Module2
docx
School
University of Central Florida *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
SYSE560
Subject
English
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by jdrassett
Case Study 1: Space Station
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
SYSE 560
Dr. Reza Rahdar
1/16/2024
Introduction
The United States continually pursues and develops creative methodologies to acquire new systems to meet scientific needs. Due to the continually need to scientific innovation, the International Space Station (ISS) was built, as it was one of the most technologically sophisticated modular space stations that NASA had ever build. Multiple nations contributed to the construction of such Space Station, which utilized artificial satellites (Jenks, 2000). Because of this development, such factors had to be analyzed and presented prior to development and creation, in terms of system management. As documented by the Air Force Center for Systems Engineering, the proposed document aims to provide an understanding to the fundamental risk management and multi-organizational systems engineering management principles and process that can also be applied to private sector settings.
Risk Management
NASA’s risk management philosophy is shaped by its commitment to conducting complex pioneering missions in space exploration. As documented by NASA, NASA’s Risk Management program’s mission is to provide a unified risk management structure that applies to all agency activities and all applicable risks and interactions, and is integrated across organizational boundaries to ensure that risk management decisions are delegated and/or elevated to the appropriate level (Risk Management, 2023). From this, several conclusions can be drawn, such as embracing innovation and exploration, systematic risk identification and analysis, continuous monitoring and adaptation, safety, and open communication and transparency. Diving into one of the of the conclusions, systematic risk identification and analysis, NASA employs a systematic approach to identify and analyze risks. The agency
recognizes that understanding potential risks is essential for mission success as this involves thorough assessments of technical, operational, and external factors that could impact missions. Diving into a second risk management conclusion, safety, aims to implicate that while NASA embraces risk, the agency places a high priority on the safety of astronauts and mission success. Decision-making involves careful consideration of safety and protocols. NASA has developed a rigorous safety review process that is documented in their safety review process regulation for the overall integrated safety of the ISS. The purpose of this is to provide in-line and phased reviews for the flight and ground elements and the support equipment (Air Force Center for Systems Engineering, 2010). System Engineering Process
51.6-Degree Orbital Inclination
The ISS was placed in a 51.6-degree orbital inclination, which is an international choice that comes with certain considerations and risk. One risk associated with specifying such an exact orbital inclination was resupply and crew transport. The advantage of the specified angle was that it allows for the ISS to have good coverage over a wide range of Earth’s latitudes. This means that the ISS can pass over more populated areas and carious scientific targets. However, the risk associated with such an angle means that it cannot cover the extreme polar regions, limiting the types of observations and experiments that can be conducted in those defined areas. In addition, the change of orbital inclination impacted key ISS design elements such as power and thermal subsystems, orbital debris protection and STS operations (Air Force Center for Systems Engineering, 2010).
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Secondly, orbital debris and collision risk had to be analyzed with the orbital inclination change. The ISS’s inclination change helped minimize the risk of collision with orbital debris since the path is directed to avoid the most congested regions of low Earth orbit. This doesn’t negate the fact that there is still a risk of collisions, and adjustments to the station’s orbit may be required to avoid such debris or other space vehicles. Multi-national System Developmental Risks
In a multi-national system development like the (ISS), where collaboration involves entities from different countries with diverse cultures, political systems, languages, financial structures, and measurement systems, several risks can emerge. These risks can impact project management, communication, and the overall success of the mission. Cultural differences are one aspect of developmental risk that can be analyzed from a multi-national ISS. Varied cultural norms, communication styles, and work practices among international partners can sometimes lead to a misunderstanding and conflicts. Within this, different approaches to decision-making or
conflict resolution can negatively impact the ISS in terms of schedule and operation, leading to delays or inefficiencies throughout. To correctly account for such differences, NASA developed a process that establishes each partner to use its own process standards rather than try to force adoption of NASA’s process standards. In this case, a “meets or exceeds” evaluation was performed on foreign deliveries (from ESA, ASI, NASDA, and CSA) with respect to manufacturing standards, particularly on materials processes and EEE parts. With respect to Russia, the evaluation was extended to include almost all of the aerospace standards, including fracture control, human factors, and coatings (Air Force Center for Systems Engineering, 2010). Another potential risk for the multi-national system is financial implications. The risk of currency fluctuations, funding disparities, and differing budget cycles among participating
nations can create financial challenges that may be difficult to overcome. An example of such conflict could be from economic downturns or changes in budget priorities that may result in reduced financial contributions from certain countries, impacting the overall budget of the program. Conclusion
In summary, NASA's risk management philosophy is characterized by a balance between
embracing the unknown, systematic risk analysis, adaptability, learning from experience,
transparent communication, and a steadfast commitment to safety. This philosophy reflects the
agency's mission to explore and expand our understanding of the universe while minimizing
risks to the extent possible.
References
Air Force Center for Systems Engineering; Stockman, Bill; Boyle, Joe; and Bacon, John, "International Space Station Systems Engineering Case Study" (2010). AFIT Documents.
27.
Jenks, M. (2000). Systems engineering challenges Of the International Space Station
. Reports on
Leading-edge engineering from the 2000 Symposium on Frontiers in Engineering. Pages 3 -8. Retrieved from website: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10063.html
Risk Management. (2023). Sma.nasa.gov. https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/risk-management
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help