development of global safety synergies for space ... · development of global safety synergies for...
TRANSCRIPT
Development of global Safety synergies for Space Exploration
regulations
Bridging with Aviation standards
67th IAC, Guadalajara, Mexico 30th September 2016
Aline Decadi, HE Space Operations BV at European Space Agency [email protected]
2016 International Astronautical Congress
2
Global Exploration Roadmap
Mars Exploration scenarios have a common common
international strategy
Global Exploration Roadmap (GER)
è Space Exploration
based on international interest
& collaboration
3
What has changed since Apollo?
Yesterday & today – Earth-dependent
Lift-off Apollo capsule (image Apollo 17 @NASA)
Tomorrow – Proving ground and Earth-independent
Lunar base (@ESA) Lift-off Mars Ascent Vehicle (@NASA)
4
Existing Space Safety Standards
• ISO (International Standards Organization) including the basic space policy standards funded in ISO 14300 :
• Regulations and standards for (un)manned space systems by agencies and
institutions:
è Need for jointly establish safety consensus standards to become recommended references
for national regulations
ISO 14620-1 to -3: Space Systems Safety requirements
ISO 17666: Space Systems Risks Management
ISO 1464-1 to -7: Space Systems in terms of Safety and Compatibility of Materials.
ISO 24113: Space Debris Mitigation requirements
ISO 27875: Re-entry risk management for unmanned spacecraft and Launch vehicle orbital stages
5
Global standardised Safety process for Aviation
SAE Aerospace Recommended Practices ARP4761
• Guideline and method for conducting the safety assessment process
• Standardized process used worldwide • World's most severe civil aviation standard • Enriched by decades of maturation:
è Benefit from the civil airborne process to reach international consensus for space exploration safety standard
60 millions per year (average flight duration
of 2 hours)
Cumulated number of
hours flown for a plane ?
6
Common Safety objective for Aviation and Space Safety Assessment
Critical Functions That may lead to loss
of crew/ mission
Bring the failure probability down to an acceptable level of safety
7
Standardized Safety Assessment process in Aviation
MEANS OF COMPLIANCE Means AC 25.1309 ó AMC 25.1309
METHOD/ ANALYSIS
CRITERIA (QUAN & QUAL)
SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROCESS GUIDELINES AND METHODS (ARP 4761)
AIRCRAFT & SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES (ARP 4754A)
ELECTRONIC HW DEVELOPMENT LIFE-
CYCLE (DO-254) SW DEVELOPMENT LIFE-
CYCLE (DO-178B)
Intended aircraft function
CERTIFICATION SPECIFICATIONS harmonized worldwide Requirements
FAR 25.1309 ó EASA
CS-25.1309
ELEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE/ CERTIFICATION Results
8
Comparison of Safety tools with Space Exploration (e.g. analysis, methodology)
Space procedure (NPR 8705-2B): METHOD: Aviation standard (ARP 4761):
•Hazard Analysis (HA) equivalent
•Functional Hazard Analysis (FHA) •Preliminary System Safety Analysis (PSSA)
•System Safety Analysis (SSA)
•Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) <=> •Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)
•Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) <=>
•Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
•Damage Modes and Effects Analysis (DMEA)
equivalent
•Zonal Safety Analysis (ZSA) & Common Cause Analysis (CCA)
•Critical Items Lists (CIL) equivalent •FMEA & Particular Risk Analysis
•Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) equivalent •Particular Risk Analysis
•Simulation modeling <=> •Simulation modeling
•Accident Precursor Analysis (APA) equivalent •Integrated in FHA, PSSA, SSA
9
Comparison of Safety criteria with Space Exploration
• Which criteria to be applied for the implementation of the Space Safety Assessment?
E.g.
vs.
• Several risk mitigation strategies are available to reach the requested level of mission safety.
• Need more maturation to converge on common criteria not ambigous and not open to interpretation.
Probabilistic criteria?
NPR 8705.2B, 2008
1 FT + Proba of LOC
Deterministic criteria?
NPR 8705.2 (no rev), 2003
2 FTs
Management Programmatic Technical
Experience Mission scenario
Mission phases
10
Recommendations to reach international consensus regulating space exploration
• Elaborate requirements without specificities a priori on mission class, or type of vehicle, or purpose of flight, due to the unavailability of sufficient relevant experience & data
• Providing a path towards evolutionary improvements in regulation: Using Standardized process for aircrafts (ARP 4761 and ARP 4754) in terms of method & analysis
• As the human spacecraft base will mature for establishing criteria: • Alternative 1: refinement through maturation process • Alternative 2: increase levels of crew/ mission survival
! Clear need for iterations on a collaboration manner between Agencies and industry to determine how to advance innovative mission concepts, while being compliant to
stringent Certification criteria
11
Presented by: Aline Decadi, HE Space Operations BV
at European Space Agency HQ Paris Daumesnil [email protected]
Thank you for your attention!
Any question ?
67th IAC, Guadalajara, Mexico