SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “SCIENTIST”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
My Career as a Computational Scientist at Sandia National Labs.
Abstract not provided.
Knowledge Guide : Gamma Spectroscopy Fundamentals for RAP Team Scientists, Revision 00
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Knowledge Guide : Health Physics Instrumentation Awareness for RAP Team Scientists, Revision 00
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Knowledge Guide : Environmental In-Situ Gamma Spectroscopy Overview for RAP Team Scientists, Revision 00
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Knowledge Guide : SpecFIDLER Overview for RAP Team Scientists, Revision 00
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
40 Years of Collecting Martian Meteorites
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the first Martian meteorite found in Antarctica by ANSMET, ALH 77005. Since then, an additional 14 Martian meteorites have been found by the ANSMET team making for a total of 15 Martian meteorites in the Antarctic collection at Johnson Space Center. Of the 15 meteorites, some have been paired so the 15 meteorites actually represent a total of approximately 9 separate meteorites. The first Martian meteorite found by ANSMET was ALH 77005 (482.500 g), a lherzolitic shergottite. When collected, this meteorite was split as a part of the joint expedition with the National Institute of Polar Research (NIPR) Japan. Originally classified as an "achondrite-unique", it was re-classified as a Martian lherzolitic shergottites in 1982 [1]. This meteorite has been allocated to ~125 scientists for research and there are 181.964 g remaining at Johnson Space Center (JSC). Two years later, one of the most significant Martian meteorites of the collection at JSC was found at Elephant Moraine, EET 79001 (7942.000 g), a shergottite. This meteorite is the largest in the Martian collection at JSC and was the largest stony meteorite sample collected during the 1979 season. In addition to its size, this meteorite is of particular interest because it contains a linear contact separating two different igneous lithologies, basaltic and olivine-phyric. EET 79001 has glass inclusions that contain chemical compositions that are proportionally identical to the Martian atmosphere, as measured by the Viking spacecraft [2]. This discovery helped scientists to identify where the "SNC" meteorite suite had originated, and that we actually possessed Martian samples. This meteorite has been allocated to ~195 scientists for research and there are 5304.770 g of sample is available. Five years later, ANSMET found ALH 84001 (1930.900 g), the only Martian orthopyroxenite. This meteorite was initially classified as a diogenite but was reclassified as being a Martian meteorite in 1993 [3,4]. ALH 84001 is known as the "Life on Mars" meteorite, sparked debate about whether it contained evidence of Martian life [5] and significantly influenced the field of astrobiol-ogy. This sample has been allocated to 173 scientists for research and has 1426.694 g remaining at JSC. In 1988, another lherzolitic shergottite was found, LEW 88516, (13.203 g). This meteorite wasn't recognized in the field as an achondrite until it was broken during processing 2 years later. LEW 88516 has been allocated to 43 scientists for research and 5.351 g of this meteorite remains at JSC. Six years later a basaltic shergottite was found in the Queen Alexandra Range, QUE 94201 (12.020 g). This meteorite was believed to be of terrestrial origin until maskelynite was seen in a thin section. QUE 94201 has been allocated to 57 scientists for research and there are 3.629 g of this meteorite left at JSC. In 2003, the NASA Mars Exploration Program joined the ANSMET team with the hopes of finding another Martian mete-orite. During this expedition, MIL 03346 (715.200 g) was found. This meteorite is a nakhlite. MIL 03346 has been allocated to 98 scientists for research and there are 579.046 g of this sample remaining at JSC. Six years later, 3 more meteorites that have been paired with MIL 03346 were found, MIL 090030 (452.630 g), 090032 (532.190 g ) and 090136 (170.980 g). MIL 090030 has been allocated to 21 scientists for research and has 434.420 g remaining at JSC, MIL 090032 has been allocated to 21 scientists for re-search and has 508.710 g remaining at JSC and MIL 090136 has been allocated to 14 scientists for research and has 156.790 g remaining at JSC. During the 2004 expedition, 2 identical meteorites where found together on the ice, RBT 04261 (78.763 g) and RBT 04262 (204.600 g). These paired meteorites are olivine-phyric shergottites. RBT 04261 has been allocated to 33 scientists for research and has 32.335 g remaining at JSC. RBT 04262 has been allocated to 46 scientists for research and has 171.886 g remaining. In 2006, another olivine-phyric shergottite was found, LAR 06319 (78.572 g). This meteorite has 61.414 g remaining at JSC and has been allocated to 39 scientists for research. During the 2012 season, 3 more olivine-phyric shergottites were found at Larkman Nunatak, LAR 12011 (701.170 g), LAR 12095 (133.132 g) and LAR 12240 (57.596 g). LAR 12011 is paired with LAR 06319 and LAR 12095 and LAR 12240 are paired with each other. LAR 12011 has been allocated to 43 scientists for research and there are 685.778 g of LAR 12011 remaining at JSC. LAR 12095 has been allocated to 18 scientists for research and has 119.744 g remaining at JSC. LAR 12240 has been allocated to 10 scientists for research and has 52.231 g remaining at JSC. Martian meteorites are the only samples available from Mars because no mission has returned samples from there to date. All Martian meteorites are crustal rocks with most of them being crystallized magmas, so they are an important source for under-standing Martian geological history and volcanism. The ANSMET program has greatly contributed to the scientific community by collecting these meteorites
ARES Biennial Report 2012 Final
Since the return of the first lunar samples, what is now the Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES) Directorate has had curatorial responsibility for all NASA-held extraterrestrial materials. Originating during the Apollo Program (1960s), this capability at Johnson Space Center (JSC) included scientists who were responsible for the science planning and training of astronauts for lunar surface activities as well as experts in the analysis and preservation of the precious returned samples. Today, ARES conducts research in basic and applied space and planetary science, and its scientific staff represents a broad diversity of expertise in the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy), mathematics, and engineering organized into three offices (figure 1): Astromaterials Research (KR), Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation (KT), and Human Exploration Science (KX). Scientists within the Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office preserve, protect, document, and distribute samples of the current astromaterials collections. Since the return of the first lunar samples, ARES has been assigned curatorial responsibility for all NASA-held extraterrestrial materials (Apollo lunar samples, Antarctic meteorites - some of which have been confirmed to have originated on the Moon and on Mars - cosmic dust, solar wind samples, comet and interstellar dust particles, and space-exposed hardware). The responsibilities of curation consist not only of the longterm care of the samples, but also the support and planning for future sample collection missions and research and technology to enable new sample types. Curation provides the foundation for research into the samples. The Lunar Sample Facility and other curation clean rooms, the data center, laboratories, and associated instrumentation are unique NASA resources that, together with our staff's fundamental understanding of the entire collection, provide a service to the external research community, which relies on access to the samples. The curation efforts are greatly enhanced by a strong group of planetary scientists who conduct peerreviewed astromaterials research. Astromaterials Research Office scientists conduct peer-reviewed research as Principal or Co-Investigators in planetary science (e. g., cosmochemistry, origins of solar systems, Mars fundamental research, planetary geology and geophysics) and participate as Co-Investigators or Participating Scientists in many of NASA's robotic planetary missions. Since the last report, ARES has achieved several noteworthy milestones, some of which are documented in detail in the sections that follow. Within the Human Exploration Science Office, ARES is a world leader in orbital debris research, modeling and monitoring the debris environment, designing debris shielding, and developing policy to control and mitigate the orbital debris population. ARES has aggressively pursued refinements in knowledge of the debris environment and the hazard it presents to spacecraft. Additionally, the ARES Image Science and Analysis Group has been recognized as world class as a result of the high quality of near-real-time analysis of ascent and on-orbit inspection imagery to identify debris shedding, anomalies, and associated potential damage during Space Shuttle missions. ARES Earth scientists manage and continuously update the database of astronaut photography that is predominantly from Shuttle and ISS missions, but also includes the results of 40 years of human spaceflight. The Crew Earth Observations Web site (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Education/ESS/crew.htm) continues to receive several million hits per month. ARES scientists are also influencing decisions in the development of the next generation of human and robotic spacecraft and missions through laboratory tests on the optical qualities of materials for windows, micrometeoroid/orbital debris shielding technology, and analog activities to assess surface science operations. ARES serves as host to numerous students and visiting scientists as part of the services provided to the research community and conducts a robust education and outreach program. ARES scientists are recognized nationally and internationally by virtue of their success in publishing in peer-reviewed journals and winning competitive research proposals. ARES scientists have won every major award presented by the Meteoritical Society, including the Leonard Medal, the most prestigious award in planetary science and cosmochemistry; the Barringer Medal, recognizing outstanding work in the field of impact cratering; the Nier Prize for outstanding research by a young scientist; and several recipients of the Nininger Meteorite Award. One of our scientists received the Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Meritorious Civilian Service Award (the highest civilian honor given by the DoD). ARES has established numerous partnerships with other NASA Centers, universities, and national laboratories. ARES scientists serve as journal editors, members of advisory panels and review committees, and society officers, and several scientists have been elected as Fellows in their professional societies. This biennial report summarizes a subset of the accomplishments made by each of the ARES offices and highlights participation in ongoing human and robotic missions, development of new missions, and planning for future human and robotic exploration of the solar system beyond low Earth orbit.
The role of peer review and science for advancing public understanding
We live in a time of rapid change. The Covid-19 pandemic has united the world to understand and develop solutions to protect the health and wellbeing of society. At the same time, access to information on the internet and social media has exploded. People are exposed to information with many claims. Some of the information is relevant and accurate. A significant fraction may be inaccurate, biased, and potentially dangerous. With Covid-19, the information might point to cures that are toxic or risks that are not relevant. The scientific community has developed a process to develop and convey knowledge. The validation of results and their interpretation is critical to advancing knowledge. The core of the scientific process is based on developing a hypothesis-driven concept, designing and executing an experimental approach to prove or disprove the hypothesis, conducting a statistical analysis of the results to confirm their validity, and interpreting their meaning and impact. When their work is completed the scientist prepares to publish the work. Publication requires peer review. Hypotheses, experimental approaches, results, and interpretation of results are independently and anonymously reviewed by a scientific peer. The reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field. The peer review process is essential for the integrity of the scientific process. Without a robust scientific process, society cannot discriminate between validated results and interpretations and biased, inaccurate, and potentially dangerous conjecture. With inaccurate science society and policy makers may make poor decisions that could hurt people and the world around them. While scientists should not censor information available to the public, scientists have a responsibility to inform the public. We must articulate what the scientific process is and why it is essential when considering the validity of information. Scientist are responsible for pointing out when public information has not been vetted through a scientific process and therefore cannot be considered conclusive. Scientists are responsible for highlighting information that has been generated and vetted with the scientific process. Over time, our goal is for the public to value the scientific process based on peer review. The public could become enlightened to the necessity for peer review to support decisions and action. Scientists need to contribute to advancing public knowledge. When invited to serve as a peer reviewer, scientists have a responsibility to contribute to the process. We all are extremely busy making peer review a distraction. While peer review does not directly benefit our own work and career, it benefits our chosen field of science. This is very important for the research area that our journal, Water-Energy Nexus, is focusing on. We cover the convergence of science and technology integrating across large spatial ranges (micro to global) in environmental pollution and the balance of remediation issues with energy use. Water-Energy Nexus wants to provide scientists with a platform for scientific debate and discussion on this rich and complicated topic. With the manuscripts submitted to WEN cover integrated research topics across a broad range of subjects from environment sciences through energy engineering, the role of peer review is essential. Peer review on a new submission to WEN should not be biased towards a specific science field. It should be done considering the complex nature of issues in the water-energy nexus. Scientists need to contribute to the public dialog. To accomplish these goals, we need to be honest, accurate, articulate, and use understandable language. The impact of WEN is very diverse affecting society in many ways. The scientific audience for WEN is diverse and readers may not fully understand the content of the papers outside their research expertise. Therefore, scientists, especially those who want to contribute to WEN, should work with communications specialists to convey message to benefit society. The audience includes the general public and researchers outside the author’s core specialty. While the peer-reviewed journal article is the cornerstone of our careers and critical for advancing scientific knowledge, a general interest story could benefit society even more. The author cannot lose sight that our work has two audiences, the science community, and more importantly, our family, friends, neighbors, and policy makers.
An expert system shell for inferring vegetation characteristics: Interface for the addition of techniques (Task H)
All the NASA VEGetation Workbench (VEG) goals except the Learning System provide the scientist with several different techniques. When VEG is run, rules assist the scientist in selecting the best of the available techniques to apply to the sample of cover type data being studied. The techniques are stored in the VEG knowledge base. The design and implementation of an interface that allows the scientist to add new techniques to VEG without assistance from the developer were completed. A new interface that enables the scientist to add techniques to VEG without assistance from the developer was designed and implemented. This interface does not require the scientist to have a thorough knowledge of Knowledge Engineering Environment (KEE) by Intellicorp or a detailed knowledge of the structure of VEG. The interface prompts the scientist to enter the required information about the new technique. It prompts the scientist to enter the required Common Lisp functions for executing the technique and the left hand side of the rule that causes the technique to be selected. A template for each function and rule and detailed instructions about the arguments of the functions, the values they should return, and the format of the rule are displayed. Checks are made to ensure that the required data were entered, the functions compiled correctly, and the rule parsed correctly before the new technique is stored. The additional techniques are stored separately from the VEG knowledge base. When the VEG knowledge base is loaded, the additional techniques are not normally loaded. The interface allows the scientist the option of adding all the previously defined new techniques before running VEG. When the techniques are added, the required units to store the additional techniques are created automatically in the correct places in the VEG knowledge base. The methods file containing the functions required by the additional techniques is loaded. New rule units are created to store the new rules. The interface that allow the scientist to select which techniques to use is updated automatically to include the new techniques. Task H was completed. The interface that allows the scientist to add techniques to VEG was implemented and comprehensively tested. The Common Lisp code for the Add Techniques system is listed in Appendix A.
Agile collaboration: Citizen science as a transdisciplinary approach to heliophysics
Citizen science connects scientists with the public to enable discovery, engaging broad audiences across the world. There are many attributes that make citizen science an asset to the field of heliophysics, including agile collaboration. Agility is the extent to which a person, group of people, technology, or project can work efficiently, pivot, and adapt to adversity. Citizen scientists are agile; they are adaptable and responsive. Citizen science projects and their underlying technology platforms are also agile in the software development sense, by utilizing beta testing and short timeframes to pivot in response to community needs. As they capture scientifically valuable data, citizen scientists can bring expertise from other fields to scientific teams. The impact of citizen science projects and communities means citizen scientists are a bridge between scientists and the public, facilitating the exchange of information. These attributes of citizen scientists form the framework of agile collaboration. In this paper, we contextualize agile collaboration primarily for aurora chasers, a group of citizen scientists actively engaged in projects and independent data gathering. Nevertheless, these insights scale across other domains and projects. Citizen science is an emerging yet proven way of enhancing the current research landscape. To tackle the next-generation’s biggest research problems, agile collaboration with citizen scientists will become necessary.
Implementing an Applied Science Program
The work implied in the NASA Applied Science Program requires a delicate balancing act for the those doing it. At the implementation level there are multiple tensions intrinsic to the program. For example each application of an existing product to a decision support process requires deep knowledge about the data and deep knowledge about the decision making process. It is highly probable no one person has this range of knowledge. Otherwise the decision making process would already be using the data. Therefore, a team is required. But building a team usually requires time, especially across agencies. Yet the program mandates efforts of relatively short duration. Further, those who know the data are scientists, which makes them essential to the program. But scientists are evaluated on their publication record. Anything which diverts a scientist from the research for his next publication is an anathema to him and potential death to their career. Trying to get another agency to use NASA data does not strike most scientists as material inherently suitable for publication. Also, NASA wishes to rapidly implement often substantial changes to another agency's process. For many reasons, such as budget and program constraints, speed is important. But the owner of a decision making process is tightly constrained, usually by law, regulation, organization and custom. Changes when made are slow, cautious, even hesitant, and always done according a process specific to the situation. To manage this work MSFC must balance these and other tensions. Some things we have relatively little control over, such as budget. These we try to handle by structural techniques. For example by insisting all of our people work on multiple projects simultaneously we inherently have diversification of funding for all of our people. In many cases we explicitly use some elements of tension to be productive. For example the need for the scientists to constantly publish is motivation to keep tasks short and to the immediate point. As another example, the DSS agency and it personnel are treated as integral to the effort at every step. Thus, their ways of doing things, their problems and their assets become part of the solution. MSFC also manages the Applied Science work' within a strategic framework.' First, the scientists are necessarily at the core of all of this work as well as all of the work within the larger' organization. We therefore strive to keep a roughly 50-50 balance between the work done on tasks funded directly by the research side of NASA's Science Mission Directorate and funding from the applied side. Done at both the organization level and the level of the individual, this keeps the scientist both happy and productive over the long term. We also try diligently to remove as much burden from the scientist as practical by employing people such as the authors and others to do tasks not requiring; scientific knowledge. We also have designed our effort to take full use of external partners. We actively seek and support, including fund, people from multiple organizations to join us as committed collaborators. In this we use today's money and today's problem to help us diversify and strengthen for tomorrow. MSFC also considers the Applied Science work holistically. Each element is viewed as a step in a larger process. At a management level we can chose to emphasize or encourage certain areas which service long term goals. Thus, if we think work in a particular area should be developed, we can start with the smaller, less costly elements and grow.
Position Papers for the ASCR Workshop on the Science of Scientific-Software Development and Use
Software is an increasingly important component in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Both its development and use are essential activities for many scientific teams. At the same time, very little scientific study has been conducted to understand, characterize, and improve the development and use of software for science. Computational science teams have diversified over time to include contributions from domain scientists who provide expertise in scientific and engineering disciplines, applied mathematicians and computer scientists who provide optimal algorithms and data structures, and software and data engineers who provide methodologies and tools adapted and adopted from other software domains. These diverse contributions have enabled tremendous advances in the pursuit of scientific discovery, even as models, computer architectures, and software environments have become more complicated. With this increasing diversity, we believe the next opportunity for qualitative improvement comes from applying the scientific method to understanding, characterizing, and improving how scientific software is developed and used. We believe that this pursuit requires expertise from computational scientists themselves, and from the cognitive and social sciences as well as the software engineering research community. As we look to increase the productivity and sustainability of the scientific-software-development-and-use cycle, a more systematic application of the scientific method to understand processes for software development and use will be a valuable tool to guide future work and result in more usable and sustainable software. This workshop will bring together computer scientists, software engineering researchers, computational scientists, applied mathematicians, social scientists, cognitive scientists, and others, to explore how we can conduct such systematic investigations, what can be learned, and how doing so will benefit the scientific enterprise. The workshop will be structured around a set of breakout sessions, with every attendee expected to participate actively in the discussions. Afterward, workshop attendees — from DOE, industry, and academia — will produce a report for ASCR that summarizes the findings of the workshop.
Report on DOE-Supported Participation in the 18th International Congress on Photosynthesis Research (IPC 2022)
Photosynthesis is the primary natural process for conversion of solar energy to chemical energy. Solar energy is the only clean, renewable source of energy that has sufficient capacity to replace fossil fuels and meet rising global energy needs. Meeting this challenge means understanding photosynthetic energy conversion at a molecular level, a task requiring perspectives from all disciplines of science. The 18th International Congress on Photosynthesis (IPC) is facilitating just that by providing a forum for scientists from all corners of the world to come together to share ideas and build new collaborations that will improve the lives of future generations. A vibrant knowledge of each of the diverse aspects of basic and applied photosynthesis research obviously depends upon a healthy scientific exchange among the members of the research community. While senior scientists are more likely able to make the long trip to this important meeting, the travel costs for students and postdocs would otherwise prohibit participation for talented junior US scientists. At the same time, this is precisely the kind of meeting that strengthens interest and careers in the important scientific directions represented by this conference. For all scientists this is an opportunity to learn firsthand about the very latest advances in the field and to meet and brainstorm with collaborators as well as make new collaborations. For junior scientists, this funding is giving an opportunity to do these things plus it is often the first tangible experience regarding the global, international significance of their own projects. Overall, the diversity of topics and technical approaches is providing an extremely stimulating multidisciplinary environment for junior and senior scientists performing research in a variety of areas that are within the scope to the US DOE mission. In collaboration with the executive members of the North American Photosynthesis Conference Association (NAPCA and the International Society of Photosynthesis research (ISPR), a competitive selection of junior participants is being made based upon the quality of the abstracts and materials submitted by self-identified candidates that have applied following a broadcast call for applications from junior US scientists. Financial support is consisting of waivers for the registration cost of the meeting and partial living expenses at local dormitory facilities at the conference site.
Supporting Scientific Analysis within Collaborative Problem Solving Environments
Collaborative problem solving environments for scientists should contain the analysis tools the scientists require in addition to the remote collaboration tools used for general communication. Unfortunately, most scientific analysis tools have been designed for a "stand-alone mode" and cannot be easily modified to work well in a collaborative environment. This paper addresses the questions, "What features are desired in a scientific analysis tool contained within a collaborative environment?", "What are the tool design criteria needed to provide these features?", and "What support is required from the architecture to support these design criteria?." First, the features of scientific analysis tools that are important for effective analysis in collaborative environments are listed. Next, several design criteria for developing analysis tools that will provide these features are presented. Then requirements for the architecture to support these design criteria are listed. Sonic proposed architectures for collaborative problem solving environments are reviewed and their capabilities to support the specified design criteria are discussed. A deficiency in the most popular architecture for remote application sharing, the ITU T. 120 architecture, prevents it from supporting highly interactive, dynamic, high resolution graphics. To illustrate that the specified design criteria can provide a highly effective analysis tool within a collaborative problem solving environment, a scientific analysis tool that contains the specified design criteria has been integrated into a collaborative environment and tested for effectiveness. The tests were conducted in collaborations between remote sites in the US and between remote sites on different continents. The tests showed that the tool (a tool for the visual analysis of computer simulations of physics) was highly effective for both synchronous and asynchronous collaborative analyses. The important features provided by the tool (and made possible by the specified design criteria) are: 1. The tool provides highly interactive, dynamic, high resolution, 3D graphics. 2. All remote scientists can view the same dynamic, high resolution, 3D scenes of the analysis as the analysis is being conducted. 3. The responsiveness of the tool is nearly identical to the responsiveness of the tool in a stand-alone mode. 4. The scientists can transfer control of the analysis between themselves. 5. Any analysis session or segment of an analysis session, whether done individually or collaboratively, can be recorded and posted on the Web for other scientists or students to download and play in either a collaborative or individual mode. 6. The scientist or student who downloaded the session can, individually or collaboratively, modify or extend the session with his/her own "what if" analysis of the data and post his/her version of the analysis back onto the Web. 7. The peak network bandwidth used in the collaborative sessions is only 1K bit/second even though the scientists at all sites are viewing high resolution (1280 x 1024 pixels), dynamic, 3D scenes of the analysis. The links between the specified design criteria and these performance features are presented.
Laboratory for Atmospheres 2002 Technical Highlights
How can we improve our ability to predict the weather-tomorrow, next week, and into the future? How is the Earth's climate changing? What causes such change? And what are its costs? What can the atmospheres of distant planets teach us about our own planet and its evolution? The Laboratory for Atmospheres is helping to answer these and other scientific questions about our planet and its neighbors. The Laboratory conducts a broad theoretical and experimental research program studying all aspects of the atmospheres of the Earth and other planets, including their structural, dynamical, radiative, and chemical properties, with the overarching goal to provide better understanding and to improve prediction of the Earth's climate. Vigorous research is central to NASA's exploration of the frontiers of knowledge. NASA scientists play a key role in conceiving new space missions, providing mission requirements, and carrying out research to explore the behavior of planetary systems, including, notably, the Earth's. Our Laboratory's scientists also supply outside scientists with technical assistance and scientific data to further investigations not immediately addressed by NASA itself. Laboratory scientists submit competitive research proposals with diverse scientific or technological approaches to NASA and other Federal agencies to acquire research support. The Laboratory management strives to provide a working environment that promotes creativity, competition, and openness. The Laboratory for Atmospheres is a vital participant in NASA's research program. Our Laboratory often has relatively large programs, sizable satellite missions, or observational campaigns that require the cooperative and collaborative efforts of many scientists. We ensure an appropriate balance between our scientists' responsibility for these large collaborative projects and their need for an active individual research agenda. This balance allows members of the Laboratory to continuously improve their scientific credentials. The Laboratory places high importance on promoting and measuring quality in its scientific research. We strive to assure high quality through peer-review funding processes that support approximately 90% of the work in the Laboratory. The overall quality of our scientific efforts is evaluated periodically by committees of advisors from the external scientific community, as detailed in Appendix 2 of this document. Members of the Laboratory interact with the general public to support a wide range of interests in the atmospheric sciences. Among other activities, the Laboratory raises the public's awareness of atmospheric science by presenting public lectures and demonstrations, by making scientific data available to wide audiences, by teaching, and by mentoring students and teachers. Section 6 presents details of the Laboratory's outreach activities during 2002. The Laboratory is also committed to addressing the demographic imbalances that exist today in the atmospheric and space sciences. We must address these imbalances for our field to enjoy the full benefit of all of the Nation's talent. The Laboratory makes substantial efforts to attract new scientists to the fields of atmospheric and space sciences. We strongly encourage the establishment of partnerships with Federal and state agencies that have operational responsibilities to promote the societal application of Earth sciences.
Astrobee: Completed, Current, and Future Research using Free Flying Robots on the International Space Station
After four years on the International Space Station (ISS), the Astrobee Research Facility, has completed over 130 Test Sessions logging over 1000 hours of operations. Managed by the NASA ISS Program OZ office and supported by NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) in California, the Astrobee Team maintains three identical free-flying Astrobee robots for research on the ISS. As a technology demonstration platform, the Astrobee Robots are available for Guest Scientists to use for a spectrum of research capabilities. Astrobee, propelled by battery-operated fans, is designed to autonomously operate throughout most of the USOS (US Orbital Segment), with the objective of minimizing astronaut support. Astrobee carries a suite of six cameras, a two degree-of-freedom (DOF) arm with a gripper that can grasp ISS handrails and other objects, and three payload bays that provide power and data for guest science hardware. Astrobee can autonomously execute hours-long flight plans or be teleoperated from the ground or by astronauts. While the Astrobee Team continues to improve mapping and autonomous flight capabilities, one of the main goals of Astrobee Robots is to provide research opportunities for Guest Scientists. The Astrobee Robot Software (ARS) makes extensive use of the open-source Robot Operating System (ROS). The ARS can be used interchangeably with an Astrobee Simulator or as Astrobee’s onboard software. ARS features include autonomous docking and perching, real-time teleoperations from the ground, plan based autonomous tasks, multi Astrobee communication, among other capabilities. Through simulation software and ground testing laboratories, the Astrobee Team is available to support Guest Scientists during development and testing and lead real-time ISS operations. Guest Scientists can participate in this research opportunity following the Guest Science Lifecycle (GSL) shown in Figure 1: Guest Science Lifecycle below. The Astrobee Team and Guest Scientists have complete research including Gecko materials studies, RFID and sound sensing capabilities, student Robotics Programming Challenges, and Free Flyer formation flight investigations. Current science with the Astrobee Robots includes Free Flyer self-toss studies, new docking capabilities, advanced mapping resolution capabilities, and high resolution panoramic imagery. Future Guest scientists and Astrobee Team research will focus on robotics applications for future NASA missions such as Gateway and Artemis and potential experiments involving human-robot interactions. This presentation will focus on four main subjects, 1) completed, current, and future planned research using the Astrobee robots, 2) how Guest Scientist get from conception to the ISS, 3) Astrobee Facility resources available for Guest Science ground testing and real-time ISS operations support, and 4) lessons learned from four years of ISS operations.
The Evolution of the Peridynamics Co-Authorship Network
We report peridynamics is a relatively new field in continuum mechanics that has developed over the past 20 years. This paper studies the evolution of collaborations in the field of peridynamics since its inception using social network analysis. For this purpose, we construct a network for each year from 2000 to 2019 describing co-authorship between scientists in peridynamics. In these networks, each node represents a scientist and each link connects two co-authoring scientists with a link weight representing the frequency and strength of their collaboration; each network as a whole can be thought of as a graph representation of the peridynamics community for the given year. By constructing a network for each year, we are able to analyze the evolution of the network in time and discuss the implications of this evolution for the peridynamics community. Our study demonstrates that the peridynamics community has been growing exponentially in size in recent years. Centrality metrics are also used to identify the most collaborative scientists in the community. Moreover, we compute link recommendations based on both elevating a scientist’s position in the network with respect to certain centrality metrics or closing structural holes in the network identified with persistent homology. We further extend the analysis to higher-order networks whose nodes represent groups of scientists in the community and whose links connect collaborating groups. In some sense, our work studies the past, present, and future of the peridynamics community.