SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Approach and landing is the most common phase of flight for aviation accidents, accounting annually for approximately 65 percent of all accidents. A Flight Safety Foundation study of 16 years of runway excursions determined that 83 percent could have been avoided with a decision to go around. In other words, 54 percent of all accidents could potentially be prevented by going around. A critical industry policy designed to help prevent such accidents is the go-around policy. However, the collective industry performance of complying with go-around policies is extremely poor and only about three percent of unstable approaches result in a go-around. Improving the go-around compliance rate holds tremendous potential in reducing approach and landing accidents. There are many reasons for flight crews ignoring go-around policies related to pilot judgement and company policies. Examples are the collective industry norm to accept the noncompliance of go-around policies, management being disengaged from go-around noncompliance, and pilot fatigue and lack of situational awareness. One of the biggest factors is that pilots see current stabilized-approach criteria as too complex and restrictive for the operational environment. Following the American Airlines 1420 accident (Little Rock, 1999), where the aircraft overran the runway upon landing and crashed, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) define detailed parameters for a stabilized approach, and develop detailed criteria indicating when a go-around should be performed. The experiment discussed in this presentation is the first step towards developing these go-around criteria for commercial transport aircraft.
Angular broadening of radiation due to scattering by density irregularities is usually described using geometric optics (GO) or the parabolic wave equation (PWE) with the assumptions that the radiation frequency f greatly exceeds the local plasma frequency f(sub p0) or that f(sub p0)/f is constant along the path. These assumptions are inappropriate for many solar system radio phenomena. Here the PWE and GO formalisms are extended to treat angular broadening in plasmas with nonzero, spatially varying ratios, f(sub p0)(z)/f < 1. The new PWE results show that the correlation function, scattered angular spectrum, and other quantities are modified by inclusion of a denominator factor [1 - f(sup 2, sub p0)(z prime)/f prime] inside the path integral over z prime, while the mean-square scattering angle depends on both f(sub p0)(z)/f at the observer and the foregoing factor inside the path integral. The PWE and GO predictions for are identical and involve equivalent assumptions. Previous GO and PWE results are recovered in the limits that f(sub p0)(z prime)/f is constant or zero. The new PWE and GO results will permit more accurate calculation of angular broadening for solar system and astrophysical sources. Moreover and importantly, due to the PWE and GO results for being identical, previous GO analyses of in solar system contexts are essentially correct, except for the neglect of or minor deficiencies in the treatment of nonzero, spatially varying f(sub p0)/f effects. The identical GO and PWE results for and the form of the PWE equation for the correlation function raise questions as to whether diffraction is unimportant for angular broadening (under the usual PWE conditions). Future direct comparisons of the PWE predictions with angular spectra calculated using existing GO ray-tracing codes should answer these questions. Diffraction effects are probably important when the medium and turbulence are not sufficiently homogeneous transverse to the central ray path. The implications are also discussed for studies of the 2-3.5 kHz radiation observed in the outer heliosphere.
Graphene oxide (GO) was incorporated into polyamide-11 (PA11) via in-situ polymerization. The GO-PA11 nano-composite had elevated resistance to hydrolytic degradation. At a loading of 1 mg/g, GO to PA11, the accelerated aging equilibrium molecular weight of GO-PA11 was higher (33 and 34 kg/mol at 100 and 120 °C, respectively) compared to neat PA11 (23 and 24 kg/mol at 100 and 120 °C, respectively). Neat PA11 had hydrolysis rate constants (kH) of 2.8 and 12 ( × 10(exp -2) day(exp -1)) when aged at 100 and 120 °C, respectively, and re-polymerization rate constants (kP) of 5.0 and 23 ( × 10(exp -5) day(exp -1)), respectively. The higher equilibrium molecular weight for GO-PA11 loaded at 1 mg/g was the result of a decreased kH, 1.8 and 4.5 ( × 10(exp -2) day(exp -1)), and an increased kP, 10 and 17 ( × 10(exp -5) day(exp -1)) compared with neat PA11 at 100 and 120 °C, respectively. The decreased rate of degradation and resulting 40% increased equilibrium molecular weight of GO-PA11 was attributed to the highly asymmetric planar GO nano-sheets that inhibited the molecular mobility of water and the polymer chain. The crystallinity of the polymer matrix was similarly affected by a reduction in chain mobility during annealing due to the GO nanoparticles' chemistry and highly asymmetric nano-planar sheet structure.
Since the dawn of civilization, we have beheld at the beauty and wonder of the natural world around us and wondered how it came to be. We have pondered the past, and have been intrigued about the future. For this we are unique. Our ancestors looked to the vastness of space and thought surely there are others out there. We are now at a new time in human history where we can address these age-old questions with a scientific approach and study rigorously the three big questions of astrobiology: Where do we come from? Where are we going? and Are we alone? These fundamental questions of astrobiology correspond to those of humanity, and arguably, what makes us human. And so we cannot help but be drawn to the field. Unlike other scientific disciplines, Astrobiology draws on the latest advances in a multitude of fields, from evolutionary and molecular biology, to prebiotic and interstellar chemistry, from astrophysics to astronomy, with a healthy dose of earth and planetary science. Astrobiology is in reality a "metadiscipline" drawing on useful science wherever it is to be found. From a practical point of view, this endeavor requires the interaction of scientists who might not normally meet each other, much less work on a common research project. And, unlike most other scientific disciplines, Astrobiology has implications for how we see ourselves, and how we interact with the earth and beyond. "Where do we come from" touches on the "why" questions that have intrigued not just scientists but philosophers and theologians. "Where are we going" adds to these an economic and political involvement that is currently being played out with discussions of climate change. "And are we alone" will someday force us to face the fact that we as living creatures are not unique, or perhaps that we are utterly alone in the universe, the result of a chemical history that was so improbable as to result in a sample size of one. Either result will force ethical considerations of either "the other" and their relationship to us, or our solitude and thus responsibility as the only life form in our cosmos. So what is Astrobiology? Let's start with the "Where do we come from?" A biologist will approach this looking at the evolution of life on earth, using such traditional tools as comparative anatomy and paleontology and newer tools such as molecular techniques. But this doesn't address why this happened the way it did without a comprehensive understanding of the environment. What was the temperature at such and such a time? Was the earth in a snowball phase or being bombarded by meteorites -- or even just a single large, well-placed one such as struck off the Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago. This event could not have been predicted by population genetics alone, yet it had the most profound influence on our evolution as without it, we could still be in a world dominated by dinosaurs with the mammals cowering under cover. But it is not enough to go back to LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all extant life. One must go back to the dawn of life. How did life arise? What was the environmental backdrop that allowed it to happen? How did we happen to end up with a habitable planet? Indeed, what is the origin and evolution of our solar system, galaxy, biogenic elements all the way back to the Big Bang. The "Where are we going?" tends to be ignored in many astrobiology programs, but in fact this is of the most immediate importance to us. Whereas the past was dominated by physical and chemical processes, and organismal interactions, the future has a new major player: us. While we probably don't have the power (yet) to stop our galaxy passing through another, or even reset the sun or stop the movement of the moon away from the earth, all of these things will influence the future of life on earth. We are already proving that we have the power to visit other bodies in our solar system, either with humans or our robotic surrogates. We are changing our atmospheric composition and thus our climate. We have the power to render species extinct, including our own. But we also have the power to use these tools for the common good, to extend our lifetimes and reclaim our rivers and forests. Which will it be? And then there is the question where science fiction becomes a reality: "Are we alone?" While many people are anxious to find signs of intelligent life out there, such a creature may not share either our curiosity or values. But what if there was a beneficent alien civilization that could communicate with us, perhaps forging a mutual understanding? More likely in the forseeable future is finding a small life, less evolved, life form. Note I did not use the word "simple" as there is nothing "simple" about life, ever. Which brings us back to the question: what is life? So where does Brazil come in? For nearly a decade there has been interest in a Brazilian astrobiology program, from a small side meeting held by the Brazilian Exobiology Program (BEP) of the Brazilian National Research Council, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on August 12, 2009, in association with the IAU Assembly to subsequent workshops held in several locations and membership of the Brazilian program in the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI). Each time I go to Brazil, I am impressed by the enthusiasm of the community, both scientific and student, the latter an excellent omen for the future of astrobiology in Brazil. Facilities are being built to supplement the natural laboratories that Brazil is blessed to have. In my own lab I have been privileged to have a wonderful Brazilian postdoctoral fellow, Dr. Ivan Paulino-Lima, resulting in a daily reminder of the program. I am honored to have been part of the development of astrobiology in Brazil, and hope that this relationship will continue to flourish. Clearly to advance astrobiology needs new knowledge, a reorganization of that which is known, and space missions. To help the reader join on this quest, what follows is a buffet of topics that will allow the reader to nibble on the richness that is Astrobiology. And, like a fabulous meal, it should make you want more. Welcome to Astrobiology.
Four high-frequency methods are described for analyzing the electromagnetic (EM) scattering by electrically large open-ended cavities. They are: (1) a hybrid combination of waveguide modal analysis and high-frequency asymptotics, (2) geometrical optics (GO) ray shooting, (3) Gaussian beam (GB) shooting, and (4) the generalized ray expansion (GRE) method. The hybrid modal method gives very accurate results but is limited to cavities which are made up of sections of uniform waveguides for which the modal fields are known. The GO ray shooting method can be applied to much more arbitrary cavity geometries and can handle absorber treated interior walls, but it generally only predicts the major trends of the RCS pattern and not the details. Also, a very large number of rays need to be tracked for each new incidence angle. Like the GO ray shooting method, the GB shooting method can handle more arbitrary cavities, but it is much more efficient and generally more accurate than the GO method because it includes the fields diffracted by the rim at the open end which enter the cavity. However, due to beam divergence effects the GB method is limited to cavities which are not very long compared to their width. The GRE method overcomes the length-to-width limitation of the GB method by replacing the GB's with GO ray tubes which are launched in the same manner as the GB's to include the interior rim diffracted field. This method gives good accuracy and is generally more efficient than the GO method, but a large number of ray tubes needs to be tracked.
SIRTF is NASA's Space Infrared Telescope Facility. Currently planned for launch on 15 Apr 2003, it is the final element in NASA's Great Observatories Program. SIRTF has an 85 cm diameter f/12 lightweight beryllium telescope, cooled to lekss than 5.5K. It is diffraction-limited at 6.5 microns, and has wavelengthcoverage from 3-180 microns. Its estimated lifetime (limited by cryogen) is 2.5 years at minimum, with a goal of 5+ years. SIRTF has three instruments, IRAC, IRS, and MIPS. IRAC (InfraRed Array Camera) provides simultaneous images at wavelengths of 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0 microns. IRS (InfraRed Spectrograph) has 4 modules providing low-resolution (R=60-120) spectra from 5.3 to 40 microns, high-resolution (R=600) spectra from 10 to 37 microns, and an autonomous target acquisition system (PeakUp) which includes small-field imaging at 15 microns. MIPS (Multiband Imaging Photometer for SIRTF)} does imaging photometry at 24, 70, and 160 m and low-resolution (R=15-25) spectroscopy (SED) between 55 and 96 microns. The SIRTF Guaranteed Time Observers (GTOs) are planning to observe Outer Solar System satellites and planets, extinct comets and low-albedo asteroids, Centaurs and Kuiper Belt Objects, cometary dust trails, and a few active short-period comets. The GTO programs are listed in detail in the SIRTF Reserved Observations Catalog (ROC). We would like to emphasize that there remain many interesting subjects for the General Observers (GO). Proposal success for the planetary observer community in the first SIRTF GO proposal cycle (GO-1) determines expectations for future GO calls and Solar System use of SIRTF, so we would like promote a strong set of planetary GO-1 proposals. Towards that end, we present this poster, and we will convene a Solar System GO workshop 3.5 months after launch.
Given here is the address of NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin to the Association of Space Explorers. Mr. Goldin's remarks are on the topic of why we should go to Mars, a subject he approaches by first answering the question, What would it mean if we decided today not to go to Mars? After a discussion of the meaning of Columbus' voyage to America, he answers the question by saying that if we decide not to go to Mars, our generation will truly achieve a first in human history - we will be the first to stop at a frontier. After noting that the need to explore is intrinsic to life itself, Mr. Goldin presents several reasons why we should go to the Moon and go to Mars. One reason is economic, another is to increase our scientific knowledge, and yet another is to further the political evolution of humankind through the international cooperation required for building settlements on the Moon and Mars. He concludes by expanding upon the idea that this nation has never been one to shrink from a challenge.
There was a Chinese place near Goddard Space Flight Center where members of my Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) team often went for lunch. The food wasn't great, but after you go to a place a few times, suddenly, you've got a history there. It's where we celebrated birthdays, project milestones; it was a good place to get away during the day when things weren't going well and folks needed to blow off steam; and it was also the place to go when we needed to let someone go on the project, to mitigate any hard feelings that might linger as a result. I wouldn't want to give anyone the idea that project teams, even the successful ones, are 11 perfect families." Conflicts occur when you're dealing with engineers, scientists, technicians, and bureaucrats. We had our share on ACE. For the good of the project and everyone involved, we occasionally had to get rid of some people. I made it a policy that when someone was leaving the project because of a personality conflict, then everyone on the team, or as many as there were around, went out for lunch as a send off. End things on a nice, friendly note. If there is some bitterness, and sometimes there is, we see if we can bury that and just go on.
Measurements were made of the emissions of particles and gases from two diesel-powered ships in the southern Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Namibia. The measurements are used to derive emission factors from ships of three species not reported previously, namely, black carbon, accumulation-mode particles, and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), as well as for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), non-methane hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and condensation nuclei. The effects of fuel grade and engine power on ship emissions are discussed. The emission factors are combined with fuel usage data to obtain estimates of global annual emissions of various particles and gases from ocean-going ships. Global emissions of black carbon, accumulation- mode particles, and CCN from ocean-going ships are estimated to be 19-26 Gg yr(sup -1), (4.4-6.1) x 10(exp 26) particles yr(sup -1), and (1.0-1.5) x l0(exp 26) particles yr(sup -1), respectively. Black carbon emissions from ocean-going ships are approximately 0.2% of total anthropogenic emissions. Emissions of NOx and SO2 from ocean-going ships are approximately 10-14% and approximately 3-4%, respectively, of the total emissions of these species from the burning of fossil fuels, and approximately 40% and approximately 70%, respectively, of the total emissions of these species from the burning of biomass. Global annual emissions of CO and CH4 from ocean-going ships are approximately 2% and approximately 2-5%, respectively, of natural oceanic emissions of these species.
One of the things Dr. von Braun instinctively knew was that it was as nearly important to explain why we should go into space as to build the machines to take us there. He wrote books and magazine articles, spoke to everyone he could formally and informally, and spent his life to his dying day seeking to educate everyone on the importance of and need for spaceflight. Why should we go? I think there are actually two principle reasons: 1) Because the solar system is filled with cheap, clean energy, and we need to go get it, and, 2) this one may well be even more important, because we need a purpose for ourselves and our country. I think we need an eternal frontier to push up against, our purpose to conquer and settle it. The nice thing about doing that is the solar system is a very rich place, filled with not only mineral wealth but energy, a nearly inexhaustible supply. And if there s one thing this country and this planet desperately needs and is willing to pay for now and forever is energy. The solar system is where it is. We've got to go after it. I believe, then, that Americans have both a self-interest and a patriotic duty to convince ourselves it is time to take another giant step into space. The way to do that is to do what Dr. von Braun did, cut metal and start flying. Success engenders success. Dr. von Braun s grand dream need never die. NASA can spark a twenty-first-century revolution in transportation and energy that could fundamentally change the way we fly through space, power the world, even care for the sick if we do it right. All those things require cheap and clean energy. It exists in the solar system in a variety of forms. Solar energy is the most obvious form, but there are others, including helium-3, which may be the perfect fuel for fusion reactors, and also just happens to cover the Moon. I believe we must go after it. We just need to believe in ourselves and our purpose. I call on all of you here today to join together, get things moving again, and get serious about conquering space. If we do, we'll assure the country s prosperity, and the world s survival, too, for centuries. Along the way, maybe we ll finally understand why my old preacher thought St. Peter s comment about looking for new heavens was so important. According to His promise, it s a big challenge, a huge responsibility, to try to fulfill such a promise and prophecy.
A balloon borne laser transceiver (BBLT) which was carried to an altitude of 80,000 feet, was used to measure the turbulence effect of the atmosphere in daylight on laser beams going both up and down through the intervening atmosphere. The principles of operation of the BBLT are discussed. The instrument must acquire an up-going argon laser beam, lock onto it, and transmit back to the ground observatory a helium-neon laser beam. Questions of system operation for the down-going and the up-going beam are considered along with a servo system analysis.
Before I go into the history of F-1, I want to discuss the F-1 engine s role in putting man on the moon. The F-1 engine was used in a cluster of five on the first stage, and that was the only power during the first stage. It took the Apollo launch vehicle, which was 363 feet tall and weighed six million pounds, and threw it downrange fifty miles, threw it up to forty miles of altitude, at Mach 7. It took two and one-half minutes to do that and, in the process, burned four and one-half million pounds of propellant, a pretty sizable task. (See Slide 2, Appendix C) My history goes back to the same year I started working at Rocketdyne. That s where the F-1 had its beginning, back early in 1957. In 1957, there was no space program. Rocketdyne was busy working overtime and extra days designing, developing, and producing rocket engines for weapons of mass destruction, not for scientific reasons. The Air Force contracted Rocketdyne to study how to make a rocket engine that had a million pounds of thrust. The highest thing going at the time had 150,000 pounds of thrust. Rocketdyne s thought was the new engine might be needed for a ballistic missile, not that it was going to go on a moon shot.