Risk aversion and bidding theory
Theory of bidding behavior and formation of bidding model with risk aversion
Hanson, D. L.↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “risk aversion”
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.
Projected land ice contributions to twenty-first-century sea level rise
The land ice contribution to global mean sea level rise has not yet been predicted1 using ice sheet and glacier models for the latest set of socio-economic scenarios, nor using coordinated exploration of uncertainties arising from the various computer models involved. Two recent international projects generated a large suite of projections using multiple models2,3,4,5,6,7,8, but primarily used previous-generation scenarios9 and climate models10, and could not fully explore known uncertainties. Here we estimate probability distributions for these projections under the new scenarios11,12 using statistical emulation of the ice sheet and glacier models. We find that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would halve the land ice contribution to twenty-first-century sea level rise, relative to current emissions pledges. The median decreases from 25 to 13 centimetres sea level equivalent (SLE) by 2100, with glaciers responsible for half the sea level contribution. The projected Antarctic contribution does not show a clear response to the emissions scenario, owing to uncertainties in the competing processes of increasing ice loss and snowfall accumulation in a warming climate. However, under risk-averse (pessimistic) assumptions, Antarctic ice loss could be five times higher, increasing the median land ice contribution to 42 centimetres SLE under current policies and pledges, with the 95th percentile projection exceeding half a metre even under 1.5 degrees Celsius warming. This would severely limit the possibility of mitigating future coastal flooding. Given this large range (between 13 centimetres SLE using the main projections under 1.5 degrees Celsius warming and 42 centimetres SLE using risk-averse projections under current pledges), adaptation planning for twenty-first-century sea level rise must account for a factor-of-three uncertainty in the land ice contribution until climate policies and the Antarctic response are further constrained.
Tamsin L. Edwards↗
Monitoring for Renal Stone Recurrence in Astronauts With History of Stone
After an initial stone episode persons are at increased risk for future stone formation. A systematic approach is required to monitor the efficacy of treatment and preventive measures, and to assess the risk of developing new stones. This is important for persons working in critical jobs or austere environments, such as astronauts. A literature review of the current standards of care for renal stone monitoring and imaging was done. Military and civil aviation standards were also reviewed, as well as the medical precedents from the space program. Additionally, a new, more effective, renal stone ultrasound protocol has been developed. Using this work, a monitoring algorithm was proposed that takes into consideration the unique mission and operational environment of spaceflight. The approach to imaging persons with history of renal stones varies widely in the literature. Imaging is often done yearly or biannually, which may be too long for mission critical personnel. In the proposed algorithm astronauts with a history of renal stone, who may be under consideration for assignment, are imaged by a detailed, physiciandriven, ultrasound protocol. Unassigned personnel are monitored by yearly ultrasound and urine studies. Any positive ultrasound study is then followed by low-dose renal computed tomography scan. Other criteria are also established. The proposed algorithm provides a balanced approach between efficacy and reduced radiation exposure for the monitoring of astronauts with a renal stone history. This may eventually allow a transition from a risk-averse, to a risk-modifying approach that can enable continued service of individuals with history of renal stone that have adequately controlled risk factors.
Reyes, David P.↗
Electrical, Electronic and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts in the New Space Paradigm: When is Better the Enemy of Good Enough?
As the space business rapidly evolves to accommodate a lower cost model of development and operation via concepts such as commercial space and small spacecraft (aka, CubeSats), traditional EEE parts screening and qualification methods are being scrutinized under a risk-reward trade space. In this presentation, two basic concepts will be the overarching theme: 1) The movement from complete risk aversion EEE parts methods to managing and/or accepting risk via alternate approaches; and, 2) A discussion of over-design focusing on both electrical design performance and bounding margins.
Small spacecraft↗
Electrical, Electronic and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts in the New Space Paradigm: When is Better the Enemy of Good Enough?
As the space business rapidly evolves to accommodate a lower cost model of development and operation via concepts such as commercial space and small spacecraft (aka, CubeSats and swarms), traditional EEE parts screening and qualification methods are being scrutinized under a risk-reward trade space. In this presentation, two basic concepts will be discussed: (1) The movement from complete risk aversion EEE parts methods to managing and/or accepting risk via alternate approaches; and, (2) A discussion of emerging assurance methods to reduce overdesign as well emerging model based mission assurance (MBMA) concepts. center dot Example scenarios will be described as well as consideration for trading traditional versus alternate methods.
LaBel, Kenneth A.↗
Electrical, Electronic and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts in the New Space Paradigm: When is Better the Enemy of Good Enough?
As the space business rapidly evolves to accommodate a lower cost model of development and operation via concepts such as commercial space and small spacecraft (aka, CubeSats), traditional EEE parts screening and qualification methods are being scrutinized under a risk-reward trade space. In this presentation, two basic concepts will be the overarching theme: 1) The movement from complete risk aversion EEE parts methods to managing andor accepting risk via alternate approaches; and, 2) A discussion of over-design focusing on both electrical design performance and bounding margins.
Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE↗
Electrical, Electronic and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts in the New Space Paradigm: When is Better the Enemy of Good Enough?
As the space business rapidly evolves to accommodate a lower cost model of development and operation via concepts such as commercial space and small spacecraft (aka, CubeSats), traditional EEE parts screening and qualification methods are being scrutinized under a risk-reward trade space. In this presentation, two basic concepts will be the overarching theme: 1) The movement from complete risk aversion EEE parts methods to managing and or accepting risk via alternate approaches; and, 2) A discussion of over-design focusing on both electrical design performance and bounding margins.
Electrical↗
Recent Advances and Future Challenges in Risk-Based Radiation Engineering
We cover a top-level introduction to hardness assurance (HA) from a robotic space system perspective, starting at the piece-part level. We discuss error sources inherent to presently-accepted HA practices and why they cause us to be risk-averse. We conclude by reviewing current proposals that move towards more risk-tolerant system design approaches as well as future challenges that will require these advanced techniques.
radiation effects↗
CRYOTE (Cryogenic Orbital Testbed) Concept
Demonstrating cryo-fluid management (CFM) technologies in space is critical for advances in long duration space missions. Current space-based cryogenic propulsion is viable for hours, not the weeks to years needed by space exploration and space science. CRYogenic Orbital TEstbed (CRYOTE) provides an affordable low-risk environment to demonstrate a broad array of critical CFM technologies that cannot be tested in Earth's gravity. These technologies include system chilldown, transfer, handling, health management, mixing, pressure control, active cooling, and long-term storage. United Launch Alliance is partnering with Innovative Engineering Solutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and others to develop CRYOTE to fly as an auxiliary payload between the primary payload and the Centaur upper stage on an Atlas V rocket. Because satellites are expensive, the space industry is largely risk averse to incorporating unproven systems or conducting experiments using flight hardware that is supporting a primary mission. To minimize launch risk, the CRYOTE system will only activate after the primary payload is separated from the rocket. Flying the testbed as an auxiliary payload utilizes Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle performance excess to cost-effectively demonstrate enhanced CFM.
Gravlee, Mari↗
Risk-Constrained Dynamic Programming for Optimal Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing
A chance-constrained dynamic programming algorithm was developed that is capable of making optimal sequential decisions within a user-specified risk bound. This work handles stochastic uncertainties over multiple stages in the CEMAT (Combined EDL-Mobility Analyses Tool) framework. It was demonstrated by a simulation of Mars entry, descent, and landing (EDL) using real landscape data obtained from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Although standard dynamic programming (DP) provides a general framework for optimal sequential decisionmaking under uncertainty, it typically achieves risk aversion by imposing an arbitrary penalty on failure states. Such a penalty-based approach cannot explicitly bound the probability of mission failure. A key idea behind the new approach is called risk allocation, which decomposes a joint chance constraint into a set of individual chance constraints and distributes risk over them. The joint chance constraint was reformulated into a constraint on an expectation over a sum of an indicator function, which can be incorporated into the cost function by dualizing the optimization problem. As a result, the chance-constraint optimization problem can be turned into an unconstrained optimization over a Lagrangian, which can be solved efficiently using a standard DP approach.
Ono, Masahiro↗
A Lengthy Career's Lessons on Risk
I BECAME A PROJECT MANAGER AT AGE TWENTY-TWO AT Eglin Air Force Base. I managed the droning of the B47 to fly unmanned, and 1 had zero experience to take on that task. What 1 learned is the real way you acquire risk aversion: 1 was scared to death that I d fail. This developed a characteristic that 1 carried with me throughout my career. The strongest thing a project leader can feel, in terms of risk, is the risk of failing. So I took it upon myself to learn everything about the airplane and the guidance control system by searching out the best in the aerospace community. At that time, Lockheed was doing a modification of the aircraft. Boeing designed and built the aircraft, and Sperry was doing the guidance control system. I made sure that I spent hours and hours with each of them to understand exactly what 1 was responsible for.
Guastaferro, Angelo↗
NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Program: Resources for SmallSats on EEE Parts
From the outside looking in, the NEPP program supports NASA's traditional approach to providing electrical, electronic, and electromechanical (EEE) assurance for space missions. Standards (military and commercial) for EEE parts are based on risk averse methodologies, drive higher costs and schedules, and, in general, provide devices that significantly lag behind commercial devices in performance aspects (speed, power efficiency, etc...). This is NOT the model most small missions realistically can use. However, when you look behind the curtain, NEPP has been considering the risk trade space for small missions for over five years and has consistently provided resources that the small mission regime would find useful. In this paper, we provide a brief overview of these resources as well as NEPP's current research/development efforts that are relevant. While we'll primarily discuss radiation assurance related issues such as data availability and usage, assurances processes for not only the radiation effects side, but also the EEE parts reliability will be touched upon.
Electrical↗
NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Program - Resources for SmallSats on EEE Parts
From the outside looking in, the NEPP program supports NASA's traditional approach to providing electrical, electronic, and electromechanical (EEE) assurance for space missions. Standards (military and commercial) for EEE parts are based on risk averse methodologies, drive higher costs and schedules, and, in general, provide devices that significantly lag behind commercial devices in performance aspects (speed, power efficiency, etc...). This is NOT the model most small missions realistically can use. However, when you look behind the curtain, NEPP has been considering the risk trade space for small missions for over five years and has consistently provided resources that the small mission regime would find useful. In this paper, we provide a brief overview of these resources as well as NEPP's current research/development efforts that are relevant. While we'll primarily discuss radiation assurance related issues such as data availability and usage, assurances processes for not only the radiation effects side, but also the EEE parts reliability will be touched upon.
Parts assurance↗
22 N HPGP Thruster Life Testing
In the ever-changing paradigm of efficient and capable spacecraft design, scientific missions continue pushing the envelope enabling spacecraft subsystems to deliver effective solutions to meet challenging new mission/spacecraft needs. From an in-space storable liquid chemical propulsion perspective, monopropellant hydrazine has been, and continues to be, a dependable propellant with considerable flight heritage, a variety of engine thrust classes available from multiple vendors, with repeatable and reliable performance. Additionally, the space propulsion industry has learned to successfully handle hydrazine, its regulations, the safety protocols, the personnel protective equipment, and the unique training standards–all requisite for loading spacecraft propulsion systems with toxic hypergolic hydrazine. The question now arises as to “what is next for in-space chemical propulsion?” Further, with the evolution and concrete advancements in innovative in-space green propellant technologies, capable of providing realizable benefits to scientific missions, concern over the reliability and availability of this higher performing and safer to handle class of propellants is waning. As science missions move forward with the potential flight in fusion of High Performance Green Propulsion (HPGP), NASA and its industry partners are working to address any gaps in system reliability, performance, or unique operational considerations. Propellant technology that offers both higher performance and significant reduction in personnel hazards compared to hydrazine presents an attractive propulsion subsystem design opportunity. Increased propulsion subsystem performance can result in lower spacecraft launch mass, larger scientific payloads, or extended on-orbit lifetimes. Mission trades using green propulsion technologies have been documented on multiple NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) mission classes, examining various parameters and requirements to support mission architectures in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), High Earth Orbit (HEO), geostationary, lunar, planetary, and Quasi-halo orbit around Sun-Earth Lagrange point (L2). The results of these trade studies show promising, attainable benefits. The perceived programmatic risk of flying a newer propulsion technology has, unfortunately, not outweighed the benefits to date. To take advantage of the improved performance and mitigate programmatic risk, HPGP engines must demonstrate life testing at higher propellant throughputs than have currently been demonstrated. In an effort to proactively address the challenges with technology infusion into a risk-averse community, NASA and the Swedish National Space Agency (SNSA) outlined a collaborative Implementing Arrangement (IA) for the respective agencies to pursue increased HPGP technology maturation. This initial IA effort began in 2013, fresh off the heels of the successful PRISMA HPGP technology demonstration mission. The IA targeted objective is to reduce risk to potential future HPGP missions and fully characterize the LMP-103S propellant and associated engine performance. Over the past eight years, HPGP has flown in propulsion systems on twenty-five(25) spacecraft from seven(7) different Launch Ranges around the globe and on seven (7) different Launch Vehicles. Six(6) of these launches involved multiple loading operations for multiple spacecraft. For U.S. Range operations, nine (9) HPGP systems have been processed at Vandenberg Space Force Base(VSFB):six(6) in 2017, and three (3) in 2018. Six (6) more have been processed at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS)in May 2020, with three (3) systems launched in June 2020 and the remaining three (3) system were left loaded and ready until their launch in August of 2020. Three (3) more systems have been processed at Wallops Flight Facility(WFF)and launched in June 2021. In addition, these propulsion subsystems employed heritage propulsion subsystem component such as valves, filters, and pressure transducers, and have further demonstrated nominal functionality in both diaphragm and Propellant Management Device (PDM) propellant tanks. Based on these successes, HPGP technology continues to be considered for NASA Science Mission Directorate missions at GSFC. The work presented herein represents many years of development and collaborative efforts to successfully align higher performance, low toxicity hydrazine alternatives into scientific missions. NASA GSFC Propulsion Engineering, in collaboration with Bradford ECAPS, has developed mission specific thruster design and testing requirements to establish GSFC’s desired test conditions and firing sequences.In2017, the first flight-like 22N HPGP thruster Engineering Qualification Model (EQM-1)was designed and built by Bradford ECAPS to prove out the thruster design, materials, build process, and test campaign with respect to NASA GSFC critical component and mission requirements. This test program was developed to comprehensively test the thruster, the technology, and ultimately increase the 22N HPGP Technology Readiness Level(TRL). EQM-1was tested to environmental qualification levels prior to hot fire performance testing to represent the relevant end-to-end environment (launch to on-orbit operation)with required margin. This thruster demonstrated steady-state and pulse mode operational capability with propellant thruster throughput up to~53kg.At this throughput level, the EQM-1 engine began to present off-nominal performance and the test campaign was halted to allow for non-destructive testing and identify the root cause for the an omalous performance. Capitalizing on the successful elements of the EQM-1 campaign, an upgraded 22N HPGP EQM-2 has been manufactured by Bradford ECAPS to meet the complete GSFC requirements. The EQM-2 thruster’s test campaign has further demonstrated the robustness of the HPGP propulsion technology and increased the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) by undergoing a full acceptance test program, then proceeding into qualification, including environmental testing (vibration and shock to qualification levels),as well as hot-fire life testing, operating at steady-state and pulse modes with increased propellant thruster throughput to~150kg. The HPGP thruster performance testing enables effective HPGP thruster readiness evaluation to meet NASA candidate mission requirements in the future.
High↗
Demonstration of Rapid Development Through Containerization: OSE-SAT
Modern advancements in spacecraft technology have enabled engineers to develop radically smaller and lighter spacecraft, which has drastically reduced the cost of putting spacecraft into space. Despite these advancements and the shrinking cost to get spacecraft into space, space exploration is still prohibitively expensive. So much so that many space missions prefer to err on the side of caution than take on additional risk by trying newer, unproven technologies. This risk-averse mission design, while very reasonable from a program management point of view, significantly impacts engineers’ ability to solve newer, more complicated problems and limits scientists’ ability to develop more complex experiments that rely on newer technology. Often these new technologies remain stuck at lower technology readiness levels for many years due to the space community's reluctance to take on the additional risks of proving out unproven technology. The Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy (DSA) team at NASA Ames Research Center is developing a containerized solution to enable the rapid development of newer space technologies and accelerate their adoption into space missions. The Opportunistic Software Experiments for Spacecraft Autonomy Testbeds (OSE-SAT) is an on-orbit test bed that aims to reduce the amount of risk associated with newer, unproven space technologies by containerizing each experiment in its own isolated environment and providing a safe, robust, and controlled interface to access spacecraft host resources that is monitored in real time by thoroughly tested Trusted Container developed by DSA. This paper will describe DSA’s implementation of OSE-SAT and discuss the benefits, as well as challenges, of on-orbit containerization.
Aaron J Woodard↗
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↗
Anticipating the reaction: public concern about sample return missions
Shifts in public attitude that may affect extraterrestrial sample return include increased public participation in the legal and regulatory environment, institutionalized public vigilance, politicization of technological debates and shifts in the nature of public decision-making, and a risk-averse public accustomed to mass media coverage that focuses on hazards and disasters. The ice-minus recombinant DNA experiment is used as an example of the effects of public opinion on scientific experimentation.
NASA Center ARC↗
Applying Formal Methods to NASA Projects: Transition from Research to Practice
NASA project managers attempt to manage risk by relying on mature, well-understood process and technology when designing spacecraft. In the case of crewed systems, the margin for error is even tighter and leads to risk aversion. But as we look to future missions to the Moon and Mars, the complexity of the systems will increase as the spacecraft and crew work together with less reliance on Earth-based support. NASA will be forced to look for new ways to do business. Formal methods technologies can help NASA develop complex but cost effective spacecraft in many domains, including requirements and design, software development and inspection, and verification and validation of vehicle subsystems. To realize these gains, the technologies must be matured and field-tested so that they are proven when needed. During this discussion, current activities used to evaluate FM technologies for Orion spacecraft design will be reviewed. Also, suggestions will be made to demonstrate value to current designers, and mature the technology for eventual use in safety-critical NASA missions.
Othon, Bill↗