster closer integration between fuel design and fabrication to reduce programmatic risk. These motivating factors are all interrelated, and progress addressing one will aid understanding of the others. The FFC R&D needs fall into two principal categories, 1) baseline process optimization, to refine the existing fabrication technologies, and 2) manufacturing process alternatives, to evaluate new fabrication technologies that could provide improvements in quality, repeatability, material utilization, or cost. The FFC R&D Plan examines efforts currently under way in regard to coupon, foil, plate, and fuel element manufacturing, and provides recommendations for a number of R&D topics that are of high priority but not currently funded (i.e., knowledge gaps). The plan ties all FFC R&D efforts into a unified vision that supports the overall Convert Program schedule in general, and the fabrication schedule leading up to the MP-1 and FSP-1 irradiation experiments specifically. The fabrication technology decision gates and down-selection logic and schedules are tied to the schedule for fabricating the MP-1 fuel plates, which will provide the necessary data to make a final fuel fabrication process down-selection. Because of the short turnaround between MP-1 and the follow-on FSP-1 and MP-2 experiments, the suite of specimen types that will be available for MP-1 will be the same as those available for FSP-1 and MP-2. Therefore, the only opportunity to explore parameter space and alternative processing is between now and 2016 when the candidate processes are down-selected in preparation for the MP-1, FSP-1, and MP-2 plate manufacturing campaigns. A number of key risks identified by the FFC are discussed in this plan, with recommended mitigating actions for those activities within FFC, and identification of risks that are impacted by activities in other areas of the Convert Program. The R&D Plan does not include discussion of FFC initiatives related to production-scale manufacturing of fuel (e.g., establishment of the Pilot Line Production Facility), rather, the goal of this plan is to document the R&D activities needed ultimately to enable high-quality and cost-effective production of the fuel by the commercial fuel fabricator. The intent is for this R&D Plan to be a living document that will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis (e.g., annually) to ensure that FFC R&D activities remain properly aligned to the needs of the Convert Program. This version of the R&D Plan represents the first annual review and revision.
Convert Program↗
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↗
The Future of Robotics/Remote Handling Solutions for the Nuclear Industry - 17347
The nuclear industry is seeing a resurgence of development and utilization of advanced integrated systems; fused sensor arrays; autonomous, remote and hybrid operations; and augmented reality display and control system interfaces. A new age of 'robotics' and remote handling technologies. For many years the use of robotics in nuclear applications has been done sparingly due to technical limitations, perceived and real reliability issues, perceived and real risk concerns, and cost. Although robotics have been used successfully on a variety of projects globally, the underuse of this technology, particularly within the nuclear industry both public and private, is overwhelming. As the number of complex, high hazard projects in the nuclear industry increases, the use of robotics for maintenance, inspection, repair, decommissioning, and remediation activities will become increasingly vital in the future. The risks associated with direct human exposure are high and thus eliminating the risk, or managing it to acceptable levels by using robotics/remote handling as well as other technologies is critical to success as more extreme environment operations and tasks are undertaken. Recent and ongoing advances in technology now allows us to safely and effectively remove the direct / in-situ human element from these type of activities. All the while delivering the same or better outcomes when considering the alternatives when limited or no direct / in-situ human intervention would be allowed. The biggest obstacles the nuclear industry faces center on the cost, reliability, maintainability, effectiveness and appropriate uses of robotics/remote handling solutions in a nuclear (radiation and/or contamination) environment. In order to mitigate these concerns, a sound approach to the use of robotics needs to be addressed. This approach must include: 1. A better understanding of what technology is available and how it can be utilized across multiple sectors, e.g. Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) technology modified / adapted for the nuclear sector; 2. How to implement technology in an integrated pragmatic approach that is cost effective by combining technological know-how / subject matter expertise (SME) with the equivalent subject matter expertise in regulatory, operational and maintenance requirements and limitations, such that a more complete set of functional and operational requirements can be jointly developed in the process. 3. The integration of requirements (project, site, regulatory, etc.), risk management (human factors) and technology, i.e. a marriage between political, programmatic, and technological factors. As the development of robotic/remote handling technology progresses and the successful implementation on projects is demonstrated, the better off the industry will be. This paper provides an overview of the fundamental issues facing the nuclear industry with regard to effective and successful technology selection, maturation, deployment, and integrated risk management, and offers suggestions on how we may overcome these persistent issues now and in the future. Robotic systems and solution experts that are focused on the integration of proven technologies - and that are an integrated part of the project team from its onset - are a necessity for successful planning during nuclear operations. The approach to nuclear operations should always be, 'what is the simplest, most effective way we can approach a particular project need?'. Understanding and implementing the right technologies is where the true value will be recognized. The integration of systems, which includes more than just robotics, is key when developing schemes for these types of complex operations. Often times during planning, the remote handling needs of the job are set aside to be evaluated at a later time due to risk concerns and lack of knowledge. The issue is, experts in the area of robotics or remote handling are rarely involved in the upfront planning. As a result, unnecessary constraints, risks, and obstacles are imposed on project teams to deliver. If done intelligently, this should be introduced at the forefront of planning. Using this type of sound approach leads to effective task organization for the end user. By developing an overall philosophy that leverages proven technologies with implementation expertise; i.e. solutions versus products, is a recipe for success. This is the area that is under-appreciated in the industry and one that needs to be recognized on a much broader scale. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Rapid Response Risk Assessment in New Project Development
A capability for rapidly performing quantitative risk assessments has been developed by JSC Safety and Mission Assurance for use on project design trade studies early in the project life cycle, i.e., concept development through preliminary design phases. A risk assessment tool set has been developed consisting of interactive and integrated software modules that allow a user/project designer to assess the impact of alternative design or programmatic options on the probability of mission success or other risk metrics. The risk and design trade space includes interactive options for selecting parameters and/or metrics for numerous design characteristics including component reliability characteristics, functional redundancy levels, item or system technology readiness levels, and mission event characteristics. This capability is intended for use on any project or system development with a defined mission, and an example project will used for demonstration and descriptive purposes, e.g., landing a robot on the moon. The effects of various alternative design considerations and their impact of these decisions on mission success (or failure) can be measured in real time on a personal computer. This capability provides a high degree of efficiency for quickly providing information in NASA s evolving risk-based decision environment
Graber, Robert R.↗
Mission Risk Reduction Regulatory Change Management
NASA Headquarters Environmental Management Division supports NASA's mission to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research by integrating environmental considerations into programs and projects early-on, thereby proactively reducing NASA's exposure to institutional, programmatic and operational risk. As part of this effort, NASA established the Principal Center for Regulatory Risk Analysis and Communication (RRAC PC) as a resource for detecting, analyzing, and communicating environmental regulatory risks to the NASA stakeholder community. The RRAC PC focuses on detecting emerging environmental regulations and other operational change drivers that may pose risks to NASA programs and facilities, and effectively communicating the potential risks. For example, regulatory change may restrict how and where certain activities or operations may be conducted. Regulatory change can also directly affect the ability to use certain materials by mandating a production phase-out or restricting usage applications of certain materials. Regulatory change can result in significant adverse impacts to NASA programs and facilities due to NASA's stringent performance requirements for materials and components related to human-rated space vehicles. Even if a regulation does not directly affect NASA operations, U.S. and international regulations can pose program risks indirectly through requirements levied on manufacturers and vendors of components and materials. For example, manufacturers can change their formulations to comply with new regulatory requirements. Such changes can require time-consuming and costly requalification certification for use in human spaceflight programs. The RRAC PC has implemented a system for proactively managing regulatory change to minimize potential adverse impacts to NASA programs and facilities. This presentation highlights the process utilized by the RRACPC to communicate regulatory change and the associated potential risks within NASA, as well as the process for communicating and cooperating with other government agencies and industry partners, both domestic and international, to ensure mission success.
Scroggins, Sharon↗
NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 1
The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0. NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.
Uncertainty↗
NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 2
The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0 (January 2020). NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.
Risk Leadership↗
Overview of NASA Langley's Systems Analysis Capabilities
The Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate (SACD) has been in the systems analysis business line supporting National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) aeronautics, exploration, space operations and science since the 1960 s. Our current organization structure is shown in Figure 1. SACD mission can be summed up in the following statements: 1. We conduct advanced concepts for Agency decision makers and programs. 2. We provide aerospace systems analysis products such as mission architectures, advanced system concepts, system and technology trades, life cycle cost and risk analysis, system integration and pre-decisional sensitive information. 3. Our work enables informed technical, programmatic and budgetary decisions. SACD has a complement of 114 government employees and approximately 50 on-site contractors which is equally split between supporting aeronautics and exploration. SACD strives for technical excellence and creditability of the systems analysis products delivered to its customers. The Directorate office is continuously building market intelligence and working with other NASA centers and external partners to expand our business base. The Branches strive for technical excellence and credibility of our systems analysis products by seeking out existing and new partnerships that are critical for successful systems analysis. The Directorates long term goal is to grow the amount of science systems analysis business base.
Cavanaugh, Stephen↗
IC and Component Selection for Space Systems
This viewgraph presentation reviews the integrated circuit (IC) and selections of the IC components for space systems. Included in the discussion are a overview of semiconductors and the evolution of integrated circuit. It also reviews the three different viewpoints of the IC selection: technical, programmatic, and risk. From a radiation perspective there are four criteria for selecting ICs for space systems: guaranteed hardness, historical ground-based data, historical flight usage, and unknown assurance.
Label, Kenneth A.↗
Aerospace Systems Design in NASA's Collaborative Engineering Environment
Past designs of complex aerospace systems involved an environment consisting of collocated design teams with project managers, technical discipline experts, and other experts (e.g. manufacturing and systems operations). These experts were generally qualified only on the basis of past design experience and typically had access to a limited set of integrated analysis tools. These environments provided less than desirable design fidelity, often lead to the inability of assessing critical programmatic and technical issues (e.g., cost risk, technical impacts), and generally derived a design that was not necessarily optimized across the entire system. The continually changing, modern aerospace industry demands systems design processes that involve the best talent available (no matter where it resides) and access to the best design and analysis tools. A solution to these demands involves a design environment referred to as collaborative engineering. The collaborative engineering environment evolving within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is a capability that enables the Agency's engineering infrastructure to interact and use the best state-of-the-art tools and data across organizational boundaries. Using collaborative engineering, the collocated team is replaced with an interactive team structure where the team members are geographically distributed and the best engineering talent can be applied to the design effort regardless of physical location. In addition, a more efficient, higher quality design product is delivered by bringing together the best engineering talent with more up-to-date design and analysis tools. These tools are focused on interactive, multidisciplinary design and analysis with emphasis on the complete life cycle of the system, and they include nontraditional, integrated tools for life cycle cost estimation and risk assessment. NASA has made substantial progress during the last two years in developing a collaborative engineering environment. NASA is planning to use this collaborative engineering infrastructure to provide better aerospace systems life cycle design and analysis, which includes analytical assessment of the technical and programmatic aspects of a system from "cradle to grave." This paper describes the recent NASA developments in the area of collaborative engineering, the benefits (realized and anticipated) of using the developed capability, and the long-term plans for implementing this capability across the Agency.
Monell, Donald W.↗
Aerospace Systems Design in NASA's Collaborative Engineering Environment
Past designs of complex aerospace systems involved an environment consisting of collocated design teams with project managers, technical discipline experts, and other experts (e.g., manufacturing and systems operation). These experts were generally qualified only on the basis of past design experience and typically had access to a limited set of integrated analysis tools. These environments provided less than desirable design fidelity, often lead to the inability of assessing critical programmatic and technical issues (e.g., cost, risk, technical impacts), and generally derived a design that was not necessarily optimized across the entire system. The continually changing, modern aerospace industry demands systems design processes that involve the best talent available (no matter where it resides) and access to the the best design and analysis tools. A solution to these demands involves a design environment referred to as collaborative engineering. The collaborative engineering environment evolving within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is a capability that enables the Agency's engineering infrastructure to interact and use the best state-of-the-art tools and data across organizational boundaries. Using collaborative engineering, the collocated team is replaced with an interactive team structure where the team members are geographical distributed and the best engineering talent can be applied to the design effort regardless of physical location. In addition, a more efficient, higher quality design product is delivered by bringing together the best engineering talent with more up-to-date design and analysis tools. These tools are focused on interactive, multidisciplinary design and analysis with emphasis on the complete life cycle of the system, and they include nontraditional, integrated tools for life cycle cost estimation and risk assessment. NASA has made substantial progress during the last two years in developing a collaborative engineering environment. NASA is planning to use this collaborative engineering engineering infrastructure to provide better aerospace systems life cycle design and analysis, which includes analytical assessment of the technical and programmatic aspects of a system from "cradle to grave." This paper describes the recent NASA developments in the area of collaborative engineering, the benefits (realized and anticipated) of using the developed capability, and the long-term plans for implementing this capability across Agency.
Monell, Donald W.↗
CloudZero Phase 2 Technical Report
Expand upon the successful Phase 1 net zero cloud test proof of concept by moving actual OT systems to the cloud and proving cloud feasibility to support various OT technologies such as IoT, Machine Learning, etc. Explore threat analysis when these technologies are moved to the cloud. A detailed analysis in NREL ARIES Cyber Range will be used to conduct deeper analysis of cloud suitability to support OT and net zero system operations in a higher fidelity representative environment. Outputs will identify, quantify, and document the results and cyber security risks associated with the move of these OT technologies in a formal delivered report. Programmatic Benefits: Identify cloud integration challenges for energy systems characterize the cloud threat space, contribute to policy and standards discussions, empower the sector to change their cloud culture where appropriate.
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
IMPLEMENTING CYBERSECURITY INTO AN EXISTING NATIONAL NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION PROGRAMME – A CASE STUDY
Cyber threat profiling and risk mitigation is critical to any nuclear state organization and should be considered as part of any comprehensive nuclear security programme. Defining and evaluating the impact of the cyber threat to mission can be challenging. An existing national nuclear non-proliferation organization undertook an effort to incorporate computer security activities into its programme to address cyber risk. One of the primary goals of this endeavour was to develop a set of prioritised recommendations for organizational follow-through. The organization dedicated subject matter expert resources in the form of a cyber task force to support this goal. Opportunities were identified where computer security could be built into each programme including office-level strategies and tools. Of course, no new identified threat vector is easily considered and incorporated into existing programmes without impact. There are many obstacles to be overcome. Technically literate subject matter experts are difficult to find, management has comparatively less experience applying computer security into its programmes, and trying to change the culture to consider computer security risk at policy and programmatic levels takes time and management attention. As an outcome of this process, a roadmap for program integration was developed, including the establishment of a cyber support team. This paper will discuss the challenges and successes associated with establishing such a team.
Cyber Security, Nuclear, Non-proliferation↗
An “EPIIC” Vision to Evolve Project Integration, Innovation, and Collaboration with Broad Impact for How NASA Executes Complex Projects
Evolving Project Integration, Innovation, and Collaboration (EPIIC) is a vision defined to transform the way projects manage information to support real-time decisions, capture best practices and lessons learned, perform assessments, and manage risk across a portfolio of projects. The foundational project management needs for data and information will be revolutionized through innovations on how we manage and access that data, implement configuration control, and certify compliance. The embedded intelligence of new interactive data interfaces integrate technical and programmatic data such that near real time analytics can be accomplished to more efficiently and accurately complete systems engineering and project management tasks. The system-wide data analytics that are integrated into customized data interfaces allows the growing team of engineers and managers required to develop and implement major NASA missions the ability to access authoritative source(s) of system information while greatly reducing the labor required to complete system assessments. This would allow, for example, much of what is accomplished in a scheduled design review to take place as needed, between any team members, at any time. An intelligent data interface that rigorously integrates systems engineering and project management information in near real time can provide substantially greater insight for systems engineers, project managers, and the large diverse teams required to complete a complex project. System engineers, programmatic personnel (those who focus on cost, schedule, and risk), the technical engineering disciplines, and project management can realize immediate benefit from the shared vision described herein. Implementation of the vision also enables significant improvements in the performance of the engineered system being developed.
Moreland, Robert J.↗
Managing Flagship Missions to Reduce Cost and Schedule
Flagship missions are highly complex with highly nested systems. This level of complexity poses unique management problems as complexity influences risk which, in turn, affects cost and schedule. Establishing a strong technical and programmatic leadership team is critical to mission success. Developing and using a mission architecture is critical to informing the management organization, product ownership, interface and integration relationships, schedule organization, and integration and test paths. In highly nested systems, the mission phasing can be significantly out of sync with product phasing. Targeted technology development prior to Phase A is critical to reducing risk. Early architecture, concept design, and requirements development is critical to reducing risk. Modular design; pathfinders; parallel manufacturing and integration and test paths; and properly handling institutional requirements across interfaces are all management techniques that can be applied to reduce risk. NASA’s large strategic missions, sometimes referred to as flagship missions, are designed to provide answers to some of the most compelling scientific questions being asked. These types of missions are a series of highly nested subsystems that pose unique management problems when compared to more traditional instrument and spacecraft designs. They typically have an overall architecture that is very complex and nested; they typically require a tremendous amount of technology development; they typically involve many contractors and subcontractors with many associated contracts; and they typically involve staff from all over the world. Successful management of a flagship requires the balance between science requirements, engineering and technology capabilities, and resource constraints. Mismanaging these flagship missions can and will lead to significant cost and schedule growth, both of which are detrimental to NASA’s overall reputation which, in turn, is detrimental to the development of future flagship missions. While many of the same management principles used on smaller instruments and spacecraft are relevant, managing flagship missions requires an evolution of those current best practices to better address the specific needs and additional complexity and vastness of these missions. This paper explores how to leverage lessons learned from previous flagship missions to better manage flagship missions in the future.
Hylan, Jason↗