ImageVerifierCode 换一换
格式:PDF , 页数:3 ,大小:15.83KB ,
资源ID:1018574      下载积分:10000 积分
快捷下载
登录下载
邮箱/手机:
温馨提示:
如需开发票,请勿充值!快捷下载时,用户名和密码都是您填写的邮箱或者手机号,方便查询和重复下载(系统自动生成)。
如填写123,账号就是123,密码也是123。
特别说明:
请自助下载,系统不会自动发送文件的哦; 如果您已付费,想二次下载,请登录后访问:我的下载记录
支付方式: 支付宝扫码支付 微信扫码支付   
注意:如需开发票,请勿充值!
验证码:   换一换

加入VIP,免费下载
 

温馨提示:由于个人手机设置不同,如果发现不能下载,请复制以下地址【http://www.mydoc123.com/d-1018574.html】到电脑端继续下载(重复下载不扣费)。

已注册用户请登录:
账号:
密码:
验证码:   换一换
  忘记密码?
三方登录: 微信登录  

下载须知

1: 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。
2: 试题试卷类文档,如果标题没有明确说明有答案则都视为没有答案,请知晓。
3: 文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
5. 本站仅提供交流平台,并不能对任何下载内容负责。
6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容,请与我们联系,我们立即纠正。
7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。

版权提示 | 免责声明

本文(REG NASA-LLIS-0929-2000 Lessons Learned Planning Effective Project Reviews (1999).pdf)为本站会员(hopesteam270)主动上传,麦多课文库仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。 若此文所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私,请立即通知麦多课文库(发送邮件至master@mydoc123.com或直接QQ联系客服),我们立即给予删除!

REG NASA-LLIS-0929-2000 Lessons Learned Planning Effective Project Reviews (1999).pdf

1、Lessons Learned Entry: 0929Lesson Info:a71 Lesson Number: 0929a71 Lesson Date: 2000-11-29a71 Submitting Organization: JPLa71 Submitted by: K. Atkins, D. OberhettingerSubject: Planning Effective Project Reviews (1999) Abstract: The root cause of the Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) mission failure was iden

2、tified as cumulative navigation errors. These errors resulted, in part, from operational procedures and software that were inadequately reviewed, evaluated, and implemented. A high degree of formality, anomaly follow-up and close out, selection of reviewers and penetration of technical issues is ess

3、ential in the review process, including the design, operational, and peer reviews.Description of Driving Event: The root cause of the Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) mission failure was identified as cumulative navigation errors. These errors resulted, in part, from operational procedures and software th

4、at were inadequately reviewed, evaluated, and implemented.During development and operational phases, review board membership frequently did not include the appropriate discipline experts to identify important issues. For example, the Navigation line organization was not represented at the “MOI (Mars

5、 orbit insertion) and Aerobraking Readiness Review“ during which information on cumulative navigational errors was provided. Contrary to established best practices, requests for action were not generated to address issues identified during this review. Neither the project nor the line organizations

6、utilized peer reviews to their full potential.References:1. “Management of MCO Risks During Mars Encounter,“ Lesson Learned No. 09162. “Report on the Loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter Mission,“ JPL D-18441, JPL Special Review Board, November 11, 1999.3. “Phase I Report,“ (NASA) Mars Climate Orbiter M

7、ishap Investigation Board, November 10, Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-19994. “Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board Phase I Report“, Lesson Learned Number 0641, December 1, 19995. Corrective Action Notice No. Z66277, MCO-J

8、PL/SRB Finding #4.11: “Effectiveness of Reviews,“ November 23, 1999.6. Corrective Action Notice No. Z69160, Mars Program Investigation Results: Review Process, May 1, 2000.7. JPL Policy: “Reviews,“ Rev. 7, JPL Document DMIE-10389, October 18, 2000; JPL Guidelines for Reviews (D-10401), Rev. A, JPL D

9、ocument DMIE-35163, August 15, 1998.Lesson(s) Learned: A high degree of formality and penetration of technical issues is essential in the review process, including the design, operational, and peer reviews.Recommendation(s): 1. Line organizations should assign appropriate representatives to attend r

10、eviews in their respective disciplines. For example, the Navigation line organization should be involved in system design reviews and attend all launch readiness and mission orbit insertion reviews.2. Review boards should assess the project proposed review agendas as stated in JPL/NASA center policy

11、 and guidelines for reviews. (see Reference 7 for JPL review policy) The board chairman should review with the board the criteria for reviews. The review board chair should review the planned implementation of the established guidelines and procedures with the process owner for technical reviews.3.

12、Review board members should be advised by the board chair to pursue reasons for all anomalies revealed during reviews and ensure that appropriate action items are documented.4. JPL/NASA center policy and guidelines should be modified as necessary to emphasize the need to conduct, the value of, and t

13、he implementation of peer reviews.Additional Keyword: Formal ReviewEvidence of Recurrence Control Effectiveness: A JPL Corrective Action Notice has been assigned and practices have been modified.Documents Related to Lesson: N/AMission Directorate(s): Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or n

14、etworking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-a71 Exploration Systemsa71 Sciencea71 Space Operationsa71 Aeronautics ResearchAdditional Key Phrase(s): a71 Aircrafta71 Flight Operationsa71 Flight Equipmenta71 Ground Equipmenta71 Launch Processa71 Payloadsa71 Policy & Planninga71 Risk Management/Ass

15、essmenta71 Safety & Mission Assurancea71 SpacecraftAdditional Info: Approval Info: a71 Approval Date: 2001-03-05a71 Approval Name: Eric Raynora71 Approval Organization: QSa71 Approval Phone Number: 202-358-4738Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-

copyright@ 2008-2019 麦多课文库(www.mydoc123.com)网站版权所有
备案/许可证编号:苏ICP备17064731号-1