Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “workshop”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12

Third Computational Aeroacoustics (CAA) Workshop on Benchmark Problems

The proceedings of the Third Computational Aeroacoustics (CAA) Workshop on Benchmark Problems cosponsored by the Ohio Aerospace Institute and the NASA Glenn Research Center are the subject of this report. Fan noise was the chosen theme for this workshop with representative problems encompassing four of the six benchmark problem categories. The other two categories were related to jet noise and cavity noise. For the first time in this series of workshops, the computational results for the cavity noise problem were compared to experimental data. All the other problems had exact solutions, which are included in this report. The Workshop included a panel discussion by representatives of industry. The participants gave their views on the status of applying computational aeroacoustics to solve practical industry related problems and what issues need to be addressed to make CAA a robust design tool.

Dahl, Milo D.↗

Statistical Analysis of CFD Solutions from 2nd Drag Prediction Workshop

In June 2001, the first AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop was held to evaluate results obtained from extensive N-Version testing of a series of RANS CFD codes. The geometry used for the computations was the DLR-F4 wing-body combination which resembles a medium-range subsonic transport. The cases reported include the design cruise point, drag polars at eight Mach numbers, and drag rise at three values of lift. Although comparisons of the code-to-code medians with available experimental data were similar to those obtained in previous studies, the code-to-code scatter was more than an order-of-magnitude larger than expected and far larger than desired for design and for experimental validation. The second Drag Prediction Workshop was held in June 2003 with emphasis on the determination of installed pylon-nacelle drag increments and on grid refinement studies. The geometry used was the DLR-F6 wing-body-pylon-nacelle combination for which the design cruise point and the cases run were similar to the first workshop except for additional runs on coarse and fine grids to complement the runs on medium grids. The code-to-code scatter was significantly reduced for the wing-body configuration compared to the first workshop, although still much larger than desired. However, the grid refinement studies showed no sign$cant improvement in code-to-code scatter with increasing grid refinement.

Hemsch, M. J.↗

Workshop on Molecular Evolution

Molecular evolution has become the nexus of many areas of biological research. It both brings together and enriches such areas as biochemistry, molecular biology, microbiology, population genetics, systematics, developmental biology, genomics, bioinformatics, in vitro evolution, and molecular ecology. The Workshop provides an important contribution to these fields in that it promotes interdisciplinary research and interaction, and thus provides a glue that sticks together disparate fields. Due to the wide range of fields addressed by the study of molecular evolution, it is difficult to offer a comprehensive course in a university setting. It is rare for a single institution to maintain expertise in all necessary areas. In contrast, the Workshop is uniquely able to provide necessary breadth and depth by utilizing a large number of faculty with appropriate expertise. Furthermore, the flexible nature of the Workshop allows for rapid adaptation to changes in the dynamic field of molecular evolution. For example, the 2003 Workshop included recently emergent research areas of molecular evolution of development and genomics.

Cummings, Michael P.↗

Satellite Instrument Calibration for Measuring Global Climate Change. Report of a Workshop at the University of Maryland Inn and Conference Center, College Park, MD. , November 12-14, 2002

Measuring the small changes associated with long-term global climate change from space is a daunting task. To address these problems and recommend directions for improvements in satellite instrument calibration some 75 scientists, including researchers who develop and analyze long-term data sets from satellites, experts in the field of satellite instrument calibration, and physicists working on state of the art calibration sources and standards met November 12 - 14, 2002 and discussed the issues. The workshop defined the absolute accuracies and long-term stabilities of global climate data sets that are needed to detect expected trends, translated these data set accuracies and stabilities to required satellite instrument accuracies and stabilities, and evaluated the ability of current observing systems to meet these requirements. The workshop's recommendations include a set of basic axioms or overarching principles that must guide high quality climate observations in general, and a roadmap for improving satellite instrument characterization, calibration, inter-calibration, and associated activities to meet the challenge of measuring global climate change. It is also recommended that a follow-up workshop be conducted to discuss implementation of the roadmap developed at this workshop.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (NI↗

Proceedings of the 2004 NASA/ONR Circulation Control Workshop, Part 1

As technological advances influence the efficiency and effectiveness of aerodynamic and hydrodynamic applications, designs and operations, this workshop was intended to address the technologies, systems, challenges and successes specific to Coanda driven circulation control in aerodynamics and hydrodynamics. A major goal of this workshop was to determine the 2004 state-of-the-art in circulation control and understand the roadblocks to its application. The workshop addressed applications, CFD, and experiments related to circulation control, emphasizing fundamental physics, systems analysis, and applied research. The workshop consisted of 34 single session oral presentations and written papers that focused on Naval hydrodynamic vehicles (e.g. submarines), Fixed Wing Aviation, V/STOL platforms, propulsion systems (including wind turbine systems), ground vehicles (automotive and trucks) and miscellaneous applications (e.g., poultry exhaust systems and vacuum systems). Several advanced CFD codes were benchmarked using a two-dimensional NCCR circulation control airfoil. The CFD efforts highlighted inconsistencies in turbulence modeling, separation and performance predictions.

Jones, Gregory S.↗

Report of the Interagency Optical Network Testbeds Workshop 2, NASA Ames Research Center, September 12-14, 2005

The Optical Network Testbeds Workshop 2 (ONT2), held on September 12-14, 2005, was cosponsored by the Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE/SC) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in cooperation with the Joint Engineering Team (JET) of the Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program's Large Scale Networking (LSN) Coordinating Group. The ONT2 workshop was a follow-on to an August 2004 Workshop on Optical Network Testbeds (ONT1). ONT1 recommended actions by the Federal agencies to assure timely development and implementation of optical networking technologies and infrastructure. Hosted by the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California, the ONT2 workshop brought together representatives of the U.S. advanced research and education (R&E) networks, regional optical networks (RONs), service providers, international networking organizations, and senior engineering and R&D managers from Federal agencies and national research laboratories. Its purpose was to develop a common vision of the optical network technologies, services, infrastructure, and organizations needed to enable widespread use of optical networks; recommend activities for transitioning the optical networking research community and its current infrastructure to leading-edge optical networks over the next three to five years; and present information enabling commercial network infrastructure providers to plan for and use leading-edge optical network services in that time frame.

OEP(Open Exchange Points)↗

NASA Laboratory Astrophysics Workshop 2006 Introductory Remarks

NASA Laboratory Astrophysics Workshop 2006, is the fourth in a series of workshops held at four year intervals, to assess the laboratory needs of NASA's astrophysics missions - past, current and future. Investigators who need laboratory data to interpret their observations from space missions, theorists and modelers, experimentalists who produce the data, and scientists who compile databases have an opportunity to exchange ideas and understand each other's needs and limitations. The multi-wavelength character of these workshops allows cross-fertilization of ideas, raises awareness in the scientific community of the rapid advances in other fields, and the challenges it faces in prioritizing its laboratory needs in a tight budget environment. Currently, we are in the golden age of Space Astronomy, with three of NASA s Great Observatories, Hubble Space Telescope (HST), Chandra X-Ray Observatory (CXO), and Spitzer Space Telescope (SST), in operation and providing astronomers and opportunity to perform synergistic observations. In addition, the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE), XMM-Newton, HETE-2, Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX), INTEGRAL and Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), are operating in an extended phase, while Swift and Suzaku are in their prime phase of operations. The wealth of data from these missions is stretching the Laboratory Astrophysics program to its limits. Missions in the future, which also need such data include the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), Space Interferometry Mission (SIM), Constellation-X (Con-X), Herschel, and Planck. The interpretation of spectroscopic data from these missions requires knowledge of atomic and molecular parameters such as transition probabilities, f-values, oscillator strengths, excitation cross sections, collision strengths, which have either to be measured in the laboratory by simulating space plasma and interactions therein, or by theoretical calculations and modeling. Once the laboratory data are obtained, a key step to making them available to the observer is the creation and maintenance of critically compiled databases. Other areas of study, that are important for understanding planet formation, and for detection of molecules that are indicators of life, are also supported by the Laboratory Astrophysics program. Some examples are: studies of ices and dust grains in a space environment; nature and evolution of interstellar carbon-rich dust; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In addition, the program provides an opportunity for the investigation of novel ideas, such as simulating radiative shock instabilities in plasmas, in order to understand jets observed in space. A snapshot of the currently funded program, mission needs, and relevance of laboratory data to interpreting observations, will be obtained at this workshop through invited and contributed talks and poster papers. These will form the basis for discussions in splinter groups. The Science Organization Committee will integrate the results of the discussions into a coherent White Paper, which will provide guidance to NASA in structuring the Laboratory Astrophysics program in subsequent years, and also to the scientific community in submitting research proposals to NASA for funding.

Hasan, Hashima↗

Proceedings of the 2004 Workshop on CFD Validation of Synthetic Jets and Turbulent Separation Control

The papers presented here are from the Langley Research Center Workshop on Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Validation of Synthetic Jets and Turbulent Separation Control (nicknamed "CFDVAL2004"), held March 2004 in Williamsburg, Virginia. The goal of the workshop was to bring together an international group of CFD practitioners to assess the current capabilities of different classes of turbulent flow solution methodologies to predict flow fields induced by synthetic jets and separation control geometries. The workshop consisted of three flow-control test cases of varying complexity, and participants could contribute to any number of the cases. Along with their workshop submissions, each participant included a short write-up describing their method for computing the particular case(s). These write-ups are presented as received from the authors with no editing. Descriptions of each of the test cases and experiments are also included.

Rumsey, Christopher L.↗

Statistical Analysis of the AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop CFD Solutions

The first AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop (DPW), held in June 2001, evaluated the results from an extensive N-version test of a collection of Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes CFD codes. The code-to-code scatter was more than an order of magnitude larger than desired for design and experimental validation of cruise conditions for a subsonic transport configuration. The second AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop, held in June 2003, emphasized the determination of installed pylon-nacelle drag increments and grid refinement studies. The code-to-code scatter was significantly reduced compared to the first DPW, but still larger than desired. However, grid refinement studies showed no significant improvement in code-to-code scatter with increasing grid refinement. The third AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop, held in June 2006, focused on the determination of installed side-of-body fairing drag increments and grid refinement studies for clean attached flow on wing alone configurations and for separated flow on the DLR-F6 subsonic transport model. This report compares the transonic cruise prediction results of the second and third workshops using statistical analysis.

Joseph H Morrison↗

2007 Lunar Regolith Simulant Workshop Overview

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) vision has as a cornerstone, the establishment of an Outpost on the Moon. This Lunar Outpost will eventually provide the necessary planning, technology development, and training for a manned mission to Mars in the future. As part of the overall activity, NASA is conducting Earth-based research and advancing technologies to a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 maturity under the Exploration Technology Development Program that will be incorporated into the Constellation Project as well as other projects. All aspects of the Lunar environment, including the Lunar regolith and its properties, are important in understanding the long-term impacts to hardware, scientific instruments, and humans prior to returning to the Moon and living on the Moon. With the goal of reducing risk to humans and hardware and increasing mission success on the Lunar surface, it is vital that terrestrial investigations including both development and verification testing have access to Lunar-like environments. The Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is supporting this endeavor by developing, characterizing, and producing Lunar simulants in addition to analyzing existing simulants for appropriate applications. A Lunar Regolith Simulant Workshop was conducted by MSFC in Huntsville, Alabama, in October 2007. The purpose of the Workshop was to bring together simulant developers, simulant users, and program and project managers from ETDP and Constellation with the goals of understanding users' simulant needs and their applications. A status of current simulant developments such as the JSC-1A (Mare Type Simulant) and the NASA/U.S. Geological Survey Lunar Highlands-Type Pilot Simulant (NU-LHT-1 M) was provided. The method for evaluating simulants, performed via Figures of Merit (FoMs) algorithms, was presented and a demonstration was provided. The four FoM properties currently being assessed are: size, shape, density, and composition. Some of the Workshop findings include: simulant developers must understand simulant users' needs and applications; higher fidelity simulants are needed and needed in larger quantities now; simulants must be characterized to allow "apples-to-apples" comparison of test results; simulant users should confer with simulant experts to assist them in the selection of simulants; safety precautions should be taken in the handling and use of simulants; shipping, storing, and preparation of simulants have important implications; and most importantly, close communications among the simulant community must be maintained and will be continued via telecoms, meetings, and an annual Lunar Regolith Simulant Workshop.

McLemore, Carole A.↗

2007 Lunar Regolith Simulant Workshop Overview

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) vision has as a cornerstone, the establishment of an Outpost on the Moon. This Lunar Outpost will eventually provide the necessary planning, technology development, and training for a manned mission to Mars in the future. As part of the overall activity, NASA is conducting Earth-based research and advancing technologies to a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 maturity under the Exploration Technology Development Program that will be incorporated into the Constellation Project as well as other projects. All aspects of the Lunar environment, including the Lunar regolith and its properties, are important in understanding the long-term impacts to hardware, scientific instruments, and humans prior to returning to the Moon and living on the Moon. With the goal of reducing risk to humans and hardware and increasing mission success on the Lunar surface, it is vital that terrestrial investigations including both development and verification testing have access to Lunar-like environments. The Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is supporting this endeavor by developing, characterizing, and producing Lunar simulants in addition to analyzing existing simulants for appropriate applications. A Lunar Regolith Simulant Workshop was conducted by MSFC in Huntsville, Alabama, in October 2007. The purpose of the Workshop was to bring together simulant developers, simulant users, and program and project managers from ETDP and Constellation with the goals of understanding users' simulant needs and their applications. A status of current simulant developments such as the JSC-1A (Mare Type Simulant) and the NASA/U.S. Geological Survey Lunar Highlands-Type Pilot Simulant (NU-LHT-1M) was provided. The method for evaluating simulants, performed via Figures of Merit (FoMs) algorithms, was presented and a demonstration was provided. The four FoM properties currently being assessed are: size, shape, density, and composition. Some of the Workshop findings include: simulant developers must understand simulant users' needs and applications; higher fidelity simulants are needed and needed in larger quantities now; simulants must be characterized to allow "apples-to-apples" comparison of test results; simulant users should confer with simulant experts to assist them in the selection of simulants; safety precautions should be taken in the handling and use of simulants; shipping, storing, and preparation of simulants have important implications; and most importantly, close communications among the simulant community must be maintained and will be continued via telecoms, meetings, and an annual Lunar Regolith Simulant Workshop.

McLemore, Carole A.↗

NASA Spacecraft Fault Management Workshop Results

Fault Management is a critical aspect of deep-space missions. For the purposes of this paper, fault management is defined as the ability of a system to detect, isolate, and mitigate events that impact, or have the potential to impact, nominal mission operations. The fault management capabilities are commonly distributed across flight and ground subsystems, impacting hardware, software, and mission operations designs. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Discovery & New Frontiers (D&NF) Program Office at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) recently studied cost overruns and schedule delays for 5 missions. The goal was to identify the underlying causes for the overruns and delays, and to develop practical mitigations to assist the D&NF projects in identifying potential risks and controlling the associated impacts to proposed mission costs and schedules. The study found that 4 out of the 5 missions studied had significant overruns due to underestimating the complexity and support requirements for fault management. As a result of this and other recent experiences, the NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) Planetary Science Division (PSD) commissioned a workshop to bring together invited participants across government, industry, academia to assess the state of the art in fault management practice and research, identify current and potential issues, and make recommendations for addressing these issues. The workshop was held in New Orleans in April of 2008. The workshop concluded that fault management is not being limited by technology, but rather by a lack of emphasis and discipline in both the engineering and programmatic dimensions. Some of the areas cited in the findings include different, conflicting, and changing institutional goals and risk postures; unclear ownership of end-to-end fault management engineering; inadequate understanding of the impact of mission-level requirements on fault management complexity; and practices, processes, and tools that have not kept pace with the increasing complexity of mission requirements and spacecraft systems. This paper summarizes the findings and recommendations from that workshop, as well as opportunities identified for future investment in tools, processes, and products to facilitate the development of space flight fault management capabilities.

Newhouse, Marilyn↗

Results from the NASA Spacecraft Fault Management Workshop: Cost Drivers for Deep Space Missions

Fault Management, the detection of and response to in-flight anomalies, is a critical aspect of deep-space missions. Fault management capabilities are commonly distributed across flight and ground subsystems, impacting hardware, software, and mission operations designs. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Discovery & New Frontiers (D&NF) Program Office at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) recently studied cost overruns and schedule delays for five missions. The goal was to identify the underlying causes for the overruns and delays, and to develop practical mitigations to assist the D&NF projects in identifying potential risks and controlling the associated impacts to proposed mission costs and schedules. The study found that four out of the five missions studied had significant overruns due to underestimating the complexity and support requirements for fault management. As a result of this and other recent experiences, the NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) Planetary Science Division (PSD) commissioned a workshop to bring together invited participants across government, industry, and academia to assess the state of the art in fault management practice and research, identify current and potential issues, and make recommendations for addressing these issues. The workshop was held in New Orleans in April of 2008. The workshop concluded that fault management is not being limited by technology, but rather by a lack of emphasis and discipline in both the engineering and programmatic dimensions. Some of the areas cited in the findings include different, conflicting, and changing institutional goals and risk postures; unclear ownership of end-to-end fault management engineering; inadequate understanding of the impact of mission-level requirements on fault management complexity; and practices, processes, and tools that have not kept pace with the increasing complexity of mission requirements and spacecraft systems. This paper summarizes the findings and recommendations from that workshop, particularly as fault management development issues affect operations and the development of operations capabilities.

Newhouse, Marilyn E.↗

PRA in Design: Increasing Confidence in Pre-Operational Assessments of Risks (Results of a Joint NASA/NRC Workshop)

In late 2009, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) jointly organized a workshop to discuss technical issues associated with application of risk assessments to early phases of system design. The workshop, which was coordinated by the Idaho National Laboratory, involved invited presentations from a number of PRA experts in the aerospace and nuclear fields and subsequent discussion to address the following questions: (a) What technical issues limit decision-makers' confidence in PRA results, especially at a pre-operational phase of the system life cycle? (b) What is being done to address these issues'? (c) What more can be done ? The workshop resulted in participant observations and suggestions on several technical issues, including the pursuit of non-traditional approaches to risk assessment and the verification and validation of risk models. The workshop participants also identified several important non-technical issues, including risk communication with decision makers, and the integration of PRA into the overall design process.

Youngblood, Robert↗

A Summary of Data and Findings from the First Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

This paper summarizes data and findings from the first Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW) held in April, 2012. The workshop has been designed as a series of technical interchange meetings to assess the state of the art of computational methods for predicting unsteady flowfields and static and dynamic aeroelastic response. The goals are to provide an impartial forum to evaluate the effectiveness of existing computer codes and modeling techniques to simulate aeroelastic problems, and to identify computational and experimental areas needing additional research and development. For this initial workshop, three subject configurations have been chosen from existing wind tunnel data sets where there is pertinent experimental data available for comparison. Participant researchers analyzed one or more of the subject configurations and results from all of these computations were compared at the workshop. Keywords: Unsteady Aerodynamics, Aeroelasticity, Computational Fluid Dynamics, Transonic Flow, Separated Flow.

Schuster, David M.↗

Summary of the 2008 NASA Fundamental Aeronautics Program Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop

The Supersonics Project of the NASA Fundamental Aeronautics Program organized an internal sonic boom workshop to evaluate near- and mid-field sonic boom prediction capability at the Fundamental Aeronautics Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia on October 8, 2008. Workshop participants computed sonic boom signatures for three non-lifting bodies and two lifting configurations. A cone-cylinder, parabolic, and quartic bodies of revolution comprised the non-lifting cases. The lifting configurations were a simple 69-degree delta wing body and a complete low-boom transport configuration designed during the High Speed Research Project in the 1990s with wing, body, tail, nacelle, and boundary layer diverter components. The AIRPLANE, Cart3D, FUN3D, and USM3D ow solvers were employed with the ANET signature propagation tool, output-based adaptation, and a priori adaptation based on freestream Mach number and angle of attack. Results were presented orally at the workshop. This article documents the workshop, results, and provides context on previously available and recently developed methods.

Park, Michael A.↗

CFL3D, FUN3d, and NSU3D Contributions to the Fifth Drag Prediction Workshop

Results presented at the Fifth Drag Prediction Workshop using CFL3D, FUN3D, and NSU3D are described. These are calculations on the workshop provided grids and drag adapted grids. The NSU3D results have been updated to reflect an improvement to skin friction calculation on skewed grids. FUN3D results generated after the workshop are included for custom participant generated grids and a grid from a previous workshop. Uniform grid refinement at the design condition shows a tight grouping in calculated drag, where the variation in the pressure component of drag is larger than the skin friction component. At this design condition, A fine-grid drag value was predicted with a smaller drag adjoint adapted grid via tetrahedral adaption to a metric and mixed-element subdivision. The buffet study produced larger variation than the design case, which is attributed to large differences in the predicted side-of-body separation extent. Various modeling and discretization approaches had a strong impact on predicted side-of-body separation. This large wing root separation bubble was not observed in wind tunnel tests indicating that more work is necessary in modeling wing root juncture flows to predict experiments.

Park, Michael A.↗

Summary of Data from the Fifth AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop

Results from the Fifth AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop (DPW-V) are presented. As with past workshops, numerical calculations are performed using industry-relevant geometry, methodology, and test cases. This workshop focused on force/moment predictions for the NASA Common Research Model wing-body configuration, including a grid refinement study and an optional buffet study. The grid refinement study used a common grid sequence derived from a multiblock topology structured grid. Six levels of refinement were created resulting in grids ranging from 0.64x10(exp 6) to 138x10(exp 6) hexahedra - a much larger range than is typically seen. The grids were then transformed into structured overset and hexahedral, prismatic, tetrahedral, and hybrid unstructured formats all using the same basic cloud of points. This unique collection of grids was designed to isolate the effects of grid type and solution algorithm by using identical point distributions. This study showed reduced scatter and standard deviation from previous workshops. The second test case studied buffet onset at M=0.85 using the Medium grid (5.1x106 nodes) from the above described sequence. The prescribed alpha sweep used finely spaced intervals through the zone where wing separation was expected to begin. Some solutions exhibited a large side of body separation bubble that was not observed in the wind tunnel results. An optional third case used three sets of geometry, grids, and conditions from the Turbulence Model Resource website prepared by the Turbulence Model Benchmarking Working Group. These simple cases were intended to help identify potential differences in turbulence model implementation. Although a few outliers and issues affecting consistency were identified, the majority of participants produced consistent results.

Levy, David W.↗