SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Location awareness”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 271 records · Page 15

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2019

TCL3 UTM (UAS Traffic Management) Flight Tests, Airspace Operations Laboratory (AOL) Report

The Technology Capability Level-3 (TCL3) flight tests were conducted at six different test sites located across the USA from March to May of 2018. The campaign resulted in over 830 data collection flights using 28 different aircraft and involving 20 flight crews. Flights not only varied in duration, but also in the environments and terrains over which they flew. The TCL3 tests highlighted four different types of tests: three tests focused on Communication, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS); six tests focused on Sense and Avoid (SAA) technologies; six tests focused on USS Data and Information Exchange (DAT); and five tests focused on exploring fundamental Concepts of the project (CON). This document presents data collected during the TCL3 tests that informed the operator’s experiences—the quality of the unmanned aerial system (UAS) Service Supplier (USS) information that the operator was provided with, the usefulness of this information, and the usability of the automation, both while airborne and on the ground. It is intended to complement the reports written by the test sites and the quantitative reports and presentations of the UAS Traffic Management (UTM) project. With the goal of instructing what the minimum information requirements and/or best practices might be in TCL3 operations, the driving enquiry was: How do you get the information you need, when you need it, to successfully fly a UAS in UTM airspace? This enquiry touches on two requirements for displays, which are to provide adequate situation awareness (SA) and to share information through a USS. The six test sites participating in the TCL3 tests flew a subset of the 20 tests (outlined above), with most sites working on a subset of each of the four types: Communications, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS); DAT; CON; and Sense and Avoid (SAA). The, mainly qualitative, data addressed in this report was collected by the AOL (Airspace Operations Laboratory) both on-site and remotely for each test. The data consists of the contents of end-of-day debriefs, end-of-day surveys, observer notes, and flight test information, all submitted as part of the Data Management Plan (DMP).

Martin, Lynne↗

NASA NTRS2010

Part-Task Simulation of Synthetic and Enhanced Vision Concepts for Lunar Landing

During Apollo, the constraints placed by the design of the Lunar Module (LM) window for crew visibility and landing trajectory were a major problem. Lunar landing trajectories were tailored to provide crew visibility using nearly 70 degrees look-down angle from the canted LM windows. Apollo landings were scheduled only at specific times and locations to provide optimal sunlight on the landing site. The complications of trajectory design and crew visibility are still a problem today. Practical vehicle designs for lunar lander missions using optimal or near-optimal fuel trajectories render the natural vision of the crew from windows inadequate for the approach and landing task. Further, the sun angles for the desirable landing areas in the lunar polar regions create visually powerful, season-long shadow effects. Fortunately, Synthetic and Enhanced Vision (S/EV) technologies, conceived and developed in the aviation domain, may provide solutions to this visibility problem and enable additional benefits for safer, more efficient lunar operations. Piloted simulation evaluations have been conducted to assess the handling qualities of the various lunar landing concepts, including the influence of cockpit displays and the informational data and formats. Evaluation pilots flew various landing scenarios with S/EV displays. For some of the evaluation trials, an eye glasses-mounted, monochrome monocular display, coupled with head tracking, was worn. The head-worn display scene consisted of S/EV fusion concepts. The results of this experiment showed that a head-worn system did not increase the pilot s workload when compared to using just the head-down displays. As expected, the head-worn system did not provide an increase in performance measures. Some pilots commented that the head-worn system provided greater situational awareness compared to just head-down displays.

Arthur, Jarvis J., III↗

DOE OSTI2023

Predictive performance of multi-model ensemble forecasts of COVID-19 across European nations

Background: Short-term forecasts of infectious disease burden can contribute to situational awareness and aid capacity planning. Based on best practice in other fields and recent insights in infectious disease epidemiology, one can maximise the predictive performance of such forecasts if multiple models are combined into an ensemble. Here, we report on the performance of ensembles in predicting COVID-19 cases and deaths across Europe between 08 March 2021 and 07 March 2022. Methods: We used open-source tools to develop a public European COVID-19 Forecast Hub. We invited groups globally to contribute weekly forecasts for COVID-19 cases and deaths reported by a standardised source for 32 countries over the next 1–4 weeks. Teams submitted forecasts from March 2021 using standardised quantiles of the predictive distribution. Each week we created an ensemble forecast, where each predictive quantile was calculated as the equally-weighted average (initially the mean and then from 26th July the median) of all individual models’ predictive quantiles. We measured the performance of each model using the relative Weighted Interval Score (WIS), comparing models’ forecast accuracy relative to all other models. We retrospectively explored alternative methods for ensemble forecasts, including weighted averages based on models’ past predictive performance. Results: Over 52 weeks, we collected forecasts from 48 unique models. We evaluated 29 models’ forecast scores in comparison to the ensemble model. We found a weekly ensemble had a consistently strong performance across countries over time. Across all horizons and locations, the ensemble performed better on relative WIS than 83% of participating models’ forecasts of incident cases (with a total N=886 predictions from 23 unique models), and 91% of participating models’ forecasts of deaths (N=763 predictions from 20 models). Across a 1–4 week time horizon, ensemble performance declined with longer forecast periods when forecasting cases, but remained stable over 4 weeks for incident death forecasts. In every forecast across 32 countries, the ensemble outperformed most contributing models when forecasting either cases or deaths, frequently outperforming all of its individual component models. Among several choices of ensemble methods we found that the most influential and best choice was to use a median average of models instead of using the mean, regardless of methods of weighting component forecast models. Conclusions: Our results support the use of combining forecasts from individual models into an ensemble in order to improve predictive performance across epidemiological targets and populations during infectious disease epidemics. Our findings further suggest that median ensemble methods yield better predictive performance more than ones based on means. Our findings also highlight that forecast consumers should place more weight on incident death forecasts than incident case forecasts at forecast horizons greater than 2 weeks. Funding: AA, BH, BL, LWa, MMa, PP, SV funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant 1R01GM109718, NSF BIG DATA Grant IIS-1633028, NSF Grant No.: OAC-1916805, NSF Expeditions in Computing Grant CCF-1918656, CCF-1917819, NSF RAPID CNS-2028004, NSF RAPID OAC-2027541, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 75D30119C05935, a grant from Google, University of Virginia Strategic Investment Fund award number SIF160, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under Contract No. HDTRA1-19-D-0007, and respectively Virginia Dept of Health Grant VDH-21-501-0141, VDH-21-501-0143, VDH-21-501-0147, VDH-21-501-0145, VDH-21-501-0146, VDH-21-501-0142, VDH-21-501-0148. AF, AMa, GL funded by SMIGE - Modelli statistici inferenziali per governare l'epidemia, FISR 2020-Covid-19 I Fase, FISR2020IP-00156, Codice Progetto: PRJ-0695. AM, BK, FD, FR, JK, JN, JZ, KN, MG, MR, MS, RB funded by Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland with grant 28/WFSN/2021 to the University of Warsaw. BRe, CPe, JLAz funded by Ministerio de Sanidad/ISCIII. BT, PG funded by PERISCOPE European H2020 project, contract number 101016233. CP, DL, EA, MC, SA funded by European Commission - Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology through the contract LC-01485746, and Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades and FEDER, with the project PGC2018-095456-B-I00. DE., MGu funded by Spanish Ministry of Health / REACT-UE (FEDER). DO, GF, IMi, LC funded by Laboratory Directed Research and Development program of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) under project number 20200700ER. DS, ELR, GG, NGR, NW, YW funded by National Institutes of General Medical Sciences (R35GM119582; the content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIGMS or the National Institutes of Health). FB, FP funded by InPresa, Lombardy Region, Italy. HG, KS funded by European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. IV funded by Agencia de Qualitat i Avaluacio Sanitaries de Catalunya (AQuAS) through contract 2021-021OE. JDe, SMo, VP funded by Netzwerk Universitatsmedizin (NUM) project egePan (01KX2021). JPB, SH, TH funded by Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; grant 05M18SIA). KH, MSc, YKh funded by Project SaxoCOV, funded by the German Free State of Saxony. Presentation of data, model results and simulations also funded by the NFDI4Health Task Force COVID-19 ( https://www.nfdi4health.de/task-force-covid-19-2 ) within the framework of a DFG-project (LO-342/17-1). LP, VE funded by Mathematical and Statistical modelling project (MUNI/A/1615/2020), Online platform for real-time monitoring, analysis and management of epidemic situations (MUNI/11/02202001/2020); VE also supported by RECETOX research infrastructure (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic: LM2018121), the CETOCOEN EXCELLENCE (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/17-043/0009632), RECETOX RI project (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16-013/0001761). NIB funded by Health Protection Research Unit (grant code NIHR200908). SAb, SF funded by Wellcome Trust (210758/Z/18/Z).

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis of Launch Vehicle Liftoff Debris: Historical Perspective from Space Shuttle and Application to Artemis I

Human exploration-class launch vehicles are inherently prone to debris due to the extreme environments generated during pre-launch operations, liftoff, and flight. The use of cryogenic propellants often requires thermal protection system (TPS) coatings, typically foam, to maintain the propellant conditions in the tank and prevent an accumulation ice on the external surface of the vehicle. Some ice growth is to be expected at umbilical interfaces, vents, flanges, or brackets where it is difficult to apply TPS. This ice may come loose at any time due to wind on the launch pad, structural vibration and acoustics after rocket ignition, or aerodynamic forces during flight. This phenomena is especially apparent on vehicles with no TPS, such as the Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo Program, see Figure 1. During propellant tanking, the thermal contraction of the underlying substrate may generate cracks in the TPS (Figure 1). Chunks of TPS can release due to the expansion of ingested gas from cryopumping or from aerodynamic forces if the crack creates an offset surface. Most foams will also have a certain amount of “popcorning” where small pieces of foam will pop off during flight because of the differential between the static surface pressure and the pressure of the gas trapped in the foam cell structure. There are a number of other coating or closeout materials that may be shed from the vehicle and become debris. During pre-launch operations and liftoff, the vehicle may also be exposed to debris originating from the launch pad or ground support equipment. This debris is separate from foreign object debris, or FOD, which is not intended to be present and is strictly controlled through operations and maintenance procedures. In this case, debris is generated from hardware and materials that are necessary for launch and are subject to the intense vibration, acoustics, and direct plume impingement of the launch environment. Examples include ice from umbilicals, tape and tie wraps that protect cables, and rust or corrosion from the launch platform. While NASA has historically been aware of debris as a potential issue that could cause a failure resulting in loss of mission, loss of vehicle, or loss of crew, the likelihood and severity of that risk was not always well understood or given sufficient weight in program and flight decisions. After the Space Shuttle Columbia accident (STS-107), the investigation found that foam TPS debris shed from the external tank was the proximate cause of the damage to the orbiter wing. Six previous observations of debris released from the foam ramp that covered the bipod connecting the forward end of the orbiter to the external tank resulted in minor changes or were determined to be accepted flight risks. Two occurrences of bipod ramp foam loss were not identified until the STS-107 investigation. Despite the damage inflicted by these debris strikes, the Shuttle Program Requirements Control Board deemed the vehicle safe to fly. During the Return to Flight effort following the Columbia disaster, NASA Engineering developed a process for the assessment of debris transport, impact, and damage tolerance to support independent assessments of risk by NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA). Under this system, each element (vehicle or ground system) defines a catalog of all expected debris based on launch history, component testing, or analysis. Debris transport analysis (DTA) is conducted using the debris catalog characteristics and potential flow transport mechanisms (e.g., vehicle aerodynamics, gravity, wind, plume-driven). The predicted debris impact locations and velocities are provided to the hardware owners, who use available test data and analysis to determine whether each component can withstand the impacts. In cases where the element hardware may be severely damaged or fail, the options are to mitigate the debris source through some change in design or operation, or to work with S&MA to try to characterize the probability of the impact and damage for program risk acceptance. Because of the differences in debris characteristics and transport, the DTA has been divided between the Liftoff and Ascent regimes. The development and application of Liftoff DTA methodology from the Shuttle Program to the current Artemis Program is the subject of this paper. Liftoff DTA covers the time from the start of pre-launch operations at the launch pad, up until the vehicle clears the launch tower and there is no longer any interaction with ground systems. Debris transport during this period is broadly classified as either gravity, wind, and plume-entrained (GWPE) or plume driven (PD). GWPE debris is generally lower speed, travelling in a forward-to-aft direction. PD transport includes flow features from the rocket ignition transient, as well as plume impingement and recirculation that occur as the vehicle lifts off the launch platform. In these cases, the debris typically moves in an aft-to-forward direction at higher speeds. The applicable transport mechanisms must be considered for each piece of debris depending on the material, and release location and time. For example, rust or metallic debris from the tower could fall (GWPE) and impact the vehicle before landing on the launch platform deck where it could be also be transported by plume impingement (PD). However, falling ice (GWPE) from an umbilical is unlikely to survive impact with the vehicle or launch platform and be available for PD transport. Modeling of debris transport is accomplished using a set of DTA tools which simulate debris trajectories subject to a reference frame acceleration (i.e., gravity) and aerodynamic drag. Where the trajectory encounters a solid surface, the debris is allowed to rebound with a specified coefficient of restitution. The drag is calculated by interpolating the fluid state at each point in the debris trajectory from high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of the launch vehicle and pad. The CFD data may either be static (steady state or time averaged), typically for GWPE transport, or dynamic (time-accurate) for PD flow features like the ignition transient. Examples of the CFD flow field solutions for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and launch pad are shown in Figure 2. Typical SLS debris trajectory predictions from DTA are illustrated in Figure 3. The final version of this paper will include a more detailed examination of the Liftoff DTA process developed during the Shuttle Program, and how it has been augmented and applied to the SLS rocket under the Artemis Program. Comparisons with debris observations from the Artemis I launch will demonstrate validation of the tools and methodology.

Debris↗

DOE OSTI2020

Remediation of Temporary Storage Sites in Support of the Port Hope Area Initiative - 20295

The Port Hope Area Initiative is a community-based solution for the long-term management of historic low level radioactive waste (LLRW) resulting from 60 years of uranium and radium processing operations in the Town of Port Hope which is located in Ontario, Canada. The Eldorado refinery, on the north shore of Lake Ontario, began refining radium-226 from pitchblende ore, later transitioning to the refining of uranium. Through the history of the operation, LLRW was deposited throughout the town of Port Hope as a result of fugitive emissions from the plant and/or through the re-use of process residues as building material and backfill. Historical clean-up activities conducted in the late 1970's involved the remediation of approximately 400 properties and the relocation of 100,000 cubic metres of contaminated soil to a disposal facility in Chalk River operated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL). Owing to space limitations at that disposal facility, any LLRW identified through construction monitoring since that time has been stored in the community at three temporary storage sites located throughout the town. These include: the Centre Pier mound that contained approximately of 19,800 m{sup 3} of LLRW-impacted soil that originated from the construction of a new water treatment plant; two mounds located at a licensed storage facility containing LLRW obtained from residential clean-up activities (11,000 m{sup 3}); and a small pad adjacent to the municipal sewage treatment plant containing 2200 m{sup 3} of LLRW-containing sludge. With the construction of a new long-term waste management facility (LTWMF) that has been designed to house all of the LLRW identified within Port Hope, the three sites were early candidates for remediation. The clean-up of the three temporary storage sites was a significant milestone for the Port Hope Area Initiative. After a decade of planning and consultation, this work represents the first sites in the municipality to be remediated with the waste being safety removed and transferred to the newly constructed LTWMF. This paper discusses the challenges associated with the clean-up activities for these three sites and the strategies employed to address those challenges. These included weather-related challenges, owing to the seasons over which the work was conducted as well as those associated with working within a closely-knit community. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), working on behalf of the federal government, has worked diligently to develop a positive and trusting relationship with the community. Consequently, the successful execution of this project needed to be sensitive to, and respectful of the needs of the community. In addition to the usual Health, Safety and Environment training, project staff received community awareness training that spoke to the history of this community-based initiative and the expected behavior when working within the community. Transportation routes were defined based on safety and the need to minimize disruption to local traffic while haul-times where scheduled around school bus hours to enhance public safety. The successful completion of this first of many remediation projects to be completed under the Port Hope Area Initiative reflected years of careful planning. Nevertheless, there were a number of 'lessons learned' that have been applied on other ongoing projects be completed under the Port Hope Area Initiative. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

NASA NTRS2011

Flying Unmanned Aircraft: A Pilot's Perspective

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is pioneering various Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) technologies and procedures which may enable routine access to the National Airspace System (NAS), with an aim for Next Gen NAS. These tools will aid in the development of technologies and integrated capabilities that will enable high value missions for science, security, and defense, and open the door to low-cost, extreme-duration, stratospheric flight. A century of aviation evolution has resulted in accepted standards and best practices in the design of human-machine interfaces, the displays and controls of which serve to optimize safe and efficient flight operations and situational awareness. The current proliferation of non-standard, aircraft-specific flight crew interfaces in UAS, coupled with the inherent limitations of operating UAS without in-situ sensory input and feedback (aural, visual, and vestibular cues), has increased the risk of mishaps associated with the design of the "cockpit." The examples of current non- or sub- standard design features range from "annoying" and "inefficient", to those that are difficult to manipulate or interpret in a timely manner, as well as to those that are "burdensome" and "unsafe." A concerted effort is required to establish best practices and standards for the human-machine interfaces, for the pilot as well as the air traffic controller. In addition, roles, responsibilities, knowledge, and skill sets are subject to redefining the terms, "pilot" and "air traffic controller", with respect to operating UAS, especially in the Next-Gen NAS. The knowledge, skill sets, training, and qualification standards for UAS operations must be established, and reflect the aircraft-specific human-machine interfaces and control methods. NASA s recent experiences flying its MQ-9 Ikhana in the NAS for extended duration, has enabled both NASA and the FAA to realize the full potential for UAS, as well as understand the implications of current limitations. Ikhana is a Predator-B/Reaper UAS, built by General Atomics, Aeronautical Systems, Inc., and modified for research. Since 2007, the aircraft has been flown seasonally with a wing-mounted pod containing an infrared scanner, utilized to provide real-time wildfire geo-location data to various fire-fighting agencies in the western U.S. The multi-agency effort included an extensive process to obtain flight clearance from the FAA to operate under special provisions, given that UAS in general do not fully comply with current airspace regulations (e.g. sense-and-avoid requirements).

Pestana, Mark E.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Application of the Global Precipitation Forecast dataset for Global Landslide Forecasting System

Landslides are extremely damaging, pervasive and cause fatalities and economic impacts. Extreme rainfall events, coupled with inopportune surface conditions, are the primary triggers of landslides around the world. Forecasting landslide events represent an area of open research. A global Landslide Hazard Assessment for Situational Awareness (LHASA) model has been created that provides near real-time dynamic landslide characterization using Integrated Multi-Satellite Retrievals for Global Precipitation Mission (IMERG). However, it does not provide information on prediction of landslides into future. This study considers how global precipitation forecast data compares to satellite rainfall at different spatiotemporal scales and outlines the potential for its use in landslide hazard prediction/forecasting system. NASA Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS)-Forecast model assimilates new observations every 6 hours, at 00, 06, 12, and 18 UTC. The GEOS-Forecast model is initialized at 00 UTC and is evaluated with IMERG Early, using Multi-Radar Multi-Sensor gauge corrected (MRMS-GC) precipitation product as a reference over contiguous United States (CONUS). Categorical and continuous statistics along with probability density functions and cumulative distribution functions are considered to assess the performance of the precipitation products, with a focus on landslide hotspots. Seasonality appears to influence the performance of both the GEOS-Forecast and IMERG Early product. Moreover, the global comparison between the GEOS-Forecast and IMERG Early is carried out in terms of percentile difference, correlation, and bias maps. For extreme rainfall events in regions such as Mekong, Colombia, and Tajikistan, GEOS-Forecast appears to resolve high rainfall relative to IMERG Early more frequently. Validation over landslide points reveal that for 24hr rainfall accumulations > 100mm, GEOS-Forecast and IMERG coincide. GEOS-Forecast and IMERG Early precipitation matches more closely for tropical cyclones than other types of storms. Overall, the performance varies with respect to location, rainfall intensities, and type of precipitation events.

Sana Khan↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Informing Wildfire Needs: The Expanded User Interface of NASA's Fire Information for Resource Management System (Firms)

As the global community continues to experience, and respond to, living in a changing environment, access to tools, technologies, and timely data utilized by an increasingly diverse set of stakeholders is increasing. This year, 2023, has thus far seen an unprecedented number of extreme events, increasingly driven by changes in the climate and a strong 2023 ENSO pattern. In Canada, a record number of wildfires, and associated weather events, evacuations, and infrastructure and habitat destruction has taken place, and is ongoing. Large swaths of Greece have experienced similar wildfire destruction. Most recently, Maui has experienced destructive wildfires, and early 2023 saw massive wildfires in Chile. NASA's Fire Information for Resource Management System, or FIRMS, has a fifteen-year history of providing timely and comprehensive data and information on wildfires to stakeholders. FIRMS was initially developed in 2007 by the University of Maryland, with funds from NASA's Applied Sciences Program and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), to provide near real-time active fire Locations to natural resource managers that faced challenges obtaining timely satellite-derived fire information. FIRMS has consistently evolved to address the needs of stakeholders Living in a changing environment; in 2012 it transitioned to NASA LANCE and in 2021 through a partnership between NASA and the US Forest Service, an updated version of FIRMS was released for the US and Canada. As NASA and other federal agencies continue to accelerate Open Science through integrated efforts such as the Year of Open Science, the provision of readily discoverable, findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable data represents a major focus to facilitate equitable outcomes. FIRMS supports this acceleration in Open Science by continuing to provision data and information for its traditional user base, while addressing the novel user needs of an increasingly diverse set of stakeholders seeking robust, reliable, transparently generated data and information. Increasingly, FIRMS is utilized by citizen scientists and individuals directly affected by wildfires - through evacuations, risks to structures/homes, poor air quality. etc. FIRMS has also been Leveraged to detect and assess the impacts resulting from ongoing conflicts. This further highlights the multi-faceted impacts of wildfires and other events. In the Fall of 2023, FIRMS will release an expanded User Interface (UI). This interface captures and reflects the needs of, and input from, a multitude of users. These users range from federal agency representatives to non-government organizations to the private sector to citizen science entities. To respond to this expansive and diverse user need base, the updated FIRMS UI will capture a range of features to support those beginning to explore the range of data and tools available to inform wildfire awareness and knowledge. These users are supported through a Basic Mode interface, furnishing access to a light set of functionalities that provision straight-forward, readily usable information and data, and ingestible knowledge. The Advanced Mode interface supports those stakeholder groups already proficient in navigating FIRMS. These stakeholders, representing fire managers and others, perform active fire management and tactical wildfire response activities. For these stakeholders, additional datasets have been included which require in-depth knowledge of both the utility as well as the caveats of such datasets. Additional functionalities have also been embedded to aid specific user queries. The expanded UI will introduce a new Experimental Mode. The focus of this UI will be to support the provision of emerging and innovative datasets that are in development for review and comment by the user community Examples include post-fire products generated by NASA's Earth Information System (EIS) Fire. This presentation will provide an overview of the expanded FIRMS UI. We will discuss how this UI is designed to be scalable and support the unique needs of an expanding and diverse user base. We will highlight key features, elements, and datasets, and describe how user needs have informed and guided the design of the UI. We will also share recent use cases to convey, and increase awareness, among conference participants. As the global community faces more extreme wildfires, due to climate variability and change, there is an increased need for reliable data to inform, manage, and mitigate the impacts of these events. Through this work, NASA FIRMS is striving to level the playing field, by making information accessible to all; from policy makers to the private sector to historically marginalized communities. In doing so, NASA is promoting the all-hands-on-deck response needed to minimize the impacts of wildfires and harness the strengths of open science to address the greatest environmental challenge faced.

Jenny Hewson↗

DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Trigger Detection for the sPHENIX Experiment via Bipartite Graph Networks with Set Transformer

Trigger (interesting events) detection is crucial to high-energy and nuclear physics experiments because it improves data acquisition efficiency. It also plays a vital role in facilitating the downstream offline data analysis process. The sPHENIX detector, located at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider in Brookhaven National Laboratory, is one of the largest nuclear physics experiments on a world scale and is optimized to detect physics processes involving charm and beauty quarks. Furthermore, these particles are produced in collisions involving two proton beams, two gold nuclei beams, or a combination of the two and give critical insights into the formation of the early universe. This paper presents a model architecture for trigger detection with geometric information from two fast silicon detectors. Transverse momentum is introduced as an intermediate feature from physics heuristics. We also prove its importance through our training experiments. Each event consists of tracks and can be viewed as a graph. A bipartite graph neural network is integrated with the attention mechanism to design a binary classification model. Compared with the state-of-the-art algorithm for trigger detection, our model is parsimonious and increases the accuracy and the AUC score by more than 15%.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

NASA NTRS2011

A Contemporary Analysis of the O'Neill-Glaser Model for Space-Based Solar Power and Habitat Construction

In 1975 Gerard O Neill published in the journal Science a model for the construction of solar power satellites. He found that the solar power satellites suggested by Peter Glaser would be too massive to launch economically from Earth, but could be financially viable if the workforce was permanently located in free space habitats and if lunar and asteroid materials were used for construction. All new worldwide electrical generating capacity could be then achieved by solar power satellites. The project would financially break even in about 20 years after which it would generate substantial income selling power below fossil fuel prices. Two NASA / Stanford University led studies at Ames Research center during the summers of 1974 and 1976 found the concept technically sound and developed a detailed financial parametric model. Although the project was not undertaken when suggested in the 1970s, several contemporary issues make pursuing the O Neill -- Glaser concept more compelling today. First, our analysis suggests that if in the first ten years of construction that small habitats (compared to the large vista habitats envisioned by O Neill) supporting approximately 300 people were utilized, development costs of the program and the time for financial break even could be substantially improved. Second, the contemporary consensus is developing that carbon free energy is required to mitigate global climate change. It is estimated that 300 GW of new carbon free energy would be necessary per year to stabilize global atmospheric carbon. This is about 4 times greater energy demand than was considered by the O Neill Glaser model. Our analysis suggests that after the initial investments in lunar mining and space manufacturing and transportation, that the profit margin for producing space solar power is very high (even when selling power below fossil fuel prices). We have investigated the financial scaling of ground launched versus space derived space solar power satellites. We find that for the carbon mitigation case even modernized ground launched space solar power satellites are not financially viable. For space derived solar power satellites, however, the increased demand makes them break even substantially sooner and yield much higher profit. Third, current awareness is increasing about the dangers of humanity remaining a single planet species. Our technological power has been increasing relative to the size of the planet Earth. Since the middle of the 20th century our technological power has grown large relative to our planet's size. This presents a very real potential for human self-extinction. We argue that the potential for human self-extinction is increasing with time in proportion to the exponential growth of our technological power making self-extinction likely within this century if humanity remains a single planet species. The O Neill model of multiple independent free space habitats, it is argued, can protect humanity from extinction in the same way that portfolio diversification protects ones assets from total loss. We show that about 1 million people for the electricity only case, and about 1 billion people for the carbon mitigation case, can be provided with permanent space habitats and transportation from Earth in 30 years and can be funded by the space derived solar power satellite program. 1.2 Scope of this Chapter The goal of this chapter is to illustrate the power and importance of the O'Neill-Glaser concept in the context of human survival and maintaining a healthy planet Earth. We argue that at this point in human history our technological power is too dangerous to our selves and our home planet for us not to expand into space. We show by the models presented in the chapter that the imminent dangers of global warming and human self-extinction mandate that humanity move aggressively into the solar system in this generation. We show that the production of solar power satellites using space resources and with a work foe living in space provides a viable financial model to mitigate CO2 preventing the worst global warming scenarios, and safeguards humanity against self-extinction by providing hundreds of habitats and a billion people living in space within about 35 years. To accomplish this goal we need only consider the classic O'Neill-Glaser model which was parameterized for 1970's technological projections. Only habitat size optimization for the first ten years of production is added. This is a conservative approach since the innovations of the last 30 years will make the financial projections more favorable. However, the classic O'Neill-Glaser model represented a broad technological consensus. The model is well documented in the references and our calculations can be easily reproduced In this chapter the economics of the O Neill - Glaser model is compared with models that rely exclusively on Earth launched materials. Although many studies of Earth launched Solar Power Satellites have been made, we found that the NASA "Fresh Look Study" was the most comprehensive and well documented. It also provided one of the most optimistic Earth launch financial projections. We thus chose it for comparison purposes.

Curreri, Peter A.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Design for the Structure and the Mechanics of Moballs

The moball is envisioned to be a round, self-powered, and wind-driven multifunctioning sensor used in the Gone with the Wind ON-Mars (GOWON) [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/ marsconcepts2012/pdf/4238.pdf]: A Wind-Driven Networked System of Mobile sensors on Mars. The moballs would have sensing, processing, and communication capabilities. The moballs would perform in situ detection of key environmental elements such as vaporized water, trace gases, wind, dust, clouds, light and UV exposure, temperature, as well as minerals of interest, possible biosignatures, surface magnetic and electric fields, etc. The embedded various low-power micro instruments could include a Multispectral Microscopic Imager (to detect various minerals), a compact curved focal plane array camera (UV/Vis/NIR) with a large field of view, a compact UV/Visible spectrometer, a micro-weather station, etc. The moballs could communicate with each other and an orbiter. Their wind- or gravity-driven rolling movement could be used to harvest and store electric energy. They could also generate and store energy using the sunlight, when available, and the diurnal temperature variations on Mars. The moballs would be self-aware of their (and their neighbors ) positions, energy storage, and memory availability; they would have processing power and could intelligently cooperate with neighboring moballs by distributing tasks, sharing data, and fusing information. The major advantages of using the wind-driven and spherical moball network over rovers or other fixed sensor webs to explore Mars would be: (1) moballs could explore a much larger expanse of Mars in a much faster fashion, (2) they could explore the difficult terrains such as steep slopes and sand dunes, and (3) they would be self-energy- generating and could work together and move around autonomously. The challenge in designing the structure and the mechanics of the moball would be that it should be sturdy enough to withstand the impact of its initial fall, as well as other impacts from obstacles in its way. A mechanism would be needed that could enable hundreds of moballs to be carried while they would be deflated and compact, then would inflate them just after deploying them to their drop site. Furthermore, the moballs should also be light enough to allow them to move easily over obstacles by force of the wind. They also should have some kind of maneuvering mechanism in place to help them avoid very hazardous sharp objects or events, and to enable them to get closer to the objects of interest. The structure of the moballs was designed so that they would have different layers. The outer layer should comprise a sturdy, yet light, polymer that could withstand both the impact of the initial drop, as well as the impact of the different obstacles it would encounter while traversing the surface of Mars. This polymer should not deteriorate with the 100 K daily temperature swings on Mars. The inner layer should consist of a very light gas such as nitrogen or helium. In terms of maneuvering, six very light weights placed at strategic locations would give moballs the ability to turn, or even hop, over hazardous (e.g., sharp) obstacles, or even initiate a movement (before getting more help from the wind to be carried around) when stuck. Maneuvering would be necessary in order to get closer to objects of interest. If the weights would be allowed to move freely, they could also be used to generate energy.

Davoodi, Faranak↗

DOE OSTI2020

Cybersecurity for Distance Relay Protection

This project is a DOE follow-up effort on the CREDC workshop held on September 13, 2018 in Cambridge, MA to discuss cybersecurity of distance relays, which considered the benefits, vulnerabilities and risk mitigations for the use of communication systems in power system protection. The objectives of this project are to define the taxonomy of relay protection and associated communications; define use cases describing approaches to reduce the cyber-attack surface on those protective relays; and evaluate the loss of operational functional capability from changes to communication coverage. Mitigating controls will also be evaluated to understand if there are other approaches to reduce attack surfaces while maintaining communications or partial communications. Distance relays are used to protect transmission lines of approximately 10 to 300 miles in length, by detecting short circuits (i.e., faults) on the lines and then tripping circuit breakers in the substation. Such protection systems are a subset of the power system and they incorporate sensing, logic and communication functions. Protection system exposure to cyberattack could be drastically limited by disconnecting relays from all vulnerable communication systems, but this may adversely impact overall power system performance in the absence of cyberattack. This project began with a use case analysis of protection systems with communications, as summarized in this report. It continued with modeling, testing and evaluation in a miniature power system (MPS), located in the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Electric Power Training Center (EPTC). The project also incorporated feedback from two industry meetings held in February and September 2019. The suggested next steps account for and complement the work already underway with DOE/CESER funding: 1. Study the performance of LCD and PC vs. PUTT, which is less reliant on communication system performance and GPS timing references. The PUTT scheme could prove to be more resilient to cyberattack or communications-related disruption. It could also be more tolerant of message re-routing with SDN/SDR communication systems. On the other hand, it will be more vulnerable to false tripping during dynamic events or to loss of the voltage signal. The optimum choice of scheme may depend on the specific power system and risk assessment. This study could provide a new template for evaluation based on business functions. 2. Research and develop new methods to detect and monitor distributed physical attacks, possibly using drones, video sensors, thermal sensors, machine learning and other advanced techniques. This will help mitigate the impact of cyberattack on the protection system, and will also help mitigate the impact of wild fires. 3. Implement a scalable PKI for use in electric utility protection systems. This will encourage widespread adoption of secure authentication methods that are already available, but not widely used at present. This will help secure engineering access to the relays. 4. Investigate the use of SDN in combination with SDR to achieve better cybersecurity and electromagnetic security of the network, incorporating path variability. This would help secure both engineering access and peer-to-peer GOOSE messaging. 5. Perform additional testing, with operator evaluation of “red button” scenarios, PUTT vs. LCD, relay mis-operations, and other cyberattacks in the EPTC. This is an important advantage of testing in the EPTC rather than by computer simulation or even hardware-in-the-loop simulation; the EPTC is already dedicated to managing the situational awareness, operator response times and other human impacts. One of the project objectives was to settle on a common nomenclature for this problem space. We have concluded that the OSI layer model, supplemented by ANSI device numbers and other IEEE standards, is already well-accepted by the industry. The IEEE PSRC knowledge base provides a great deal of public information

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2020

GPS-Based Gamma Survey for Characterizing and Decommissioning NORM Sites - 20389

Gamma survey techniques are an especially powerful decommissioning tool at naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) sites due to both the low cost to obtain data over a large spatial scale and the abundance of gamma emitters in the uranium and thorium decay series. Gamma surveys are executed by coupling a detector - most often a sodium iodide crystal - to a global positioning system (GPS), then reporting a location and gross gamma reading coincidentally to a data logger. Systems may be carried by workers or mounted to a car, all-terrain vehicle, or unmanned aerial system (UAS). The resulting data set provides a high-resolution but low precision map of the gamma radiation field over the area surveyed. Frequently this map is also correlated to soil concentrations of NORM radionuclides (most often, Ra-226) and/or exposure rate. Gamma survey parameters such as movement speed, transect spacing, and data logging frequency define the spatial resolution of the resulting surface, and can be optimized depending on the desired survey sensitivity. This paper examines gamma survey as a tool for decommissioning NORM sites and provides an overview of current gamma survey technology designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the decommissioning process. Topics to be discussed in the paper include: - An overview of gamma survey systems, and the utility of different delivery vehicles depending on desired cost, desired spatial resolution, and site topography. - The influence of physical detector characteristics on detection sensitivity and survey planning. - The tradeoff between high-resolution and large spatial extent, but inherently uncertain data, and low-resolution, low spatial extent, but highly certain data, as well as the specific utility of each of these types of data during NORM facility decommissioning. - Confounding variables that may limit the utility of gamma survey at some sites (e.g., radon gas and spatial heterogeneity / hot spots), and methods to plan for and control these conditions. Results show that the confounding variables, such as radon and data output can greatly influence the overall data quality associated with the decommissioning process. In addition, the use of real-time and aerial survey platforms provides a method for ensuring proper spatial extent of the data. When applied thoughtfully, gamma survey is a powerful tool for detecting NORM radionuclides in the environment and a cost-effective technique for identifying areas requiring remediation. However, entities performing or using gamma survey as a decommissioning tool must be aware of both its advantages and its limitations before basing remediation or regulatory action on gamma survey results. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

NASA NTRS2004

Exploring the Unknown

One of the most important developments of the twentieth century has been the movement of humanity into space with machines and people. The extension of human activity into outer space has been accompanied by a high degree of self-awareness of its historical significance. Because most of the activity in outer space was carried out under government sponsorship, it was accompanied by the documentary record required of public institutions, and there has been a spate of official and privately written histories of most major aspects of space achievement to date. When top leaders considered what course of action to pursue in space, their deliberations and decisions often were carefully put on the record. There is, accordingly, no lack of material for those who aspire to understand the origins and evolution of U.S. space policies and programs.This reality forms the rationale for this series. Precisely because there is so much historical material available on space matters, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) decided in 1988 that it would be extremely useful to have easily available to scholars and the interested public a selective collection of many of the seminal documents related to the evolution of the U.S. civilian space program. While recognizing that much space activity has taken place under the sponsorship of the Department of Defense and other national security organizations, the U.S. private sector, and in other countries around the world, NASA felt that there would be lasting value in a collection of documentary material primarily focused on the evolution of the U.S. government s civilian space program, most of which has been carried out since 1958 under the Agency s auspices. As a result, the NASA History Office contracted with the Space Policy Institute of George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs to prepare such a collection. This is the sixth volume in the documentary history series; two additional ones containing documents and introductory essays related to human space flight, including microgravity research in Earth orbit, will follow. The documents collected during this research project were assembled from a diverse number of both public and private sources. A major repository of primary source materials relative to the history of the civil space program is the NASA Historical Reference Collection of the NASA History Office located at the Agency s Headquarters in Washington, DC.

Logsdon, John M.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Current Ground Test Options for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP)

About 20 different NTP engines/ reactors were tested from 1959 to 1972 as part of the Rover and Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) program. Most were tested in open air at test cell A or test cell C, at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). Even after serious engine breakdowns of the reactor (e.g., Phoebus 1A), the test cells were cleaned up for other engine tests. The engine test stand (ETS) was made for high altitude (approximately 1 psia) testing of an NTP engine with a flight configuration, but still had the exhaust released to open air. The Rover/NERVA program became aware of new environmental regulations which would prohibit the release of any significant quantity of radioactive particulates and noble gases into the open air. The nuclear furnace (NF-1) was the last reactor tested before the program was cancelled in 1973, but successfully demonstrated a scrubber concept on how to filter the NTP exhaust. The NF-1 was demonstrated in the summer of 1972. The NF-1 used a 44MW reactor and operated each run for approximately 90 minutes. The system cooled the hot hydrogen exhaust from the engine with a water spray before entering a particle filter. The exhaust then passed through a series of heat exchangers and water separators to help remove water from the exhaust and further reduce the exhaust temperatures. The exhaust was next prepared for the charcoal trap by passing through a dryer and effluent cooler to bring exhaust temperatures close to liquid nitrogen. At those low temperatures, most of the noble gases (e.g., Xe and Kr made from fission products) get captured in the charcoal trap. The filtered hydrogen is finally passed through a flare stack and released to the air. The concept was overall successful but did show a La plating on some surfaces and had multiple recommendations for improvement. The most recent detailed study on the NTP scrubber concept was performed by the ARES Corporation in 2006. The concept is based on a 50,000 lbf thrust engine (approximately 1 GW) with a maximum burn time of 1 hour. The concept utilized lessons learned from NF-1. The strategy breaks down the exhaust into parallel paths to allow flexibility with engine size and mass flow of exhaust. Similar to NF-1, the exhaust is slowed down, cooled, filtered of particulates, filtered of noble gases, and then the clean hydrogen is flared to open air. Another concept proposed by Steve Howe (currently Director of the Center for Space Nuclear Research) to simplify the NTP exhaust filtering is to run the hydrogen exhaust into boreholes underground to filter the exhaust. The two borehole site locations proposed are at the NTS and at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). At NTS, the boreholes are 8' diameter and 1200' deep. The permeability of hydrogen through the soil and its buoyancy will allow it to rise up through the soil and allow the filtering of noble gases and radioactive particulates. The exhaust needs to be cooled to 600C before entering the borehole to avoid soil glazing. Preliminary analysis shows a small buildup of back pressure with time which depends on permeability. Noble gases entering the borehole walls deep can take a long time before reaching the surface. Other factors affecting permeability include borehole pressure, water saturation, and turbulence. Also, a possible need to pump out contaminated water collected at the bottom of the borehole. At INL, the borehole concept is slightly different. The underground borehole has openings to the soil at special depths which have impermeable interbeds above the water table and below the surface to allow the exhaust to travel horizontal between the impermeable layers. Preliminary results indicate better permeability than at NTS. The last option is total containment of the exhaust during the test run. The concept involves slowing down the flow to subsonic in a water cooled diffuser. The hydrogen is burned off in an oxygen rich afterburner with the only products being steam, oxygen, and some noble gases. A heat exchanger and water spray pulls heat from the steam and lowers the temperature for condensation. The optimum ratio between the two is being investigated, with a goal to minimize the total volume of the water hold tanks. A water tank farm collects the contaminated water. The amount of water produced from burning the hydrogen is approximately 100,000 gallons (not including cooling water) for a 25k lbf engine operating for 50 minutes. Residual gases (e.g., oxygen and some noble gases) can be captured at cryogenic levels with a liquid nitrogen cooled dewar. After a few weeks post-test, the radiation levels can drop to more favorable levels before slowly draining each capture tank and using existing filters. With today's environmental regulations, the NTP exhaust is filtered to meet 10 mrem/year exposure to the general public (at a DOE site) or 100 mrem/year (via NRC when tested elsewhere), when natural background radiation exposure to the general public is 300- 600 mrem per year. The current society feels more comfortable with filtering even lower to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).

Gerrish, Harold P., Jr.↗