Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “arizona”

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 253 records · Page 14
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1991

Characteristics of ejecta and alluvial deposits at Meteor Crater, Arizona and Odessa Craters, Texas: Results from ground penetrating radar

Previous ground penetrating radar (GRP) studies around 50,000 year old Meteor Crater revealed the potential for rapid, inexpensive, and non-destructive sub-surface investigations for deep reflectors (generally greater than 10 m). New GRP results are summarized focusing the shallow sub-surfaces (1-2 m) around Meteor Crater and the main crater at Odessa. The following subject areas are covered: (1) the thickness, distribution, and nature of the contact between surrounding alluvial deposits and distal ejecta; and (2) stratigraphic relationships between both the ejecta and alluvium derived from both pre and post crater drainages. These results support previous conclusions indicating limited vertical lowering (less than 1 m) of the distal ejecta at Meteor Crater and allow initial assessment of the gradational state if the Odessa craters.

Grant, J. A.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Styles of crater gradation in Southern Ismenius Lacus, Mars: Clues from Meteor Crater, Arizona

Impact craters on the Earth and Mars provide a unique opportunity to quantify the gradational evolution of instantaneously created landforms in a variety of geologic settings. Unlike most landforms, the initial morphology associated with impact craters on both planets is uncomplicated by competition between construction and degradation during formation. Furthermore, pristine morphologies are both well-constrained and similar to a first order. The present study compares styles of graduation at Meteor Crater with those around selected craters (greater than 1-2 km in diameter) in southern Ismenius Lacus. Emphasis is placed on features visible in images near LANDSAT TM resolution (30-50 m/pixel) which is available for both areas. In contrast to Mars, vegetation on the Earth can modify gradation, but appears to influence overall rates and styles by 2X-3X rather than orders of magnitude. Further studies of additional craters in differing settings will refine the effects of this and other factors (e.g., substrate). Finally, by analogy with results from other terrestrial gradational surfaces this study should help provide constraints on climate over crater histories.

Grant, J. A.↗
NASA NTRS1992

A program to study antiprotons in the cosmic rays: Arizona collaboration

The Cherenkov detector designed and built for the LEAP (Low Energy AntiProton) experiment utilized a novel design to achieve appreciable sensitive area (02. sq m) with a refractive index of 1.25 in a magnetic fringe field region (500-1000 Gauss). The weight was held to only 64 kg by using 16 unshielded Hamamatsu R2490-01 photomultiplier tubes, each aligned with its local magnetic field. A filling and reservoir system for the highly volatile FC-72 liquid Cherenkov radiator also presented many design challenges. Relativistic particles yielded about 72 photoelectrons, total.

Bowen, Theodore↗
NASA NTRS1995

A conflict of water and fire: Remote sensing imagery of the Uinkaret Volcanic Field, Grand Canyon, Arizona

The sedimentary geology of the western Grand Canyon consists of gently northeast dipping sandstones, shales, and carbonates. However, due to facies changes within the units, the geomorphology varies from that seen by visitors at the National Park Headquarters. There, the cliff and slope expression of the rocks is replaced in the west by a series of mesas, ridges, and horizontal platforms. The largest of these occurs on the Esplanade Sandstone within the Supai Formation. The Esplanade is formed by slope retreat of the overlying units and resistance to erosion by the underlying limestones. It is onto this platform that the lavas of the Uinkaret Plateau were emplaced. The Uinkaret lava field lies 120 km south of St. George, Utah and is tectonically defined by two major normal faults -- the Hurricane to the west and the Toroweap to the east. The purpose of this investigation was to collect visible, near and thermal infrared data at different periods of the day and year. It is expected that these data will provide the ability to retrieve water temperatures; monitor sediment loads; map and examine any changes in the near shore vegetation communities and understand some of the intricacies of the geology. This paper will serve, to some degree, as a progress report on the Grand Canyon study, since only a fraction of the data has been received and processed thus far. Data from the Thermal Infrared Multispectral Scanner (TIMS) and the Landsat Thematic Mapper simulator (NS001) were acquired simultaneously on April 4, 1994. A second data acquisition occurred on August 27, 1994. Initial analysis of the TIMS data indicates a remarkably noise-free data set with minimal atmospheric attenuation. environments is evident.

Ramsey, Michael S.↗
NASA NTRS2004

The Fountain Hills Meteorite: A New CB(a) Chondrite from Arizona

The CR clan of meteorites has been established and a detailed review of these meteorites is presented. There are several kinds of carbonaceous chondrites included in this clan: Carbonaceous Renazzo-like (CR), Carbonaceous with High metal (CH), Carbonaceous Bencubbin-like (CB), and LEW 85332, a unique-metal rich meteorite. The CB chondrites are further divided into two subgroups: CB(sub a) and CB(sub b). Here we describe a new member of the CR chondrite clan, Fountain Hills, a recent find with a total mass of approximately 60 g.

Lauretta, D. S.↗
NASA NTRS2012

The Use of Handheld X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Technology in Unraveling the Eruptive History of the San Francisco Volcanic Field, Arizona

While traditional geologic mapping includes the examination of structural relationships between rock units in the field, more advanced technology now enables us to simultaneously collect and combine analytical datasets with field observations. Information about tectonomagmatic processes can be gleaned from these combined data products. Historically, construction of multi-layered field maps that include sample data has been accomplished serially (first map and collect samples, analyze samples, combine data, and finally, readjust maps and conclusions about geologic history based on combined data sets). New instruments that can be used in the field, such as a handheld xray fluorescence (XRF) unit, are now available. Targeted use of such instruments enables geologists to collect preliminary geochemical data while in the field so that they can optimize scientific data return from each field traverse. Our study tests the application of this technology and projects the benefits gained by real-time geochemical data in the field. The integrated data set produces a richer geologic map and facilitates a stronger contextual picture for field geologists when collecting field observations and samples for future laboratory work. Real-time geochemical data on samples also provide valuable insight regarding sampling decisions by the field geologist

Young, Kelsey E.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Timescale of Petrogenetic Processes Recorded in the Mount Perkins Magma System, Northern Colorado River Extension Corridor, Arizona

The Miocene Mt. Perkins Pluton is a small composite intrusive body emplaced in the shallow crust as four separate phases during the earliest stages of crustal extension. Phase 1 (oldest) consists of isotropic hornblende gabbro and a layered cumulate sequence. Phase 2 consists of quartz monzonite to quartz monzodiorite hosting mafic microgranitoid enclaves. Phase 3 is composed of quartz monzonite and is subdivided into mafic enclave-rich zones and enclave-free zones. Phase 4 consists of aphanitic dikes of mafic, intermediate and felsic compositions hosting mafic enclaves. Phases 2-4 enclaves record significant isotopic disequilibrium with surrounding granitoid host rocks, but collectively enclaves and host rocks form a cogenetic suite exhibiting systematic variations in Nd-Sr-Pb isotopes that correlate with major and trace elements. Phases 2-4 record multiple episodes of magma mingling among cogenetic hybrid magmas that formed via magma mixing and fractional crystallization at a deeper crustal. The mafic end-member was alkali basalt similar to nearby 6-4 Ma basalt with enriched OIB-like trace elements and Nd-Sr-Pb isotopes. The felsic end-member was a subalkaline crustal-derived magma. Phase 1 isotropic gabbro exhibits elemental and isotopic compositional variations at relatively constant SiO2, suggesting generation of isotropic gabbro by an open-system process involving two mafic end-members. One end-member is similar in composition to the OIB-like mafic end-member for phases 2-4; the second is similar to nearby 11-8 Ma tholeiite basalt exhibiting low epsilon (sub Nd), and depleted incompatible trace elements. Phase 1 cumulates record in situ fractional crystallization of an OIB-like mafic magma with isotopic evidence of crustal contamination by partial melts generated in adjacent Proterozoic gneiss. The Mt Perkins pluton records a complex history in a lithospheric scale magma system involving two distinct mantle-derived mafic magmas and felsic magma sourced in the crust. Mixing and fractional crystallization of these magmas at various levels in the crust generated a suite of intermediate composition magmas. U-Pb zircon SHRIMP ages of phase 1 (15.7 +/- 0.2 Ma), phase 3 (15.8 +/- 0.2 Ma) and phase 4 (15.4 +/- 0.3 Ma) document a 100-300k year timescale for petrogenetic processes recorded in the Mt Perkins magma system.

Danielson, Lisa R.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Comparing and Reconciling Traditional Field and Photogeologic Mapping Techniques: Lessons from the San Francisco Volcanic Field, Arizona

Cartographic products and - specifically - geologic maps provide critical assistance for establishing physical and temporal frameworks of planetary surfaces. The technical methods that result in the creation of geologic maps vary depending on how observations are made as well as the overall intent of the final products [1-3]. These methods tend to follow a common linear work flow, including the identification and delineation of spatially and temporally discrete materials (units), the documentation of their primary (emplacement) and secondary (erosional) characteristics, analysis of the relative and absolute age relationships between these materials, and the collation of observations and interpretations into an objective map product. The "objectivity" of a map is critical cross comparison with overlapping maps and topical studies as well as its relevance to scientific posterity. However, the "accuracy" and "correctness" of a geologic map is very subject to debate. This can be evidenced by comparison of existing geologic maps at various scales, particularly those compiled through field- and remote-based mapped efforts. Our study focuses on comparing the fidelity of (1) "Apollo-style" geologic investigations, where typically non-geologist crew members follow static traverse routes established through pre-mission planning, and (2) "traditional" field-based investigations, where geologists are given free rein to observe without preplanned routes. This abstract summarizes the regional geology wherein our study was conducted, presents the geologic map created from traditional field mapping techniques, and offers basic insights into how geologic maps created from different tactics can be reconciled in support of exploratory missions. Additional abstracts [4-6] from this study discuss various exploration and science results of these efforts.

Skinner, J. A., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2021

SEE Test Report for Arizona Microtek AZ88923 High Speed Limiting Post Amplifier

The primary purpose of this testing is to characterize the Texas Instruments AZ88923 post amplifier for susceptibility to single-event latchup (SEL) and other destructive Single-Event Effects (SEE). These data will be used to assess the destructive SEE risk for the OSIRIS-REx Laser Altimeter (OLA). A secondary goal is to assess the susceptibility of the post amplifier to single-event transients (SET) and other nondestructive SEE. In particular, the loss-of-signal feature could give rise to some significant anomalies. However, it is not used on OLA.

Raymond Ladbury↗
DOE OSTI2023

Arizona Public Service - NRIC Overview

This deck contains an update on NRIC activities along with an overview of reactor development in the United States.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Water Management Area (WMA) Shapefiles

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - No changes v1.0 - Initial public release Description Borders of all Water Management Areas (WMAs) across the 11 western-most states of the coterminous United States are available filtered through a single source. The legal name for this set of boundaries varies state-by-state. The data is provided as two compressed shapefiles. One, stateWMAs, contains data for all 11 states. For 10 of those states, Arizona being the exception, the polygons represent the legal management boundaries used by those states to manage their surface and groundwater resources respectively. WMAs refer to the set of boundaries a particular state uses to manage its water resources. Each set of boundaries was collected from the states individually, and then merged into one spatial layer. The merging process included renaming some columns to enable merging with all other source layers, as well as removing columns deemed not required for followup analysis. The retained columns for each boundary are: basinNum - the state provided unique numerical ID; basinName - the state provided English name of the area, where applicable; state - the state name; and uniID - a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID. Arizona is unique within this collection of states in that surface and groundwater resources are managed using two separate sets of boundaries. During our followup analysis (Grogan et al., in review) we decided to focus on one set of boundaries, those for surface water. This is due to the recommendation of our hydrologists that the surface water boundary set is a more realist representation of how water moves across the landscape, as a few of the groundwater boundaries are based on political and/or economic considerations. Therefore, the Arizona surface WMAs are included within stateWMAs. The Arizona groundwater WMAs are provided as a separate file, azGroundWMAs, as a companion to the first file for completeness and general reference. WMA spatial boundary data sources by state: Arizona: Arizona Surface Water Watersheds; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/surface-watershed/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 Arizona: Arizona Ground Water Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/groundwater-basin-2/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 California: California CalWater 2.2.1; Collected February, 2020; https://www.mlml.calstate.edu/mpsl-mlml/data-center/data-entry-tools/data-tools/gis-shapefile-layers/ Colorado: Colorado Water District Boundaries; Collected February, 2020; https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdss/gis-data-category Idaho: Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) Administrative Basins; Collected November, 2015; https://data-idwr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/fb0df7d688a04074bad92ca8ef74cc26_4/explore?location=45.018686%2C-113.862284%2C6.93 Montana: Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Office of Information Technology (OIT) Nevada: Nevada State Engineer Admin Basin Boundaries; Collected April, 2020 https://ndwr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=1364d0c3a0284fa1bcd90f952b2b9f1c New Mexico: New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE) Declared Groundwater Basins; Collected April, 2020 https://geospatialdata-ose.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ose-declared-groundwater-basins/explore?location=34.179783%2C-105.996542%2C7.51 Oregon: Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Administrative Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/access_Data/Pages/Data.aspx Utah: Utah Adjudication Books; Collected April, 2020; https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utahDNR::utah-adjudication-books/explore?location=39.497165%2C-111.587782%2C-1.00 Washington: Washington Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA); Collected June, 2017; https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Geographic-Information-Systems-GIS/Data Wyoming: Wyoming State Engineer's Office Board of Control Water Districts; Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Wyoming State Engineer's Office

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Water Management Area (WMA) Shapefiles

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Borders of all Water Management Areas (WMAs) across the 11 Western-most states of the continental United States are available filtered through a single source. The legal name for this set of boundaries varies state-by-state. The data is provided as two compressed shapefiles. One, stateWMAs, contains data for all 11 states. For 10 of those states, Arizona being the exception, the polygons represent the legal management boundaries used by those states to manage their surface and groundwater resources respectively. Arizona is unique among this collection of states in that surface and groundwater resources are managed using two separate sets of boundaries. During our followup analysis, due to technical reasons we decided to focus on one set of boundaries, those for surface water. Due to this, the Arizona surface WMAs are included within stateWMAs. The Arizona groundwater WMAs are provided as the second file azGroundWMAs as a companion to the first file for completeness and general reference, although the boundaries were no longer referenced in the analysis (Grogan et al., in review) past a certain point. The columns for both shapefiles are: basinNum: the state provided unique numerical ID basinName: the state provided English name of the area, where applicable state: the state name uniID: a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID

Economics↗