SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Quick Reference”

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.

256 records · Page 15

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2016

Investigating the Simulink Auto-Coding Process

Model based program design is the most clear and direct way to develop algorithms and programs for interfacing with hardware. While coding "by hand" results in a more tailored product, the ever-growing size and complexity of modern-day applications can cause the project work load to quickly become unreasonable for one programmer. This has generally been addressed by splitting the product into separate modules to allow multiple developers to work in parallel on the same project, however this introduces new potentials for errors in the process. The fluidity, reliability and robustness of the code relies on the abilities of the programmers to communicate their methods to one another; furthermore, multiple programmers invites multiple potentially differing coding styles into the same product, which can cause a loss of readability or even module incompatibility. Fortunately, Mathworks has implemented an auto-coding feature that allows programmers to design their algorithms through the use of models and diagrams in the graphical programming environment Simulink, allowing the designer to visually determine what the hardware is to do. From here, the auto-coding feature handles converting the project into another programming language. This type of approach allows the designer to clearly see how the software will be directing the hardware without the need to try and interpret large amounts of code. In addition, it speeds up the programming process, minimizing the amount of man-hours spent on a single project, thus reducing the chance of human error as well as project turnover time. One such project that has benefited from the auto-coding procedure is Ramses, a portion of the GNC flight software on-board Orion that has been implemented primarily in Simulink. Currently, however, auto-coding Ramses into C++ requires 5 hours of code generation time. This causes issues if the tool ever needs to be debugged, as this code generation will need to occur with each edit to any part of the program; additionally, this is lost time that could be spent testing and analyzing the code. This is one of the more prominent issues with the auto-coding process, and while much information is available with regard to optimizing Simulink designs to produce efficient and reliable C++ code, not much research has been made public on how to reduce the code generation time. It is of interest to develop some insight as to what causes code generation times to be so significant, and determine if there are architecture guidelines or a desirable auto-coding configuration set to assist in streamlining this step of the design process for particular applications. To address the issue at hand, the Simulink coder was studied at a foundational level. For each different component type made available by the software, the features, auto-code generation time, and the format of the generated code were analyzed and documented. Tools were developed and documented to expedite these studies, particularly in the area of automating sequential builds to ensure accurate data was obtained. Next, the Ramses model was examined in an attempt to determine the composition and the types of technologies used in the model. This enabled the development of a model that uses similar technologies, but takes a fraction of the time to auto-code to reduce the turnaround time for experimentation. Lastly, the model was used to run a wide array of experiments and collect data to obtain knowledge about where to search for bottlenecks in the Ramses model. The resulting contributions of the overall effort consist of an experimental model for further investigation into the subject, as well as several automation tools to assist in analyzing the model, and a reference document offering insight to the auto-coding process, including documentation of the tools used in the model analysis, data illustrating some potential problem areas in the auto-coding process, and recommendations on areas or practices in the current Ramses model that should be further investigated. Several skills were required to be built up over the course of the internship project. First and foremost, my Simulink skills have improved drastically, as much of my experience had been modeling electronic circuits as opposed to software models. Furthermore, I am now comfortable working with the Simulink Auto-coder, a tool I had never used until this summer; this tool also tested my critical thinking and C++ knowledge as I had to interpret the C++ code it was generating and attempt to understand how the Simulink model affected the generated code. I had come into the internship with a solid understanding of Matlab code, but had done very little in using it to automate tasks, particularly Simulink tasks; along the same lines, I had rarely used shell script to automate and interface with programs, which I gained a fair amount of experience with this summer, including how to use regular expression. Lastly, soft-skills are an area everyone can continuously improve on; having never worked with NASA engineers, which to me seem to be a completely different breed than what I am used to (commercial electronic engineers), I learned to utilize the wealth of knowledge present at JSC. I wish I had come into the internship knowing exactly how helpful everyone in my branch would be, as I would have picked up on this sooner. I hope that having gained such a strong foundation in Simulink over this summer will open the opportunity to return to work on this project, or potentially other opportunities within the division. The idea of leaving a project I devoted ten weeks to is a hard one to cope with, so having the chance to pick up where I left off sounds appealing; alternatively, I am interested to see if there are any opening in the future that would allow me to work on a project that is more in-line with my research in estimation algorithms. Regardless, this summer has been a milestone in my professional career, and I hope this has started a long-term relationship between JSC and myself. I really enjoy the thought of building on my experience here over future summers while I work to complete my PhD at Missouri University of Science and Technology.

Gualdoni, Matthew J.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Diversity and Inclusion in Spacecraft Science Teams: What Do We Know and What Can We Do About It?

Introduction: Not only does the planetary science community lack diversity [1-3], the subset of the community that participates on spacecraft science team is even less diverse than the community as a whole [1, 4]. Results of 2020 Workforce Survey: Previous studies of the diversity of members of spacecraft science teams made incorrect assumptions about the nature of the data before collecting the data. Those analyses assumed a binary gender and ignored the existence of planetary scientists who are neither men nor women [4-6]. We present here results where demographic data was collected without assumptions; each individual surveyed supplied their own answers to demographic questions. The April 2020 survey of Planetary Scientists, which was conducted by the Statistical Research Center of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) and funded by the American Astronomical Society (AAS)’s Division of Planetary Science (DPS) asked participants their gender with 4 possible responses: Woman, Man, Another identify (please specify if you wish), and Prefer not to answer. 32% of respondents chose Woman, 67% chose Man and 1% chose Another gender identity [1]. The survey also asked demographic questions on race, ethnicity, LGBTQ+ identity, and disability. For a full list of questions, see https://dps.aas.org/sites/dps.aas.org/files/reports/2020/survey2020_questionnaire.pdf. In addition to demographic questions, the 2020 Workforce survey asked how many times respondents had been involved in Mission proposals as a Principal Investigator (PI) and, separately, as a Co-Investigator (CoI) [1]. Answers to questions about mission involvement were correlated with answers to demographic questions and the results show that members of historically underrepresented groups (non-white scientists, women, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and disabled scientists) were less likely to be involved in spacecraft mission proposals than were members of historically overrepresented groups [1]. The figures below show the correlated responses for four different axes of underrepresentation [1]. Note that while the figure on gender shows only Women and Men (due to the small percentage of folks answering “Another gender”), non-binary respondents are included in the LGBTQ+ community figure. Conclusion: Being part of a spacecraft science team is a goal for many planetary scientists. With it comes brand new data, more stable funding, and a sense of awe and exploration. It can lead to a cascade of opportunities from conference and public presentations, to membership in subsequent mission teams, and prestige in the community [4]. As a result, participation in spacecraft teams can be used a measure of success within the field. From the survey results, we see that members of historically excluded groups, even after they have overcome barriers to participating in the field, are still experiencing barriers to success within the field itself. Why?: The diminishing percentage of members of underrepresented groups as a career progresses has been referred to as a “leaky pipeline”. However, this fails to adequately capture the experiences of the members of these underrepresented groups as it implies a passive process. In order to capture the active processes (bias, discrimination, harassment, and other exclusionary behaviors) that contribute to low retention in the workforce, the term “Hostile Obstacle Course” is more useful [7,8]. It is these processes that need to be addressed in order to retain valued members of our community. Moving Forward: In order to broaden participation in planetary science, particularly mission science teams, we need to address conditions that create hostile workplace climates. What can mission teams and other groups do to address these conditions? First, each group/team needs to evaluate their own members to determine what specific barriers exist in their own interactions. One tool to accomplish this would be an anonymous survey designed to understand how team members feel about working within the group. Working with professionals who know how to create and analyze such surveys (often called “climate surveys” when applied to University students, for example) would ensure that the survey meets its goals and does not make assumptions that counter the meaningfulness of the results. Such professionals in EDIA (Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) and workplace culture can make suggestions for policy changes that would eliminate hostile workplace conditions. Policy changes that are often suggested include instituting professional EDIA training for the team and/or for team leadership, instituting and following a code of conduct [9], including more interactive group activities in group meetings, etc. Training and information on EDIA is available for all members of the planetary science community. The first place to look would be in your University or Institution’s EDIA or human resources offices. Bystander Intervention is often offered as part of other meetings [10]. A newer offering is a Workshop on EDIA for Leaders in Planetary Science led by Julie Rathbun (first author of this abstract) and JA Grier (https://edialps.psi.edu/). This 3-day workshop gives participants the tools they need to enact positive change in their personal and professional spheres. The first workshop was help in November 2022 and another workshop will take place in the late spring 2023 with exact dates to be announced soon.

J. A. Rathbun↗

NASA NTRS2015

2015 Space Radiation Standing Review Panel

The 2015 Space Radiation Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on December 8 - 9, 2015. The SRP met with representatives from the Space Radiation Element and members of the Human Research Program (HRP) to review the updated research plan for the Risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis Cancer Risk. The SRP also reviewed the newly revised Evidence Reports for the Risk of Acute Radiation Syndromes Due to Solar Particle Events (SPEs) (Acute Risk), the Risk of Acute (In-flight) and Late Central Nervous System Effects from Radiation Exposure (CNS Risk), and the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Other Degenerative Tissue Effects from Radiation (Degen Risk), as well as a status update on these Risks. The SRP would like to commend Dr. Simonsen, Dr. Huff, Dr. Nelson, and Dr. Patel for their detailed presentations. The Space Radiation Element did a great job presenting a very large volume of material. The SRP considers it to be a strong program that is well-organized, well-coordinated and generates valuable data. The SRP commended the tissue sharing protocols, working groups, systems biology analysis, and standardization of models. In several of the discussed areas the SRP suggested improvements of the research plans in the future. These include the following: It is important that the team has expanded efforts examining immunology and inflammation as important components of the space radiation biological response. This is an overarching and important focus that is likely to apply to all aspects of the program including acute, CVD, CNS, cancer and others. Given that the area of immunology/inflammation is highly complex (and especially so as it relates to radiation), it warrants the expansion of investigators expertise in immunology and inflammation to work with the individual research projects and also the NASA Specialized Center of Research (NSCORs). Historical data on radiation injury to be entered into the Watson “big data” study must be used with caution. The general scientific issues of reproducibility, details of experimental methods and data analysis from preclinical and basic research laboratories have been raised broadly over the last few years (not specific to this work) and indicate that caution must be applied in the ways these data are used. This pertains to preclinical data and also to phase 3 clinical trials in radiation oncology and medical oncology. Of course, appropriate use and analysis of these “big-data” sets also offer the potential of pinpointing limitations and extracting remaining useful information. Emphasis should be placed on the latter possibility. A key target is risk reduction from radiation exposure. Progress of the entire space program, now moving towards the Mars mission, requires timely answers to key components of human risk, which are known to be complex. Periodic review of progress should be conducted with additional resources directed into achieving critical milestones. Turning the long red bars to yellow and green (or for some risks such as CNS possibly to grey) must be high priority. That such progress will require new science and not engineering means that it should be viewed in a knowledge-based light. The technology-based aspects of engineering issues are certainly as important, however, science and knowledge-based problems are solved in a different way than engineering. Timelines for engineering are more predictable, while for science, progress can be methodical with occasional major incremental findings that can rapidly change the rate of progress. As opportunities for rapid incremental changes arise, periodic enhancement of investment is strongly recommended to enable such new knowledge to be quickly and efficiently exploited. Collaborations and linkages with National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) are in place and more are encouraged, where possible, with the radiation injury and medical countermeasure studies. This could include utilizing some of their animal model testing contracts to facilitate obtaining results using common platforms. Such approach will facilitate the comparison of results among laboratories, and will facilitate and accelerate the development of medical countermeasures. It is particularly noteworthy that the NASA Space Radiation Element is reaching out to the Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (MELODI) platform coordinating low dose radiation risk research, and to other international agencies that are studying low dose radiation effects in an effort to fill the void generated by the cancelation of the Department of Energy (DOE) low dose radiation program. While NASA is working actively with NIAID and BARDA to integrate their relevant findings of radiation mitigator investigations to NASA programs, the committee notes its disappointment that the United States currently lacks a dedicated low dose radiation program with clear mechanistic orientation and aimed at the quantification and mitigation of human radiation risk on Earth. This void gives to the NASA Space Radiation Program Element special societal value, but also makes its overall design more challenging.

Steinberg, Susan↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Combined Al-Mg/Pb-Pb Age of the Solar System

Astrophysical models of planet formation and protoplanetary disk evolution demand precise and accurate timing of the sequence of events in the solar nebula, relative to a time t=0, usually taken to be during the short epoch of CAI (Ca-rich, Al-rich inclusion) formation. Most CAIs formed withlive26Al (mean-life τ26= 1.034 Myr [1]), with an abundance 26Al/27Al ≈ (26Al/27Al)SS= 5.23 × 10-5[2]. We adopt this as the widespread level of 26Al in the solar nebula at t=0. Assuming spatial homogeneity of 26Al, an inclusion that had less 26Al, (26Al/27Al)0, formed a time Δt26= τ26ln[(26Al/27Al)SS/ (26Al/27Al)0] after t=0.These ages are typical precise to within ±0.1 Myr. Igneous bulk meteorites and inclusions can be relatively dated by the Al-Mg chronometer, but only ifΔt26<6 Myr. The Pb-Pb system is useful as a longer relative chronometer. It yields absolute ages tPb using 207Pb/206Pb, 206Pb/204Pb, and 238U/235U ratios measured indifferent portions of a sample, assuming certain half-lives [4]. These absolute ages are uncertain to within ±9 Myr due to uncertainties in the 235U half-life[3], but times of formation ΔtPb= tCAI–tPb relative to t=0, are more precise(±0.5Myr),iftCAI can be found. Here, tCAI means the Pb-Pb age that would be measured in CAIs using the half-lives the community typically uses, if they achieved isotopic closure at t=0. Unfortunately, direct Pb-Pb dating of CAIs has not definitively determined tCAI. Based on four CAIs with canonical (26Al/27Al)0,[5,6] found tPb= 4567.30 ± 0.16 Myr. No other CAI ages with measured 238U/235U have been reported in the refereed literature, but there are hints of other CAIs with ages tPb= 4568.0 ± 0.2 Myr [7] and tPb= 4568.3 ± 0.2 Myr [8].It is unclear whether anyof these igneous type B CAIs isotopically closed at t=0 or represents tCAI. Instead of measurements, we advocate finding tCAI by minimizing the discrepancies between the Al-Mg and Pb-Pb chronometers. Assuming Δt26=ΔtPb, we find the implied t’CAI= tPb+Δt26, then define t*CAIas the weighted mean of the t’CAI. t*CAIis the best guess for the Pb-Pb age of t=0; the assumption of homogeneity is justified if the t’CAI cluster within errors around t*CAI. This statistical approach is similar to, but improves on, that of[9]. We find t*CAI= 4568.73 ± 0.16 Myr. Below we discuss our methodology and the implications of this age for CAIs, 1.4 Myr older than the reported and typically used age 4567.30±0.16 Myr. Methods: We base our estimate of t*CAIon five achondrites for which published (26Al/27Al)0and Pb-Pb ages exist: the quenched angrites D’Orbigny, Sahara 99555 (SAH 99555), and Northwest Africa (NWA) 1670; the pseudo-eucrite Asuka 881394; and the inner disk achondrite. All are “NC” (non-carbonaceous) achondrites that likely cooled quickly enough that the Al-Mg and Pb-Pb systems achieved isotopic closure simultaneously. We also considered the “CC” (carbonaceous chondrite-like) achondrites NWA 2796 and NWA 6704, butdo not include them in our fit. Al-Mg and Pb-Pb seem not to have closed simultaneously, possibly because formation in the outer disk from volatile-rich composition led to slower cooling. Of the 8 chondrules from NWA 5697 measured by [20,21], we also consider the 4 for which 238U/235U was measured: 2-C1, 5-C2, 3-C5, 11-C1.Depending on their post-formation thermal histories, the Al-Mg and Pb-Pb systems in chondrules may or may not have closed simultaneously. Table 1: (26Al/27Al)0, Pb-Pb ages of selected samplesSample(26Al/27Al)0/ 10-6RefPb-PbRefD’Orbigny3.98±0.15104563.43±0.19♮10-12SAH 995553.64±0.18104563.88±0.2712NWA16705.92±0.59104564.39±0.24*10Asuka 88139413.1±0.5613-154564.98±0.1715NWA 73253.03±0.14164563.4±2.616NWA 27963.94±0.16174562.89±0.5917NWA 67043.03±0.14184562.76±0.26192-C17.56±1.53204567.57±0.56*215-C27.04±1.51204567.54±0.52*213-C58.85±1.83204566.20±0.63*2111-C15.55±1.84204565.84±0.72*21*regression based on one subset of data points ♮weighted mean of two datasets Pb-Pb ages are proportional to the intercept of the line formed by linear regression of 207Pb/206Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb data from various washes, leachates and residues of acid dissolution of a sample. Because contamination by terrestrial or primordial Pb is pervasive, some fractions must be excluded from regressions to ensure a fit with acceptable mean squares weighted deviation (MSWD). Usually points are excluded based on low [Pb], or low 206Pb/204Pb ratio(low radiogenic component), with single outliers identified [11,12,15,16,17]. In the starred examples (Table 1)and the case of 3 CAI Pb-Pb ages [5], up to half the points were excluded solely because did not fit a pre-determined line. This approach is vulnerable to confirmation bias and produces fits with low MSWD and too-low Pb-Pb age uncertainty. Regressing the same data points as [10], were produce the Pb-Pb age of NWA 1670 of 4564.39±0.24 Myr. But selecting other combinations of data points, other, equally valid, isochrons yield ages from 4563.77±0.21 Myr to 4564.64±0.23 Myr. Similar arguments apply to the Pb-Pb isochrons built by [21] for chondrules 2-C1 (we find 4567.33±0.44 to 4567.85±0.46 Myr), 5-C2 (4566.84±0.53 to 4567.70±0.44 Myr), 3-C5 (4565.84±0.54to 4567.04±0.54)and 11-C1 (4565.36±0.51 to 4565.74±0.45 Myr). Our adopted ages for these and NWA 1670 are listed in Table 2.Table 2. tCAI estimated from various components, using our regressions for the chondrules & NWA 1670.SampleΔt26(Myr)tPb(Myr)t’CAI(Myr)D’Orbigny5.05±0.044563.43±0.194568.48±0.19SAH 995555.14±0.054563.88±0.274569.02±0.27NWA16704.64±0.104564.21±0.634568.85±0.67Asuka 8813943.81±0.044564.98±0.174568.79±0.17NWA 73255.33±0.054563.4±2.64568.7±2.6NWA 27965.06±0.044562.89±0.594567.95±0.59NWA 67045.29±0.134562.76±0.264568.05±0.292-C12.00±0.214567.59±0.704569.59±0.725-C22.07±0.224567.23±0.914569.30±0.933-C51.84±0.214566.44±1.124568.28±1.1411-C12.32±0.344565.52±0.664567.84±0.73achondrite4568.72±0.16chondrules4568.76±0.58combined4568.73±0.16A weighted average of the five NC achondrites(or just D’Orbigny, SAH 99555 and Asuka 881394)yields t*CAI= 4568.72 ± 0.16Myr. All are consistent with this value to within 1.8σ, and MSWD=1.5. Including the 4 U-corrected chondrules, t*CAI= 4568.73± 0.16Myrwith MSWD=1.66, which is statistically significant. All chondrules and NC achondrites are consistent with this to within 1.8σ, (Figure 1).Figure 1. Al-Mg formation times after t=0 vs. Pb-Pb ages. The five NC achondrites and four chondrules are consistent with a Pb-Pb age of t=0 of 4568.7 Myr. Discussion: The data from achondrites and chondrules are consistent with a single Pb-Pb age at t=0, justifying the assumption of 26Al homogeneity. The age, 4568.7 Myr, is ≈1.4 Myr older than the commonly accepted Pb-Pb age of CAIs that formed with canonical 26Al/27Al at t=0 [3]. Others have interpreted the discrepancy to signify 26Al heterogeneity in the CAI-forming region[5,21]. We suggest instead that CAIs were exposed to transient heating events that reset the Pb-Pb system without disturbing the Al-Mg system. Notably, chondrules typically experienced transient heating at these times in the nebula [22]. If so, direct measurements of CAIs will not yield as reliable a Pb-Pb age of t=0 as statistical approaches like this and that of [9].References:[1] Auer et al. 2009. [2] Jacobsen, B et al. 2008, EPSL 272, 353-364. [3] Tissot, Fet al. 2017, GCA 213, 593-617.[4] Villa, I et al. 2016, GCA 172, 387-392.[5] Amelin, Y et al. 2010, EPSL 300, 343-350.[6] Connelly, Jet al. 2012, Science 338, 651.[7] Bouvier, Aet al. 2011, LPICo 1639, 9054. [8] Bouvier, Aand Wadhwa, M2010, Nat Geosci 3, 637-641.[9] Nyquist, Let al. 2009, GCA 73, 5115-5136.[10] Schiller et al. 2015. [11] Wadhwa & Brennecka 2012. [12] Tissot et al. 2017. [13] Nyquist et al. 2003. [14] Wadhwa et al. 2009. [15] Wimpenny et al. 2019, GCA 244, 478-501.[16] Koefoed et al. 2016, GCA 183, 31-45. [17] Bouvier, A et al. 2011, GCA 75, 5310-5323. [18] Sanborn, Met al. 2019, GCA 245, 577-596. [19] Amelin, Yet al. 2019, GCA 245, 628-642.[20] Bollard, Jet al. 2017, Sci Adv 3 ,e1700407. [21] Bollard, Jet al. 2019, GCA 260, 62-83.[22] Villeneuve, J et al. 2009, Science 325, 985

S. J. Desch↗