Results for “Scientific Capabilities” — Page 14

NASA NTRS1989

Smart instruments and the national collaboratory

Here, we explore the process of scientific experimental investigation and ask what capabilities are required of the collaboratory to support such investigations. We first look at a number of examples of scientific research being conducted using remote instruments. We then examine the process of such research, asking at each stage what are the required capabilities. We finally integrate these results into a statement of the required set of capabilities needed to support scientific research in the future.

Leiner, Barry M.↗

NASA NTRS2001

The Plume Impingement Contamination II Experiment: Motivation, Design, and Implementation Plan

The International Space Station (ISS) will have a long service life during which it must be able to serve as a capable platform for a wide variety of scientific investigations. In order to provide this capability, the ISS has, at the system level, a design requirement of no more than 100 Angstroms of contaminant deposition per year from "non-quiescent" sources. Non-quiescent sources include the plumes resulting from the firing of reaction control system (ReS) engines on space vehicles visiting the ISS as well as the engines on the ISS itself. Unfortunately, good general plume contamination models do not yet exist. This is due both to the complexity of the problem, making the analytic approach difficult, and to the difficulty in obtaining empirical measurements of contaminant depositions. To address this lack of flight data, NASA Johnson Space Center is planning to fly an experiment, Plume Impingement Contamination-II, to measure the contamination deposition from the Shuttle Orbiter's primary RCS engines as a function angle from plume centerline. This represents the first direct on-orbit measurement of plume impingement contamination away from the nozzle centerline ever performed, and as such is extremely important in validating mathematical models which will be used to quantify the cumulative plume impingement contamination to the ISS over its lifetime. The paper will elaborate further upon the motivation behind making these measurements as well as present the design and implementation plan of this planned experiment.

Lumpkin, Forrest E., III↗

DOE OSTI2025

Controlled environment agriculture: An opportunity to strengthen interagency research collaboration in the US government

Challenges facing food production and agricultural systems are increasingly interconnected with economic, security, health, and equity issues, among others. Threats such as extreme weather, economic volatility, and shrinking water resources and arable land, influence our ability to maintain a safe and resilient food supply. One promising solution to these threats is controlled environment agriculture (CEA). In many cases, CEA can drastically reduce the amount of water and land used in crop production while increasing productivity. Operations may be established in nearly any environment and harvests can take place year-round, supporting food system resiliency and sustainability. CEA sits at the nexus of a number of disciplines and industries, making it well suited for transdisciplinary and multi-institutional research coordination. Herein, authors from multiple US government agencies present CEA as a case study in improving cross-agency research collaboration. The federal government houses a range of scientific expertise and research capabilities, positioning scientists to lead national and global efforts in transdisciplinary, interagency approaches to complex challenges. Navigating cross-agency collaboration can be a challenge, especially coordinating across different scientific disciplines, geographic locations, and funding mechanisms. To enhance multiagency efforts, collaborators could prioritize (i) organizing personnel and resources, (ii) enhancing existing multiagency collaborations, and (iii) focusing on further opportunities for coordination. Adopting these approaches could enable federal researchers to reinforce and advance academic and industry efforts to address current CEA challenges while solidifying the United States as a leader in this arena.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

NASA NTRS2005

Vision guided landing of an an autonomous helicopter in hazardous terrain

Future robotic space missions will employ a precision soft-landing capability that will enable exploration of previously inaccessible sites that have strong scientific significance. To enable this capability, a fully autonomous onboard system that identifies and avoids hazardous features such as steep slopes and large rocks is required. Such a system will also provide greater functionality in unstructured terrain to unmanned aerial vehicles. This paper describes an algorithm for landing hazard avoidance based on images from a single moving camera. The core of the algorithm is an efficient application of structure from motion to generate a dense elevation map of the landing area. Hazards are then detected in this map and a safe landing site is selected. The algorithm has been implemented on an autonomous helicopter testbed and demonstrated four times resulting in the first autonomous landing of an unmanned helicopter in unknown and hazardous terrain.

Mars Landing↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) to defining gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities, gaps, and KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology vs when a mission element is also a strong consideration in which technologies should be pursued. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) capability areas include: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. These capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of ECLSS gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Crew Health and Performance Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

DOE OSTI2025

Position Papers for Inverse Methods for Complex Systems under Uncertainty Workshop

The ability to solve inverse problems – inferring unknown parameters, structures, or states of a system from observed data – is essential for advancing scientific discovery and innovation capabilities for the DOE mission. Basic research needs and challenges are particularly acute in emerging areas such as the interactive, data-driven, modeling and simulation of digital twins; decision support for experiments at DOE scientific user facilities; and for other complex systems and workflows. Inverse problems are at the heart of understanding and controlling complex systems due to factors such as observational data with varying modalities and fidelities, inherent uncertainties in physical measurements and numerical models, and the computational demands of rapid and high-fidelity simulations. The convergence of recent scientific computing trends – scientific machine learning, artificial intelligence, and computing advances such as exascale computing – is creating unprecedented opportunities. These advancements offer the potential to revolutionize how we approach inverse problems to extract actionable insights with the required level of accuracy and computational efficiency. This workshop and the Call for Position Papers are vital steps in bringing together experts to collectively explore and identify the new computational and mathematical directions needed in inverse methods for complex systems under uncertainty.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

NASA NTRS2017

Utilizing ISS Camera Systems for Scientific Analysis of Lightning Characteristics and Comparison with ISS-LIS and GLM

Video and still frame images from cameras aboard the International Space Station (ISS) are used to inspire, educate, and provide a unique vantage point from low-Earth orbit that is second to none; however, these cameras have overlooked capabilities for contributing to scientific analysis of the Earth and near-space environment. The goal of this project is to study how geo referenced video/images from available ISS camera systems can be useful for scientific analysis, using lightning properties as a demonstration.

Lightning↗

NASA NTRS1978

A data management system for engineering and scientific computing

Data elements and relationship definition capabilities for this data management system are explicitly tailored to the needs of engineering and scientific computing. System design was based upon studies of data management problems currently being handled through explicit programming. The system-defined data element types include real scalar numbers, vectors, arrays and special classes of arrays such as sparse arrays and triangular arrays. The data model is hierarchical (tree structured). Multiple views of data are provided at two levels. Subschemas provide multiple structural views of the total data base and multiple mappings for individual record types are supported through the use of a REDEFINES capability. The data definition language and the data manipulation language are designed as extensions to FORTRAN. Examples of the coding of real problems taken from existing practice in the data definition language and the data manipulation language are given.

Elliot, L.↗

NASA NTRS2003

SOHO Ultraviolet Coronagraph Spectrometer (UVCS) Mission Operations and Data Analysis

The scientific goal of UVCS is to obtain detailed empirical descriptions of the extended solar corona as it evolves over the solar cycle and to use these descriptions to identify and understand the physical processes responsible for coronal heating, solar wind acceleration, coronal mass ejections (CMEs), and the phenomena that establish the plasma properties of the solar wind as measured by 'in situ' solar wind instruments. This report covers the period from 01 February 2002 to 15 February 2003. During that time, UVCS observations have consisted of three types: 1) standard synoptic observations comprising, primarily, the H I Ly alpha line profile and the O VI 103.2 and 103.7 nm intensity over a range of heights from 1.5 to about 3.0 solar radii and covering 360 degrees about the sun, 2) sit and stare watches for CMEs, and 3) special observations designed by the UVCS Lead Observer of the Week for a specific scientific purpose. The special observations are often coordinated with those of other space-based and ground-based instruments and they often are part of SOHO joint observation programs and campaigns. Lead observers have included UVCS Co-Investigators, scientists from the solar physics community and several graduate and undergraduate level students. UVCS has continued to achieve its purpose of using powerful spectroscopic diagnostic techniques to obtain a much more detailed description of coronal structures and dynamic phenomena than existed before the SOHO mission. The new descriptions of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and coronal structures from UVCS have inspired a large number of theoretical studies aimed at identifying the physical processes responsible for CMEs and solar wind acceleration in coronal holes and streamers. UVCS has proven to be a very stable instrument. Stellar observations have demonstrated its stability. UVCS has required no flight software modifications and all mechanisms are operational. The UVCS O VI Channel with its redundant optical path for wavelengths near H I Ly alpha is capable of observing the entire UVCS wavelength range. Since December 1998, the O VI Channel has been used for all UVCS observations. Although the H I Ly alpha Channel and detector are still operational, increases in the dark count up to about 5 x 10(exp -4) counts/sec/pixel and an increase in high voltage current to within a factor of two of the maximum used in the laboratory before flight led to the decision to not use that detector at the present time. There is no significant decrease in the scientific capability of UVCS owing to the O VI channel redundant optical path. UVCS data, data analysis software, calibration files and the mission log are available from the SOHO archive and SAO. All UVCS data is now available to scientists and the general public via the SOHO Data Archive and SAO within three months of the observations. UVCS has resulted in 46 scientific papers in 2002. There were numerous presentations at scientific meetings. All requests for observation time by qualified outside users have been granted.

Kohl, John L.↗

NASA NTRS2026

Scientific Highlights and Status of the Mars Science Laboratory Mission, Years 9 through 12

We present the scientific highlights and status from years 9-12 of NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory mission, with its Curiosity rover. A thermochemolysis-based sample analysis revealed a variety of organic molecules preserved in clay mineral-rich lake/lake margin deposits of the Glen Torridon region. The stratigraphically higher clay-sulfate mineral transition on Aeolis Mons was found to be associated with a lithological change from lacustrine to dry aeolian depositional environments. Water intermittently returned to the surface after the increase in aridity, including during the deposition of wave ripple strata which indicate a climate capable of sustaining an ice-free lake in the early Hesperian. The overlying Mg sulfate-bearing unit has both poly- and monohydrated Mg sulfates and is also enriched in iron carbonate of a purity consistent with chemical sedimentation and therefore atmospheric sequestration. A channel-incised canyon within Gediz Vallis and distal alluvial deposits recorded numerous fluvial and debris flow events after the deposition, lithification, and erosion of the clay- and sulfate-bearing units. Bright clasts found in Gediz Vallis canyon are composed of native sulfur. The investigation of the modern atmosphere and environment focused on the influence of the crater and mountain topography and captured high-altitude noctilucent and iridescent clouds. Radiation monitoring now spans an 11-year solar cycle. Rover systems and science instruments remain capable of addressing mission scientific objectives. All ten scientific instruments continue to return high-value data despite degradation of the Chemistry and Camera instrument’s high-voltage system, loss of multispectral imaging capability, and loss of active neutron spectroscopy. The mission has mitigated the loss of redundant brakes on two arm joints, additional wheel wear, and highly reduced capability of the redundant flight computer. Efficiency improvements in rover energy utilization and operations staffing have allowed the mission team to maintain a high level of productivity despite declining rover power generation and funding.

Mars↗

NASA NTRS1974

SEASAT-A scientific contributions

SEASAT-A planned instrument complement and capabilities are reported together with an estimate of expected scientific contributions from satellite oceanic measurements.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2010

Heavy Lift for Exploration: Options and Utilization

Every study of exploration capabilities since the Apollo Program has recommended the renewal of a heavy lift launch capability for the United States. NASA is aggressively pursuing that capability. This paper will discuss several aspects of that effort and the potential uses for that heavy lift capability. The need for heavy lift was cited most recent in the findings of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee. Combined with considerations of launch availability and on-orbit operations, the Committee finds that exploration will benefit from the availability of a heavy-lift vehicle, the report said. In addition, heavy lift would enable the launching of large scientific observatories and more capable deep-space missions. It may also provide benefit in national security applications. The most recent focus of NASA s heavy lift effort is the Ares V cargo launch vehicle, which is part of the Constellation Program architecture for human exploration beyond low Earth orbit (LEO). The most recent point-of-departure configuration of the Ares V was approved during the Lunar Capabilities concept Review (LCCR) in 2008. The Ares V first stage propulsion system consists of a core stage powered by six commercial liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen (LH2/LOX) RS-68 engines, flanked by two 5.5-segment solid rocket boosters (SRBs) based on the 5-segment Ares I first stage. The boosters use the same Polybutadiene Acrylonitrile (PBAN) propellant as the Space Shuttle. Atop the core stage is the Earth departure stage (EDS), powered by a single J-2X upper stage engine based on the Ares I upper stage engine. The 33-foot-diameter payload shroud can enclose a lunar lander, scientific instruments, or other payloads. Since LCCR, NASA has continued to refine the design through several successive internal design cycles. In addition, NASA has worked to quantify the broad national consensus for heavy lift in ways that, to the extent possible, meet the needs of the user community.

Creech, Steve↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Station Operations Capabilities in a Shoebox: Marshall Space Flight Center’s Telescience Resource Kit

The International Space Station (ISS) has provided the world an unprecedented capability, establishing a continuous human foothold in outer space for more than 22 years now. But maintaining that capability and supporting the ambitious portfolio of scientific research it hosts has required another unprecedented capability – providing groundbased operations support for the crew and a diverse manifest of research payloads, all simultaneously. To help meet this challenge, NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) developed TReK, the Telescience Resource Kit, providing a robust solution for data, command, metadata, and file transfer capabilities. In response to an increasingly wide and diverse need for operations support resources, the TReK team has worked to find ways to make the software more flexible in order to support a wide range of missions. Today it has supported not only hundreds of ISS payloads, but also free-flying spacecraft and even aircraft-based research. This presentation will discuss how the team has modified capabilities needed to enable 24/7/365 research aboard ISS to provide the flexibility needed to support Small Sat missions, going back to one of MSFC’s first “minisatellite” missions in 2010 and beyond.

Jeff Lippincott↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Station Operations Capabilities in a Shoebox Marshall Space Flight Center’s Telescience Resource Kit

The International Space Station (ISS) has provided the world an unprecedented capability, establishing a continuous human foothold in outer space for more than 22 years now. But maintaining that capability and supporting the ambitious portfolio of scientific research it hosts has required another unprecedented capability – providing groundbased operations support for the crew and a diverse manifest of research payloads, all simultaneously. To help meet this challenge, NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) developed TReK, the Telescience Resource Kit, providing a robust solution for data, command, metadata, and file transfer capabilities. In response to an increasingly wide and diverse need for operations support resources, the TReK team has worked to find ways to make the software more flexible in order to support a wide range of missions. Today it has supported not only hundreds of ISS payloads, but also free-flying spacecraft and even aircraft-based research. This presentation will discuss how the team has modified capabilities needed to enable 24/7/365 research aboard ISS to provide the flexibility needed to support Small Sat missions, going back to one of MSFC’s first “minisatellite” missions in 2010 and beyond.

Jeff Lippincott↗