Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “phase object approximation”

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.

278 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1997

[Low-Frequency Flow Oscillation

The results of the research conducted under this grant are presented in detail in three Master theses, by Heinrich, Balow, and Broeren. Additional analysis of the experimental data can be found in two AIAA Journal articles and two conference papers. Citations for all of the studies' publications can be found in the bibliography which is attached. The objective of Heinrich's study was to document the low-frequency flow oscillation on the LRN-1007 airfoil, which had been previously observed at low Reynolds number, to determine its origin, and explore the phenomenon at higher Reynolds number. Heinrich performed detailed flow visualization on the airfoil using surface fluorescent oil and laser-sheet off-body visualization. A large leading-edge separation bubble and trailing-edge separation was identified on the airfoil just prior to the onset of the unsteady stall flow oscillation. From the laser-sheet data, the unsteady flow appeared as a massive boundary-layer separation followed by flow reattachment. Hot-wire data were taken in the wake to identify the presence of the flow oscillation and the dominant frequency. The oscillation was found in the flow from a Reynolds number of 0.3 to 1.3 x 10 exp 6. The Strouhal number based on airfoil projected height was nominally 0.02 and increased slightly with increasing Reynolds number and significantly with increasing airfoil angle of attack. Balow focused his research on the leading-edge separation bubble which was hypothesized to be the origin of the low-frequency oscillation. Initially, experimental measurements in the bubble at the onset of the low-frequency oscillation were attempted to study the characteristics of the bubble and explain possible relationships to the shear-layer-flapping phenomena. Unfortunately, the bubble proved to be extremely sensitive to the probe interference and it drastically reduced the size of the bubble. These detailed measurements were then abandoned by Balow. However, this led to a series of tests where the leading-edge bubble and trailing-edge separation were altered and the affect on the flow-oscillation studied. Balow found that by tripping the airfoil boundary-layer with "zigzag" tape ahead of bubble separation, the bubble was effectively eliminated mid the oscillation suppressed. Wake survey drag measurements showed a drastic reduction in airfoil drag when the bubble and oscillation were eliminated. Using the "zigzag" tape, the trailing-edge separation was moved downstream approximately 5 percent chord. This was found to reduce the amplitude of the oscillation, particularly in the onset stage at low angle of attack (around 14 degrees). Through detailed analysis of the wake behind the airfoil during the unsteady flow oscillation, Balow provided a better understanding of the wake flowfield. Broeren studied the oscillating flowfield in detail at Reynolds number equal 3 x 10 exp 5 and an angle of attack of 15 degrees using laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV). Two-dimensional LDV data were acquired at 687 grid points above the model upper surface while hot-wire data were taken simultaneously in the wake. Using the hot-wire signal, the LDV data were phase averaged into 24 bins to represent a single ensemble average of one oscillation cycle. The velocity data showed a flowfield oscillation that could be divided into three flow regimes. In the first regime, the flow over the airfoil was completely separated initially, the flowfield reattached from the leading edge and the reattachment point moved downstream with increasing time or phase. Broeren referred to this as the reattachment regime. The bubble development regime followed, where a leading-edge separation bubble formed at the leading edge and grew with increasing time. During the initial part of this regime the trailing-edge separation continued to move downstream. However, during the last 30 degrees of phase the trailing-edge separation moved rapidly forward and appeared to merge with the leading-edge bubble. During the third regime, the separation regime, the flow was segmented from the airfoil leading edge and did not reattach to the airfoil surface. The reverse flow was seen to grow in vertical extent up from the model surface as the phase increased. Next reattachment began again at the leading edge signaling the start of the reattachment regime, and so the cycle continued. From Broeren's work, the details of the unsteady flowfield over the airfoil were seen for the first time. From this research a great deal has been learned about the low-frequency flow oscillation which naturally occurs on the LRN-1007 airfoil near stall. The oscillation was seen to persist at higher Reynolds number, the dependence of the Strouhal number on angle of attack and Reynolds number were discovered, the critical role played by the laminar bubble was shown and the entire upper surface flowfield during a flow oscillation cycle was measured and analyzed. What still eludes understanding is the scaling of the flow oscillation and why certain airfoils, such as the LRN, have a very strong low-frequency mode and other airfoils exhibit no organized low-frequency oscillation at all.

Bragg, Michael B.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Radiation Shielding Materials Containing Hydrogen, Boron, and Nitrogen: Systematic Computational and Experimental Study

The key objectives of this study are to investigate, both computationally and experimentally, which forms, compositions, and layerings of hydrogen, boron, and nitrogen containing materials will offer the greatest shielding in the most structurally robust combination against galactic cosmic radiation (GCR), secondary neutrons, and solar energetic particles (SEP). The objectives and expected significance of this research are to develop a space radiation shielding materials system that has high efficacy for shielding radiation and that also has high strength for load bearing primary structures. Such a materials system does not yet exist. The boron nitride nanotube (BNNT) can theoretically be processed into structural BNNT and used for load bearing structures. Furthermore, the BNNT can be incorporated into high hydrogen polymers and the combination used as matrix reinforcement for structural composites. BNNT's molecular structure is attractive for hydrogen storage and hydrogenation. There are two methods or techniques for introducing hydrogen into BNNT: (1) hydrogen storage in BNNT, and (2) hydrogenation of BNNT (hydrogenated BNNT). In the hydrogen storage method, nanotubes are favored to store hydrogen over particles and sheets because they have much larger surface areas and higher hydrogen binding energy. The carbon nanotube (CNT) and BNNT have been studied as potentially outstanding hydrogen storage materials since 1997. Our study of hydrogen storage in BNNT - as a function of temperature, pressure, and hydrogen gas concentration - will be performed with a hydrogen storage chamber equipped with a hydrogen generator. The second method of introducing hydrogen into BNNT is hydrogenation of BNNT, where hydrogen is covalently bonded onto boron, nitrogen, or both. Hydrogenation of BN and BNNT has been studied theoretically. Hyper-hydrogenated BNNT has been theoretically predicted with hydrogen coverage up to 100% of the individual atoms. This is a higher hydrogen content than possible with hydrogen storage; however, a systematic experimental hydrogenation study has not been reported. A combination of the two approaches may be explored to provide yet higher hydrogen content. The hydrogen containing BNNT produced in our study will be characterized for hydrogen content and thermal stability in simulated space service environments. These new materials systems will be tested for their radiation shielding effectiveness against high energy protons and high energy heavy ions at the HIMAC facility in Japan, or a comparable facility. These high energy particles simulate exposure to SEP and GCR environments. They will also be tested in the LaRC Neutron Exposure Laboratory for their neutron shielding effectiveness, an attribute that determines their capability to shield against the secondary neutrons found inside structures and on lunar and planetary surfaces. The potential significance is to produce a radiation protection enabling technology for future exploration missions. Crew on deep space human exploration missions greater than approximately 90 days cannot remain below current crew Permissible Exposure Limits without shielding and/or biological countermeasures. The intent of this research is to bring the Agency closer to extending space missions beyond the 90-day limit, with 1 year as a long-term goal. We are advocating a systems solution with a structural materials component. Our intent is to develop the best materials system for that materials component. In this Phase I study, we have shown, computationally, that hydrogen containing BNNT is effective for shielding against GCR, SEP, and neutrons over a wide range of energies. This is why we are focusing on hydrogen containing BNNT as an innovative advanced concept. In our future work, we plan to demonstrate, experimentally, that hydrogen, boron, and nitrogen based materials can provide mechanically strong, thermally stable, structural materials with effective radiation shielding against GCR, SEP, and neutrons.

Radiation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Decision Aid for Conjunction Risk Mitigation by Differential Drag

In the previous five years, the rate of conjunctions that the NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) team processed and analyzed has more than tripled. (NASA CARA, 2024) New missions in the early development phases are now required to plan for dealing with conjunctions under the present space environment, and also projecting forward into a future likely with even further increased utilization of the space environment. Some missions are investigating the possibility of using differential drag to remediate conjunctions without expending limited fuel or for missions without propulsive capabilities. The NASA CARA team studied the historical record of conjunctions to evaluate the circumstances under which differential drag may be successfully applied and have developed a series of tables to use as a decision aid for missions considering differential drag. Currently, if a CARA-protected mission with maneuvering capabilities is predicted to have a conjunction with probability of collision (Pc) greater than 7E-5 (the default value of the ‘yellow threshold’, which may have some other value agreed by CARA and the mission during the Orbital Collison Avoidance Planning (OCAP) process), CARA will use its Maneuver Trade Space (MTS) tool to evaluate and recommend options for the timing and magnitude of a risk mitigation maneuver (RMM), based on the mission’s capabilities. If the conjunction’s Pc is greater than 1E-4, the ‘red threshold’, then an RMM must be executed per NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8079.1 (NASA, 2023), although missions may execute an RMM even if the Pc is lower. The magnitude of the maneuver is typically a few cm/s, and CARA estimates how many will be required for the mission’s nominal lifetime – typically a few per year – during the OCAP process, to inform the mission’s delta-V requirement. For traditional satellites, this is usually smaller than other requirements for orbit insertion, maintenance, and disposal, but for CubeSats or other small satellite missions, a propulsion system may not provide much more than a few cm/s of delta-V or may not fit at all within the available budget of money, time, size, weight, and/or power (SWaP). Conversely, CubeSats often have deployable solar panels, which offer the capacity to have much higher areas facing some directions than others. Such a mission can instead use ‘differential drag’ to remediate a conjunction -- in other words, change its drag area (usually increasing) to deviate from the predicted collision course. This is how Planet’s Dove spacecraft maintain their formations and remediate conjunction risks without having on-board propulsion (Foster, et al., 2017) (Griffith, et al., 2021). CARA has been developing improvements to MTS to support differential-drag for NASA's missions -- where it is effective. CARA records all conjunctions of their protected payloads, with historical records starting in 2005 (with significant conjunction events starting to occur on or after 2013). From this record, approximately 7,300 had a Pc greater than 1E-4 at 3 days prior to the time of closest approach, the time analyzed for differential drag efficacy. Of those, approximately 4,300 had fully-defined covariance matrices stored for both the primary and secondary objects; this set of conjunctions is the basis for the analysis of this work. CARA’s MTS tool was used to propagate the primary satellite forward from that decision point with varying degrees of increase to ballistic coefficient (BC). Because these conjunctions came from multiple missions, the nondimensional ‘delta-BC’ factor was used to quantify and normalize the increase in ballistic coefficient, defined as follows: Delta-BC = BC_new / BC_old - 1 Positive delta-BC factors represent an increase in drag compared to the nominal attitude, while negative delta-BC factors (to a minimum of -1) represent a decrease in drag. At the conclusion of the differential-drag ‘maneuver’, the Pc was recalculated to evaluate whether or not the conjunction was mitigated (Pc < 3E-6). These results were then binned and sorted along several axes, including altitude, amount of delta-BC, and (pre-maneuver) rate of energy dissipation (EDR), to identify underlying patterns. The altitude plot is shown in Figure 1. To validate this analysis, we consulted the record of a NASA mission which uses differential drag to maintain its orbit and remediate conjunction risk. CARA’s empirical record of the mission’s orbit history suggests it achieves a delta-BC of 2.2. Of the twenty-one RMM plans that were submitted by this mission, eighteen were matched with conjunctions in the historical record; of those, twelve were successfully remediated (final measured Pc < 3E-6), and six were not. This is consistent with the expected efficacy for missions orbiting at that altitude. We are presently simulating this mission’s RMMs with MTS; this work is ongoing, but so far, the MTS results are qualitatively in agreement with the empirical results -- correctly predicting that a maneuver would or would not remediate a conjunction, if not exactly matching the final post-remediation Pc value. We found that differential drag was most successful for satellites with perigees below 560 km, and which could adopt an average delta-BC of 2 or greater (that is, increasing their ballistic coefficient by a factor of 3). However, this is a difficult threshold for a mission to clear; very few spacecraft are capable of adopting a high-drag configuration for 72 hours continuously. Planet’s Dove spacecraft use differential drag to remediate conjunctions (Griffith, et al., 2021), and they have a maximum delta-BC factor of 9, but in practice (with mission and charging constraints) they achieve a time-averaged delta-BC that is closer to 2 (Foster, et al., 2017). A mission’s differential drag utility strongly depends on the operational constraints that has the capacity to limit the time-averaged delta-BC. A mission with a high maximum delta-BC of 5 or more can have an effective delta-BC of less than 1 due to operational constraints such as instrument and solar panel pointing, especially if this constraint results in holding an intermediate drag value for most of its orbit. CARA has developed tables that can be used as decision aids to advise missions-in-development about the best way to utilize their differential drag capabilities. For missions below 560 km with the operational flexibility to devote multiple days to holding a high-drag configuration (or a sufficiently high drag ratio to compensate for limitations on that time), they are -- more likely than not -- able to successfully remediate high-risk conjunctions. Conversely, missions that do not meet these exacting criteria -- most missions -- can instead be advised to use on-board propulsion systems to perform RMMs, or to turn their minimum-area face towards the approach vector, thereby reducing Pc at the moment of conjunction due to the decreased Hard-Body Radius (HBR), that is a strongly correlated variable in the Pc calculations. (NASA, 2023)

conjunction assessment↗
NASA NTRS2006

Modification of Eccentric Gaze-Holding

Clear vision and accurate localization of objects in the environment are prerequisites for reliable performance of motor tasks. Space flight confronts the crewmember with a stimulus rearrangement that requires adaptation to function effectively with the new requirements of altered spatial orientation and motor coordination. Adaptation and motor learning driven by the effects of cerebellar disorders may share some of the same demands that face our astronauts. One measure of spatial localization shared by the astronauts and those suffering from cerebellar disorders that is easily quantified, and for which a neurobiological substrate has been identified, is the control of the angle of gaze (the "line of sight"). The disturbances of gaze control that have been documented to occur in astronauts and cosmonauts, both in-flight and postflight, can be directly related to changes in the extrinsic gravitational environment and intrinsic proprioceptive mechanisms thus, lending themselves to description by simple non-linear statistical models. Because of the necessity of developing robust normal response populations and normative populations against which abnormal responses can be evaluated, the basic models can be formulated using normal, non-astronaut test subjects and subsequently extended using centrifugation techniques to alter the gravitational and proprioceptive environment of these subjects. Further tests and extensions of the models can be made by studying abnormalities of gaze control in patients with cerebellar disease. A series of investigations were conducted in which a total of 62 subjects were tested to: (1) Define eccentric gaze-holding parameters in a normative population, and (2) explore the effects of linear acceleration on gaze-holding parameters. For these studies gaze-holding was evaluated with the subjects seated upright (the normative values), rolled 45 degrees to both the left and right, or pitched back 30 and 90 degrees. In a separate study the further effects of acceleration on gaze stability was examined during centrifugation (+2 G (sub x) and +2 G (sub z) using a total of 23 subjects. In all of our investigations eccentric gaze-holding was established by having the subjects acquire an eccentric target (+/-30 degrees horizontal, +/- 15 degrees vertical) that was flashed for 750 msec in an otherwise dark room. Subjects were instructed to hold gaze on the remembered position of the flashed target for 20 sec. Immediately following the 20 sec period, subjects were cued to return to the remembered center position and to hold gaze there for an additional 20 sec. Following this 20 sec period the center target was briefly flashed and the subject made any corrective eye movement back to the true center position. Conventionally, the ability to hold eccentric gaze is estimated by fitting the natural log of centripetal eye drifts by linear regression and calculating the time constant (G) of these slow phases of "gaze-evoked nystagmus". However, because our normative subjects sometimes showed essentially no drift (tau (sub c) = m), statistical estimation and inference on the effect of target direction was performed on values of the decay constant theta = 1/(tau (sub c)) which we found was well modeled by a gamma distribution. Subjects showed substantial variance of their eye drifts, which were centrifugal in approximately 20 % of cases, and > 40% for down gaze. Using the ensuing estimated gamma distributions, we were able to conclude that rightward and leftward gaze holding were not significantly different, but that upward gaze holding was significantly worse than downward (p<0.05). We also concluded that vertical gaze holding was significantly worse than horizontal (p<0.05). In the case of left and right roll, we found that both had a similar improvement to horizontal gaze holding (p<0.05), but didn't have a significant effect on vertical gaze holding. For pitch tilts, both tilt angles significantly decreased gaze-holding ility in all directions (p<0.05). Finally, we found that hyper-g centrifugation significantly decreased gaze holding ability in the vertical plane. The main findings of this study are as follows: (1) vertical gaze-holding is less stable than horizontal, (2) gaze-holding to upward targets is less stable than to downward targets, (3) tilt affects gaze holding, and (4) hyper-g affects gaze holding. This difference between horizontal and vertical gaze-holding may be ascribed to separate components of the velocity-to-position neural integrator for eye movements, and to differences in orbital mechanics. The differences between upward and downward gaze-holding may be ascribed to an inherent vertical imbalance in the vestibular system. Because whole body tilt and hyper-g affects gaze-holding, it is implied that the otolith organs have direct connections to the neural integrator and further studies of astronaut gaze-holding are warranted. Our statistical method for representing the range of normal eccentric gaze stability can be readily applied to normals who maybe exposed to environments which may modify the central integrator and require monitoring, and to evaluate patients with gaze-evoked nystagmus by comparing to the above established normative criteria.

Reschke, M. F.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

VERNE: Revealing the Mysteries and Histories of Venus

Introduction: The three Venus missions that were recently selected for upcoming flight (VERITAS, DAVINCI+, and EnVision) will be incredibly valuable to our understanding of Venus’ history, geology, and atmosphere. However, even once completed, key gaps in our knowledge of Venus, and more generally the formation and active processes on rocky, Earth-like planets, will still persist. Remaining questions include 1) how global intrinsic magnetic fields might be maintained on rocky worlds, and how they could then go extinct, and 2) what role atmospheric sulfur chemistry plays in climates of Earth-like planets, which is an increasingly timely subject as Earth’s own atmospheric sulfur content is climbing due to human activity. These questions require in-situ observations from Venus’ cloud deck, at the altitudes at which the UV absorber exists. The Venus Environment Research and Novel Exploration (VERNE) mission will address these questions with an aerial platform that will drift around the equatorial region of the planet for 9 days. VERNE will collect data to determine the identity of the mysterious UV absorber, while also taking magnetic field measurements over the tesserae, the regions on Venus that are most likely to retain remanent crustal magnetization, in order to understand the potential role of a past intrinsically-generated global magnetic field on Venus. Mission Objectives: The two major science objectives that drive the VERNE mission are: 1) Determine the identity of the Venusian unknown ultraviolet absorber(s). First observed approximately a century ago [1], the composition of Venus’ ultraviolet (UV) absorber is one of the oldest mysteries in Venus atmospheric chemistry [2,3]. While several candidate UV absorbers (mostly sulfur species) have been proposed, no consensus has been reached on its composition and its specific interactions with the atmosphere. Determining the identity of the UV absorber will aid climate models by showing how and where incident solar energy is absorbed by the atmosphere and make progress towards understanding the chemical and energetic processes taking place above Venus’ upper cloud deck [4]. 2) Determine if Venus retains evidence of a past, internally-generated magnetic field. While Venus does not currently have an intrinsically-generated magnetic field, evidence for the existence of a past field on Venus and a timeline of its decay will fill in a more holistic picture of the evolution of Venus’ geological record and atmosphere. As the oldest geologic units on the surface, Venus’ tesserae may still have remanent crustal magnetization signatures within the rocky composition [5]. In any case, the signatures detected will provide insight into Venus’ past geological and core dynamo activity. Mission Summary: VERNE includes a 3-part flight system made up of 1) an entry system with a HEEET (Heatshield for Extreme Entry Environment Technology) aeroshell, 2) an orbiter for data relay, and 3) an in-situ balloon and gondola. After entry into Venus’ atmosphere, the balloon will be deployed within the upper cloud deck, at an altitude of 62 km, over a tesserae region. The in-situ data collection will last for the duration of 2 full circumnavigations of the planet, which will take ~9 days. Instrumentation Suite: The four instruments that comprise VERNE’s instrument payload will enable the identification of the unknown UV absorber and the detection of remanent crustal magnetization if it exists in the tesserae. The proposed instrument suite cycle during mission operations is shown in Fig. 1. The four instruments are described below: 1) Adams (ion neutral mass spectrometer) has a range of 18-257 AMU and will detect and distinguish the mixing ratios of O₂, H₂O, H₂SO₄, S, S₂, S₃, S₄, S₅, S₆, S₇, S₈, SO, SO₂, OSSO, SO₃, Cl₂, FeCl₃ and other trace sulfur and organic species. The spatial (longitudinal) and temporal (day/night) variations will be observed throughout 2 circumnavigations with a sample cadence of 12 minutes. 2) Shelley (nephelometer) will determine the size distribution of the aerosols (0.4 to 36 um) in the atmosphere. With a size resolution of <0.7 um, it can determine which mode of H2SO4 is present and characterize the large (>30 um) organic particles previously detected by the Venera and Galileo missions [6,7]. 3) Herbert (UV imager) will measure UV radiance at 283 nm (the wavelength of SO2 absorption) and 365 nm (the unknown part of the absorber). UV images will be taken concurrently with the INMS and nephelometer to correlate UV absorption with abundances of the UV absorber species. 4) Vonnegut (magnetometer) has a range of >600 nT and a precision and accuracy of 1 nT. If magnetized by a past field, the crust may have retained a magnetization of up to 3 A/m2 [5]. With a noise floor of 10 nT, the magnetometer will be able to detect RCM from an altitude of 62 km, even if the thickness of the magnetized crust is just 1 km (Fig. 2). Mission Concept Design: VERNE will be launched with a mass of 3300 kg in an intermediate-high performance class vehicle with a 4-m fairing. The 475-day mission includes 466 days for the cruise, coasting, and orbit initialization phases before entry, descent, and balloon deployment. During the 9-day science phase, the aerial platform will make 2 circumnavigations of the planet at an altitude of 62 km. The INMS and the nephelometer will acquire data for 2 hours during the daytime and nighttime during each circumnavigation, while the UV imager will be on for the duration of the daytime, and the magnetometer will be operational throughout the entirety of the science phase. Data will be stored and processed with the JPL-designed Sphinx command and data handling system. Data will be sent from the balloon to the orbiter using an S-band relay link, stored on the orbiter, and then forwarded to Earth where it will be received by the DSN. Conclusion: VERNE will fill key gaps in our understanding of the history and ongoing processes related to the geology and atmosphere of Venus and rocky worlds in general. Even with adequate flight system contingencies and expected costs below the $900M New Frontiers cost cap, VERNE is not without its risks and challenges. Further trade spaces to explore include 1) using solely battery power vs. including solar panels to increase the mission duration and 2) investigating the use of lightweight materials and 3D-printed structures to reduce the gondola mass, among others. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the JPL Planetary Science Summer School, especially our mentors Troy Hudson, Karl Mitchell, and Leslie Lowes, as well as our Team-X study lead Al Nash and the members of Team-X. We’d additionally like to thank our review panel for asking insightful questions and providing valuable feedback. References: [1] Ross, F. E. (1928) Astrophysical J., 68, 57-92. [2] Rossow, W. B. et al. (1980) J. Geophysical Research, 85, 8107-8128. [3] Pinto, J. P. et al. (2021) Nature Communications, 12, 175. [4] Titov, D. V. et al. (2007) Cosmic Research, 21, 401. [5] O’Rourke, J. et al. (2019) Geophysical Research Lett., 46, 5768–5777. [6] Limaye, S. S. et al. (2018) Astrobiology, 18(9), 1181-1198. [7] Grinspoon, D. H. et al. (2013) Planetary and Space Sci., 41(7), 515-542. [8] Parker, R. L. (2003) J. Geophysical Research, 108, 5006. *The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.

H Alpert↗
NASA NTRS2016

Soil Moisture Active Passive Mission L4_SM Data Product Assessment (Version 2 Validated Release)

During the post-launch SMAP calibration and validation (Cal/Val) phase there are two objectives for each science data product team: 1) calibrate, verify, and improve the performance of the science algorithm, and 2) validate the accuracy of the science data product as specified in the science requirements and according to the Cal/Val schedule. This report provides an assessment of the SMAP Level 4 Surface and Root Zone Soil Moisture Passive (L4_SM) product specifically for the product's public Version 2 validated release scheduled for 29 April 2016. The assessment of the Version 2 L4_SM data product includes comparisons of SMAP L4_SM soil moisture estimates with in situ soil moisture observations from core validation sites and sparse networks. The assessment further includes a global evaluation of the internal diagnostics from the ensemble-based data assimilation system that is used to generate the L4_SM product. This evaluation focuses on the statistics of the observation-minus-forecast (O-F) residuals and the analysis increments. Together, the core validation site comparisons and the statistics of the assimilation diagnostics are considered primary validation methodologies for the L4_SM product. Comparisons against in situ measurements from regional-scale sparse networks are considered a secondary validation methodology because such in situ measurements are subject to up-scaling errors from the point-scale to the grid cell scale of the data product. Based on the limited set of core validation sites, the wide geographic range of the sparse network sites, and the global assessment of the assimilation diagnostics, the assessment presented here meets the criteria established by the Committee on Earth Observing Satellites for Stage 2 validation and supports the validated release of the data. An analysis of the time average surface and root zone soil moisture shows that the global pattern of arid and humid regions are captured by the L4_SM estimates. Results from the core validation site comparisons indicate that "Version 2" of the L4_SM data product meets the self-imposed L4_SM accuracy requirement, which is formulated in terms of the ubRMSE: the RMSE (Root Mean Square Error) after removal of the long-term mean difference. The overall ubRMSE of the 3-hourly L4_SM surface soil moisture at the 9 km scale is 0.035 cubic meters per cubic meter requirement. The corresponding ubRMSE for L4_SM root zone soil moisture is 0.024 cubic meters per cubic meter requirement. Both of these metrics are comfortably below the 0.04 cubic meters per cubic meter requirement. The L4_SM estimates are an improvement over estimates from a model-only SMAP Nature Run version 4 (NRv4), which demonstrates the beneficial impact of the SMAP brightness temperature data. L4_SM surface soil moisture estimates are consistently more skillful than NRv4 estimates, although not by a statistically significant margin. The lack of statistical significance is not surprising given the limited data record available to date. Root zone soil moisture estimates from L4_SM and NRv4 have similar skill. Results from comparisons of the L4_SM product to in situ measurements from nearly 400 sparse network sites corroborate the core validation site results. The instantaneous soil moisture and soil temperature analysis increments are within a reasonable range and result in spatially smooth soil moisture analyses. The O-F residuals exhibit only small biases on the order of 1-3 degrees Kelvin between the (re-scaled) SMAP brightness temperature observations and the L4_SM model forecast, which indicates that the assimilation system is largely unbiased. The spatially averaged time series standard deviation of the O-F residuals is 5.9 degrees Kelvin, which reduces to 4.0 degrees Kelvin for the observation-minus-analysis (O-A) residuals, reflecting the impact of the SMAP observations on the L4_SM system. Averaged globally, the time series standard deviation of the normalized O-F residuals is close to unity, which would suggest that the magnitude of the modeled errors approximately reflects that of the actual errors. The assessment report also notes several limitations of the "Version 2" L4_SM data product and science algorithm calibration that will be addressed in future releases. Regionally, the time series standard deviation of the normalized O-F residuals deviates considerably from unity, which indicates that the L4_SM assimilation algorithm either over- or under-estimates the actual errors that are present in the system. Planned improvements include revised land model parameters, revised error parameters for the land model and the assimilated SMAP observations, and revised surface meteorological forcing data for the operational period and underlying climatological data. Moreover, a refined analysis of the impact of SMAP observations will be facilitated by the construction of additional variants of the model-only reference data. Nevertheless, the “Version 2” validated release of the L4_SM product is sufficiently mature and of adequate quality for distribution to and use by the larger science and application communities.

SMAP L4_SM↗
NASA NTRS2011

Verification of the Solar Dynamics Observatory High Gain Antenna Pointing Algorithm Using Flight Data

The Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) is a NASA spacecraft designed to study the Sun. It was launched on February 11, 2010 into a geosynchronous orbit, and uses a suite of attitude sensors and actuators to finely point the spacecraft at the Sun. SDO has three science instruments: the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA), the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI), and the Extreme Ultraviolet Variability Experiment (EVE). SDO uses two High Gain Antennas (HGAs) to send science data to a dedicated ground station in White Sands, New Mexico. In order to meet the science data capture budget, the HGAs must be able to transmit data to the ground for a very large percentage of the time. Each HGA is a dual-axis antenna driven by stepper motors. Both antennas transmit data at all times, but only a single antenna is required in order to meet the transmission rate requirement. For portions of the year, one antenna or the other has an unobstructed view of the White Sands ground station. During other periods, however, the view from both antennas to the Earth is blocked for different portions of the day. During these times of blockage, the two HGAs take turns pointing to White Sands, with the other antenna pointing out to space. The HGAs handover White Sands transmission responsibilities to the unblocked antenna. There are two handover seasons per year, each lasting about 72 days, where the antennas hand off control every twelve hours. The non-tracking antenna slews back to the ground station by following a ground commanded trajectory and arrives approximately 5 minutes before the formerly tracking antenna slews away to point out into space. The SDO Attitude Control System (ACS) runs at 5 Hz, and the HGA Gimbal Control Electronics (GCE) run at 200 Hz. There are 40 opportunities for the gimbals to step each ACS cycle, with a hardware limitation of no more than one step every three GCE cycles. The ACS calculates the desired gimbal motion for tracking the ground station or for slewing, and sends the command to the GCE at 5 Hz. This command contains the number of gimbals steps for that ACS cycle, the direction of motion, the spacing of the steps, and the delay before taking the first step. The AIA and HMI instruments are sensitive to spacecraft jitter. Pre-flight analysis showed that jitter from the motion of the HGAs was a cause of concern. Three jitter mitigation techniques were developed to overcome the effects of jitter from different sources. The first method is the random step delay, which avoids gimbal steps hitting a cadence on a jitter-critical mode by pseudo-randomly delaying the first gimbal step in an ACS cycle. The second method of jitter mitigation is stagger stepping, which forbids the two antennas from taking steps during the same ACS cycle in order to avoid constructively adding jitter from two antennas. The third method is the inclusion of an instrument No Step Request (NSR), which allows the instruments to request a stoppage in gimbal stepping during the times when they are taking images. During the commissioning phase of the mission, a jitter test was performed onboard the spacecraft. Various sources of jitter, such as the reaction wheels, the High Gain Antenna motors, and the motion of the instrument filter wheels, were examined to determine the level of their effect on the instruments. During the HGA portion of the test, the jitter amplitudes from the single step of a gimbal were examined, as well as the amplitudes due to the execution of various gimbal rates. These jitter levels are compared with the gimbal jitter allocations for each instrument. Additionally, the jitter test provided insight into a readback delay that exists with the GCE. Pre-flight analysis suggested that gimbal steps scheduled to occur during the later portion of an ACS cycle would not be read during that cycle, resulting in a delay in the telemetered current gimbal position. Flight data from the jitter test confirmed this expectation. Analysis is presentehat shows the readback delay does not have a negative impact on gimbal control. The decision was made to consider implementing two of the jitter mitigation techniques on board the spacecraft: stagger stepping and the NSR. Flight data from two sets of handovers, one set without jitter mitigation and the other with mitigation enabled, were examined. The trajectory of the predicted handover was compared with the measured trajectory for the two cases, showing that tracking was not negatively impacted with the addition of the jitter mitigation techniques. Additionally, the individual gimbal steps were examined, and it was confirmed that the stagger stepping and NSRs worked as designed. An Image Quality Test was performed to determine the amount of cumulative jitter from the reaction wheels, HGAs, and instruments during various combinations of typical operations. In this paper, the flight results are examined from a test where the HGAs are following the path of a nominal handover with stagger stepping on and HMI NSRs enabled. In this case, the reaction wheels are moving at low speed and the instruments are taking pictures in their standard sequence. The flight data shows the level of jitter that the instruments see when their shutters are open. The HGA-induced jitter is well within the jitter requirement when the stagger step and NSR mitigation options are enabled. The SDO HGA pointing algorithm was designed to achieve nominal antenna pointing at the ground station, perform slews during handover season, and provide three HGA-induced jitter mitigation options without compromising pointing objectives. During the commissioning phase, flight data sets were collected to verify the HGA pointing algorithm and demonstrate its jitter mitigation capabilities.

Bourkland, Kristin L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

VALENTInE: A Concept for a New Frontiers Class Long Duration In-Situ Balloon Mission to Venus

Venus and Earth are similar in bulk composition, size, density, and approximate distance from the Sun, yet Venus’s modern-day climate and surface geology is distinctly different [1]. Previous missions to Venus revealed unusual volcanic features, possible continental crust, widespread volcanic plains, a weak magnetic field [2], and insights into the Venusian atmosphere [3,4]. Unfortunately, data from these missions were limited in spatial and temporal resolution and global extent. A future mission to Venus is critical to address fundamental questions surrounding the chemical composition and dynamics of the Venusian atmosphere [5], its geologic history [6,7], its internal structure [8,9], and its habitability throughout time [10,11]. We present the Venus Air and Land Expedition: a Novel Trailblazer for In situ Exploration (VALENTInE) mission to meet this need. VALENTInE is a variable altitude balloon that will passively float in Venus’s atmosphere between 45 and 55 km altitude. VALENTInE will acquire atmospheric data at varying latitudes and longitudes in addition to mapping the surface geomorphology and mineralogy across multiple terrains. Mission Objectives: The VALENTInE mission concept is driven by four main science objectives: 1. Determine whether the driving force of the superrotation of Venus’s atmosphere is caused by horizontal or vertical momentum transport. 2. Determine whether the atmospheric composition and noble gas inventory of the Venusian atmosphere is a product of outgassing from the initial protoplanetary source or if there are significant contributions from exogenic sources. 3. Determine whether the tesserae regions (particularly Aphrodite Terra) are felsic and relatively older than surrounding regions. 4. Determine if there is any evidence of a recent dynamo preserved in the rock record of Venus. Mission Overview: A balloon architecture provides a robust system that can survive long-term in the Venusian environment while taking accurate measurements of the lower cloud deck and surface. Two prior balloon missions to Venus, VEGA 1 and VEGA 2 in 1984, have demonstrated the potential for such planetary exploration; however, these missions were short-lived (46 hr), with limited range (54 km). Our spacecraft concept consists of a battery powered balloon with a gondola and flyby carrier stage (Fig. 1). Our novel design allows for at least 15 days of atmospheric exploration, including multiple ascents and descents in the Venus atmosphere. VALENTInE is baselined to launch in 2032, cruise on solar power for 128 days, enter, descend, and inflate (EDI) into Venus’s atmosphere above Aphrodite Terra, and float in Venus’s atmosphere for a total nominal mission duration of 15 days. The balloon, able to control its altitude by changing its buoyancy, will make one full circumnavigation every 4–8 days and move poleward ~1 o latitude per day; it will be passively directed by the horizontal air currents on Venus. The balloon can only be controlled in the z direction, and the expected latitude range is ±10° from EDI. The balloon itself will be a tracer for atmospheric structures such as zonal winds [5, 12]. During the 15-day operational period, there will be five dips to 45 km for a compositional study of the lower atmosphere and geological and magnetic mapping of the surface. Dips are used to take images and measurements closer to the surface and to obtain in situ vertical atmospheric profiles between 45 and 55 km. Instruments: The VALENTInE instrument payload will allow for extensive study of the geology, atmosphere, and interior of Venus. The instrument suite consists of six instruments. The mission profile for each instrument is shown in Fig. 2. Lower Atmosphere Meteorology Analyzer (LAMA) is an atmospheric structure instrument consisting of a thermometer, barometer, and accelerometer to continuously measure temperature and pressure as a function of altitude, longitude, and latitude. TracE and Noble Gas Investigator (TENGI) is aneutral mass spectrometer used to sample the dense atmosphere. TENGI will operate continuously at 45 km and 55 km and will measure D/H ratios, as well as Ne, Ar, and O isotopic ratios. Kilometer Scale Spectral Imager (KSSI) is amultispectral imager (850-1150 nm) used to resolve surface features on the order of km. Near InfraRed Multispectral Photometer (NIRMP) is an Infrared (IR) photometer used to image the surface through the clouds to characterize mineral assemblages at five different areas of the surface. NIRMP will be operated during dwell. ELevation REConnaissance (ELREC) is a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) instrument used for measuring topography at five different areas of the surface. The ELREC data will be combined with those of NIRMP to determine mineral assemblages and how they correlate to topography. Magnetic Exploration and Interior Detective (MEID) is a magnetometer used to detect any near-surface magnetic anomalies. The magnetometer will continuously operate at all altitudes. Mission Design: The spacecraft’s propulsion system will have a wet mass of 930 kg and will be launched on an Atlas V rocket. The spacecraft will jettison the payload upon arrival in Venus’s atmosphere before decelerating to orbital velocity. Figure 2. Notional power-dip profile while the balloon is on the dayside. Risks and Challenges: Raising and lowering the spacecraft to dip beneath the haze layer require a large amount of energy. This issue was partly compensated by limiting the number of dips over the 15 day prime mission. Power needs for pumping helium are reduced by slowing the descent speed, which consequently increases spatial resolution of in situ measurements between 45 and 55 km. The main limitation for the duration of the mission is the need to carry 15 days’ worth of batteries. The bus experiences external Venusian temperatures ranging from ~27°C at 55 km altitude to ~110°C at 45 km altitude. These high atmospheric temperatures require thermal protection for the bus (instruments, electronics, and flight systems) during its descent, dwell at 45 km, and ascent. The bus is maintained at a mechanically safe temperature range of -10°C to 50°C using white external paint, multi-layer insulation (MLI), mechanical/thermal isolation (e.g. Ti, composites), and ~57 kg of Phase Change Materials (PCM). Images and spectra taken below the haze dominate the available data transmission regardless of the time spent at 45 km. Therefore, less time at the lower altitude mainly reduces the coverage of in situ measurements there. Further, we assumed an unrealistically low-density material for the helium storage tanks on the gondola. However, this issue is partially resolved if we were to jettison 75% of the spent helium storage tanks. After the entry process, the balloon volume remains mostly inflated and storage tanks are required only for reducing balloon volume in dipping to 45 km. This mission was planned against an expected New Frontiers 5 (NF5) cost cap of $1B, as the NF5 call had not yet been released. The mission we describe fits within the predicted cost cap if the flyby carrier stage, responsible for powering the spacecraft during cruise and for relaying in situ measurements back to Earth, can be contributed by another space agency. Acknowledgments: We thank the JPL Planetary Science Summer School, especially A. Nash, J. Scully, K. Mitchell, L. Lowes, and J. Armijo, and our mentors from JPL Team X. Thank you to our review panel for their insightful review. References: [1] Kane, S. et al. (2019) JGR:Ps, 124 , 2015–2028. [2] Phillips, J. L., & Russell, C. T. (1987). JGR: Space Physics , 92 (A3), 2253-2263. [3] Nakamura, M. et al. (2018) Earth Planets Space, 70 (1), 144. [4] Svedhem, H. et al. (2009) JGR:P 114 (E5). [5] Limaye et al. (2009) Decadal Survey White Paper . [6] Ivanov, M. and Head, J. (2011) PSS, 59 (13) , 1559-1600. [7] Smrekar, S. et al. (2018) Space Sci Rev, 214 (5), 88. [8] O’Rourke, J. et al. (2018) EPSL, 502 , 46-56. [9] O’Rourke J. et al. (2019) GRL , (46), 5768–5777 [10] Way, M. et al. (2016) GRL, 43 (16), 8376-8383. [11] Way, M. et al. (2020) JGR:P, 125 (5), e2019JE006276. [12] Preston, R. A. et al. (1986) Science, 231 (4744), 1414-1416.

Mission Concept↗