Modernizing NASA's Risk Classification System

NASA's risk classification system dates back to an era when every new NASA space mission was a one-of-a-kind build, and the only way to obtain reliability was as a by-product through a combination of reliability analyses, extensive and stringent quality requirements, and extensive testing. Originally, there were very limited commercial capabilities to develop systems to work reliably in space, so NASA considered its own homegrown approach the only recipe for success. This approach involved very detailed and prescriptive piece-part controls and no reliance on (and to some extent a rejection of) any type of commercial practices. Often risk was considered to be the lowest when NASA had the maximum amount of control and prescription, and the highest when commercial practices were largely employed, and these principles drove risk classification in the agency. Over time, however, commercial capabilities grew, and many products became standardized and commercialized, while the agency maintained its tried-and-true approach, paying little attention to the evolution of the commercial sector. In fact, the commercial sector was developing systems that have direct, proven reliability, established over time, while NASA still maintained the approach to ignore the reality of the commercialized aspects of standard products, label them as high risk, and attempt to change them to align with the agency's piece-part control practices. A table of mission classification vs lifetime for missions launched after 2000 indicates no correlation between lifetime and classification, with the few exceptions involving missions that have very limited objectives and no valid purpose to continue after they were met. This paper steps through some of the key historical elements in risk classification and NASA's overall approach to assurance, and presents some elements being brought forward to modernize the approach and take advantage of the growing capability in the commercial sector.