REG NASA-LLIS-2042-2009 Lessons Learned Each NASA Project Should Assess Its Compliance with NASA Lessons Learned.pdf

《REG NASA-LLIS-2042-2009 Lessons Learned Each NASA Project Should Assess Its Compliance with NASA Lessons Learned.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《REG NASA-LLIS-2042-2009 Lessons Learned Each NASA Project Should Assess Its Compliance with NASA Lessons Learned.pdf（5页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Lessons Learned Entry: 2042Lesson Info:a71 Lesson Number: 2042a71 Lesson Date: 2009-3-17a71 Submitting Organization: JPLa71 Submitted by: David Oberhettingera71 POC Name: Michaela71 POC Email: Michael.A.Grossjpl.nasa.gova71 POC Phone: 818-393-3342Subject: Each NASA Project Should Assess Its Complian

2、ce with NASA Lessons Learned Abstract: NASA has been criticized for failing to systematically make use of information in the NASA Lesson Learned Information System. Mars Exploration Rover, Kepler, and Juno are examples of major current JPL flight projects that have assessed their compliance with the

3、 lessons learned in this compendium. All NASA programs and projects should obtain insight into known risks by assigning each lesson learned to a subject matter expert, re-assessing its applicability at major milestones, and documenting their compliance status.Description of Driving Event: The NASA L

4、esson Learned Information System (LLIS) is a compendium of significant lessons learned from decades of spaceflight and support activities. However, NASA has been criticized for failing to systematically use this valuable information from past experience (Reference (1). In discussing the LLIS, the Co

5、lumbia Accident Investigation Board (Reference (2) remarked that “design engineers and mission assurance personnel use it only on an ad hoc basis, thereby limiting its utility.“ NASA once required programs and projects to assess, and report at each major project milestone, their application of these

6、 lessons learned (Reference (3). This iterative self-assessment is beneficial because the applicability of a given lesson learned (e.g., dont use this lubricant on titanium motor bearings) to a project may not be evident in an early project phase (i.e., when it hasnt yet selected a material for its

7、bearings). Projects beginning Phase A would typically assign each lesson learned in Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-the LLIS to a subject matter expert, perform a preliminary assessment of its applicability, update this assessment as

8、necessary, and document the projects compliance status. In addition to assuring that lessons from prior experience are not ignored, this process may also identify content for the projects Significant Risk List. Major current Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) flight projects that have assessed/self-aud

9、ited their application of NASA lessons learned include Kepler, Juno, and the “flagship“ Mars Exploration Rover (MER) project. Both the Kepler project and its system contractor assessed their compliance against the complete LLIS compendium- over 1100 lessons learned. The Juno project conducted self-a

10、udits prior to Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR) to confirm that Juno had accounted for lessons learned not yet incorporated into the JPL Design Principles (Reference (4), and the project is continuing to review new LLIS content. The MER project elected to assess its a

11、pplication of the lessons learned contributed by two NASA Centers, JPL and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), because those Centers conduct mainly robotic missions similar to MER. The MER project prepared a Lessons Learned Compliance Matrix (Reference (5) that lists 364 lessons learned publish

12、ed between 1985 and 2003. (The MER project was in Phase D in 2003, with few opportunities to modify the rover design based on any lessons learned published after 2003.) For each entry, the matrix summarizes the lesson learned, identifies the engineering process owners assigned to review the lesson,

13、and reports on the status of MER compliance with the recommendations in the lesson learned. For example, Reference (6) is a JPL lesson learned that explains the need to involve project scientists in critical project decisions during system development. This compliance item was assigned on the matrix

14、 to “Project Management,“ and the MER compliance status was assessed as: “Compliant (Crisp). A MER Data Archive Working Group chaired by Ray Arvidson was started early in the Project and meets regularly. Role and scope of the science team was defined in the MER Science Management Plan and Athena Sci

15、ence Implementation Plan. Production and validating of data products is outlined in the MER Archive Generation, Validation, and Transfer Plan.“Reference (7) is a GSFC lesson learned about thruster plume impingement on the structure of the Terra spacecraft. The lesson learned recommends performance o

16、f high fidelity, 3-axis simulations prior to launch. This compliance item was assigned on the MER matrix for review by both “Operations“ and “Attitude Control/Navigation,“ and the MER compliance status was then assessed as: “Compliant. High fidelity tests of closed loop attitude control operations h

17、ave been performed in both ATLO and testbeds.“These two entries point out the importance of performing the compliance audit on an iterative basis. Although the status of MER compliance with the Reference (6) entry could be determined early in Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networkin

18、g permitted without license from IHS-,-,-the MER project life cycle, the status of MER compliance with the Reference (7) entry could not be confirmed until ATLO (integration and test) in Phase D. The assessments should continue into Phases E and F since the LLIS includes valuable lessons learned on

19、mission operations. These assessments are typically coordinated by project staff from the Centers mission assurance organization, and the completed compliance matrix raises the projects confidence that it has addressed known risks to mission success. References: 1. “NASA: Better Mechanisms Needed fo

20、r Sharing Lessons Learned,“ Report No. GAO-02-195, United States General Accounting Office, January 2002. 2. “Report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board,“ August 2003, p. 189. 3. “NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements“ (NPG 7120.5B), Paragraph 4.6.3.3 (Lessons Learn

21、ed Requirements), November 21, 2002, p. 78. 4. “Design, Verification/Validation and Operations Principles for Flight Systems (Design Principles),“ JPL Document No. D-17868, Rev. 3, December 11, 2006. 5. “Lessons Learned Compliance Matrix,“ Mars Exploration Rover Project Library, last revised on Sept

22、ember 21, 2008. 6. “Involve Project Scientists in Critical Decisions Throughout the Project Lifecycle,“ Lesson Learned #0941, NASA Engineering Network, July 3, 2001. 7. “Thruster Plume Impingement,“ Lesson Learned #0979, NASA Engineering Network, August 6, 2001.Lesson(s) Learned: Non-systematic, ad

23、hoc use of the NASA Lesson Learned Information System limits its utility, constrains the ability of NASA to learn from past mishaps and successes, and deprives programs and projects of insight into known risks to mission success.Recommendation(s): Although it is no longer required by NASA policy, NA

24、SA programs and projects should assess their compliance with NASA lessons learned at each major program or project milestone.Evidence of Recurrence Control Effectiveness: JPL has referenced this lesson learned as additional rationale and guidance supporting Paragraph 5.22.2 (“Lessons Learned“) in th

25、e Jet Propulsion Laboratory standard “Flight Project Practices, Rev. 7,“ JPL DocID 58032, September 30, 2008.Documents Related to Lesson: Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Click here to download document. Mission Directorate(s): a71 Aer

26、onautics Researcha71 Exploration Systemsa71 Sciencea71 Space OperationsAdditional Key Phrase(s): a71 1.Business processesa71 1.Program level review processesa71 1.Program planning, development, and managementa71 1.Risk managementa71 0.“a71 1.Engineering design and project processes and standardsa71

27、0.“a71 0a71 0a71 0.“a71 1.Early requirements and standards definitiona71 1.Product Assurancea71 1.Accident Investigationa71 1.Human Resources & Educationa71 1.Mishap Reportinga71 1.NASA Standardsa71 1.Risk Management/Assessmenta71 1.Safety & Mission AssuranceAdditional Info: a71 Project: MER, Kepler, JunoApproval Info: a71 Approval Date: 2009-06-11a71 Approval Name: mbella71 Approval Organization: HQProvided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-