Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Proposal”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 37 records · Page 2

The proposal entry processor: Telescience applications for Hubble Space Telescope science operations

The Proposal Entry Processor (PEP) System supports the submission, entry, technical evaluation review, selection and implementation of Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observing proposals. The PEP system is described concentrating on features which illustrate principles of telescience as applied to the HST. These principles are applicable to other observatories, both space and ground based. The PEP proposal forms allow a scientist to specify scientific objectives without becoming needlessly involved in implementation details. The Remote Proposal Submission System (RPSS) allows proposers to submit proposals electronically via Telenet, SPAN, and other networks. The RPSS performs syntax and sematic checks on proposals. The PEP uses a fourth generation database system to store proposal information and to allow general queries and reports. The Transformation subsystem uses an expert system written in OPS5 to cast a scientific description of an observing program into parameters used by the planning and scheduling system. The TACOS system is a natural language database which supports the proposal selection process. Technical evaluations for resource usage and duplicate science are performed using rulebased systems.

Jackson, Robert↗

Managing the Perception of Advanced Technology Risks in Mission Proposals

Through my work in the project proposal office I became interested in how technology advancement efforts affect competitive mission proposals. Technology development allows for new instruments and functionality. However, including technology advancement in a mission proposal often increases perceived risk. Risk mitigation has a major impact on the overall evaluation of the proposal and whether the mission is selected. In order to evaluate the different approaches proposals took I compared the proposals claims of heritage and technology advancement to the sponsor feedback provided in the NASA debriefs. I examined a set of Discovery 2010 Mission proposals to draw patterns in how they were evaluated and come up with a set of recommendations for future mission proposals in how they should approach technology advancement to reduce the perceived risk.

proposals↗

Noctis Landing: A Proposed Landing Site/Exploration Zone for Human Missions to the Surface of Mars

The proposed Noctis Landing Site/Exploration Zone (LS/EZ) is shown in Figure 1. Our preliminary study suggests that the proposed site meets all key Science and Resources (incl. Civil Engineering) requirements. The site is of significant interest, as the EZ not only offers a large number and wide range of regions of interest (ROIs) for short-term exploration, it is also located strategically at the crossroads between Tharsis and Valles Marineris, which are key for long-term exploration. The proposed site contains Regions of Interest (ROIs) that meet the following Science requirements: -­‐ Access to (1) deposits with a high preservation potential for evidence of past habitability and fossil biosignatures and (2) sites that are promising for present habitability. The site presents a wide variety of ROIs qith likely aqueous features and deposits, including sinous channels and valleys, slope gullies, lobate debris aprons, impact craters with lobate ejecta flows, and "bathtub ring" deposits. Neutron spectrometry also suggests hydrogen is present within the topmost 0.3 m or so of 4 to 10 wt% WEH (Water Equivalent Hydrogen). -­‐ Noachian and/or Hesperian rocks in a stratigraphic context that have a high likelihood of containing trapped atmospheric gases. Collapsed canyon rim material with preserved stratigraphy is abundantly present and accessible. -­‐ Exposures of at least two crustal units that have regional or global extents, that are suitable for radiometric dating, and that have relative ages that sample a significant range of martian geological time. Canyons floors in Ius Chasma, Tithonium Chasma, and plateau tops on Tharsis and in Sinai Planum offer access to distinct crustal units of regional extent. -­‐ Access to outcrops with linked morphological and/or geochemical signatures indicative of aqueous or groundwater/ mineral interactions. Iron and sulfur-bearing deposits on canyon floors in Noctis Labyrinthus, and in Ius Chasma (IC) and Tithonium Chasma (TC) offer many such outcrop options. -­‐ Identifiable stratigraphic contacts and cross-cutting relationships from which relative ages can be determined. In place and collapsed canyon walls in NL, TC, and IC offer such opportunities. -­‐ Other types of ROIs include access points to surrounding plateau top areas for longer term regional exploration. A key attribute of the proposed Noctic Landing site is its strategic location to allow the shortest possible surface excusions to Tharsis and Valles Marineris (VM). VM is the feature and region on Mars that exposes the longest record of Mars' geology and evolution through time. Tharsis is the region of Mars that has experienced the longest and most extensive volcanic history, and might still be volcanically active. Some of the youngest lava flows on Mars have been identified on the western flanks of the Tharsis Bulge, i.e., within driving range of future longrange (500 - 1000 km) pressurized rover traverses. The proposed site also contains ROIs that offer the following Resources (incl. Civil Engineering) characteristics: -­‐ Access to raw material that exhibits the potential to (1) be used as feedstock for water-generating in situ resource utilization (ISRU) processes and (2) yield significant quantities (greater than 100 MT) of water. The raw material is likely in the form of hydrated minerals, and possibly ice/regolith mix. The top of the raw material deposit is at the surface. -­‐ Access to a region where infrastructure can be emplaced or constructed. This region is less than 5 km from the LS and contains flat, stable terrain. The region exhibits evidence for an abundant source of loose regolith. Several deep pits in the area combined with the availability of sand suggests that some natural terrain features can be adapted for construction purposes. -­‐ Access to raw material that exhibits the potential to be used as metal feedstock for ISRU and construction purposes. Iron and sulfur-rich mineral surface deposits have been identified in CRISM data in many locations in this area. Noctis Landing is the lowest-altitude location on Mars that straddles both the Tharsis region (above average geothermal gradients) and Valles Marineris (minimal crustal thickness from surface (valley floor) to a subsurface liquid water table. Noctis Landing has the potential for being an ideal site for eventual deep drilling on Mars to access deep subsurface liquid water and potentially encountering extant life. Available data remains insufficient to fully qualify the Noctis Landing site. Additional remote sensing data (visible, Near and Mid-IR, and radar) and surface reconnaissance via a high-mobility robotic rover are recommended. In particular, it will be important to assess the trafficability of the site, and its potential for yielding water and metals as a resource. Access to plateau tops from the Noctis Landing site on the canyon floor should be demonstrated. Future exploration of the site would also be enhanced significantly by the availability of robotic (tele-operatable) surveying and sample-collecting drones. Testing of the use of such collaborative science and exploration technologies should be conducted at terrestrial sites such as the Haughton-Mars Project site on Devon Island, High Arctic, among others. Note: Noctis Landing is not an official Mars nomenclature name for this location. Because the area of the proposed LS/EZ had no name, and because it is close to Noctis Labyrinthus to the West while being distinct from it, the provisional name Noctis Landing is proposed. Noctis means night in Latin.

Lee, Pascal↗

Hybrid Power Plants: Status of Operating and Proposed Plants, 2023 Edition [Slides]

Improving battery technology and the growth of variable renewable generation are driving a surge of interest in “hybrid” power plants that combine, for example, wind or solar generating capacity with co-located batteries. While most of the current interest involves pairing photovoltaic (PV) plants with batteries, other types of hybrid or co-located plants with wide-ranging configurations have been part of the U.S. electricity mix for decades. This annually updated briefing tracks and maps existing hybrid or co-located plants across the United States while also synthesizing data from power purchase agreements (PPAs) and generation interconnection queues to shed light on near- and long-term development pipelines. The scope includes “co-located hybrids” that pair two or more resources (e.g., multiple types of generation and/or generation with storage) that are operated largely independently behind a single point of interconnection, and “full hybrids” that also feature coordinated operations of the co-located resources. The focus is on plants with one megawatt (MW) or more of capacity; smaller (often behind-the-meter) projects are also increasingly common, but are not included in this data synthesis. Key findings from the latest briefing include: -At the end of 2022, there were 374 hybrid plants (>1 MW) operating across the United States (+25% compared to the end of 2021), totaling nearly 41 GW of generating capacity (+15%) and 5.4 GW/15.2 GWh of energy storage (+69%/+88%). PV+storage plants are by far the most common, dominating in terms of plant number (213), storage capacity (4.0 GW/12.5 GWh), storage:generator capacity ratio (49%), and storage duration (3.1 hours). But there are nearly twenty other hybrid plant configurations as well, including several different fossil hybrid categories (each dominated by the fossil component) as well as wind+storage, wind+PV, wind+PV+storage, geothermal+PV, and others. -Last year was another strong year for PV+storage hybrids in particular: 59 of the 62 hybrids added in 2022 were PV+storage. As of the end of 2022, there was roughly as much storage capacity operating within PV+storage hybrid plants as in standalone storage plants (~4 GW each). In storage energy terms, however, PV+storage edged out standalone storage by ~2 GWh (12.5 GWh vs. 10.4 GWh, respectively). -Interconnection queue data show continued strong developer interest in hybridization. At the close of 2022, there were 51% more hybrid plants—representing 59% more generating capacity—in interconnection queues across the United States than there were at the end of 2021. Solar dominates these proposed plants as well: at the close of 2022, there were 457 GW of solar capacity proposed as a hybrid (representing ~48% of all solar capacity in the queues), most typically pairing PV with battery storage. At the same time, there were 24 GW of wind capacity proposed as a hybrid (representing ~8% of all wind capacity in the queues), again most-often pairing wind with storage. Meanwhile, more than half of all storage in the queues is estimated to be part of a hybrid plant. While many of the plants proposed in the queues will not ultimately reach commercial operations, the depth of interest in hybrid plants—especially PV+storage—is notable, particularly in certain regions. For example, in CAISO, 97% of all solar capacity and 45% of all wind capacity in the queues is proposed as a hybrid. -The report also surveys power purchase agreement (PPA) price data from a sample of operating and proposed PV+storage plants. Though PV+storage PPA prices have fallen over time, “levelized storage adders” have recently increased somewhat to ~$\$ $7000/MW-month, ~$\$ $60/MWh-stored (assuming one full cycle per day), or ~$\$ $15/MWh-PV. Some of the recent price increase could simply reflect a trend towards higher battery:PV capacity ratios over time, which increases costs, all else being equal. The well-publicized impact of inflationary and supply chain pressures on battery prices is no doubt a contributor as well.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

Tool for Merging Proposals Into DSN Schedules

A Practical Extraction and Reporting Language (Perl) script called merge7da has been developed to facilitate determination, by a project scheduler in NASA's Deep Space Network, of whether a proposal for use of the DSN could create a conflict with the current DSN schedule. Prior to the development of merge7da, there was no way to quickly identify potential schedule conflicts: it was necessary to submit a proposal and wait a day or two for a response from a DSN scheduling facility. By using merge7da to detect and eliminate potential schedule conflicts before submitting a proposal, a project scheduler saves time and gains assurance that the proposal will probably be accepted. merge7da accepts two input files, one of which contains the current DSN schedule and is in a DSN-standard format called '7da'. The other input file contains the proposal and is in another DSN-standard format called 'C1/C2'. merge7da processes the two input files to produce a merged 7da-format output file that represents the DSN schedule as it would be if the proposal were to be adopted. This 7da output file can be loaded into various DSN scheduling software tools now in use.

Khanampornpan, Teerapat↗

Proposal to Accomplish Phase B Space Shuttle Program

This proposal has been prepared in response to National Aeronautics and Space Administration Request for Proposal No. 10-8423, dated February 20, 1970, and Amendments No.1, 2, 3, & 4 thereto. It is firm for a period of not less than one hundred twenty (120) days from March 30, 1970. The executed certifications requested in Enclosures 5 and 6 of the Request for Proposal are appended at the end of this proposal. Grumman Aerospace Corporation, along with its associates -- the General Electric Company, Eastern Airlines, the Northrop Corporation, and the Aerojet-General Corporation -- are pleased to submit this proposal. This study must prove that technical challenges can be met at a cost commensurate with realistic national funding levels at an early date, (perferably prior to the late 1977 initial operating capability (IOC) indicated in the Statement of Work). We have assembled a team of extremely competent associates. Together, we are fully qualified to study all facets of the proposed Phase B study, and to develop and build the product. We believe we have already made a promising start toward defining the concept of the space shuttle system.

Mead, Lawrence M.↗

Summary of Technical Peer Review on the Risk Assessment Framework proposed in Report INL/RPT-22-68656 for Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems

This report summarizes the peer review activities initiated by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) during fiscal year (FY) 2023 for the evaluation and improvement of the methodology developed under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, Risk Informed Systems Analysis (RISA) Pathway, digital instrumentation and control (DI&C) risk assessment project. In FY 2019, the RISA Pathway initiated a project to develop a risk assessment strategy for delivering a technical basis to support effective and secure DI&C technologies for digital upgrades/designs. A framework was proposed for this strategy, which aims to (1) provide a best-estimate, risk-informed capability to quantitatively and accurately estimate the risk impact of plant modernization, considering the introduction of high safety-significant safety-related (HSSSR) DI&C systems, (2) support and supplement existing risk-informed DI&C design guides by providing quantitative risk information and evidence, (3) offer a capability of design architecture evaluation of various DI&C systems, (4) assure the long-term safety and reliability of HSSSR DI&C systems, and (5) reduce uncertainty in costs and support integration of DI&C systems in the plant. The R&D efforts of this project from FY 2019 through FY 2022 were focused on methodology improvement and demonstration of the proposed framework for the risk assessment and design optimization of safety-critical DI&C systems. Collaborations with the nuclear industry have been initiated to support the reliability and risk assessment of their DI&C systems by using the proposed framework. In FY 2023, the framework has reached to a point for a technical peer review and obtain stakeholder feedback. This peer review activity includes coordination of the reviews performed by a group of industry stakeholders, documentation of the peer review suggestions, providing resolutions and responses to the peer review comments. The objective of this technical peer review is to obtain representative feedback on the proposed framework to improve the technical qualities of its methodology and readiness for deployment to the industry. Feedback may identify potential areas for improvement and further development. The Subject Matter experts were invited to review the latest project report documenting the methodology developed in the project and provide evaluations of the technical qualities of the proposed framework and relevant methods. The reviewed project report is “An Integrated Framework for Risk Assessment of High Safety-significant Safety-related Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants: Methodology and Demonstration” INL/RPT-22-68656 (short as “INL/RPT-22-68656” in this report). This peer review report documents the technical questions provided for technical peer review and introduces the technical peer reviewers from the stakeholders including nuclear utilities, regulators, and universities. Comments from technical peer reviewers and the resolutions and responses to these comments are outlined. Insights and lessons learned from the technical peer review are summarized in conclusions and future work. The primary audience of this report are DI&C designers, engineers, and probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) practitioners. This includes stakeholders, such as the nuclear utilities and regulators who consider the deployment and upgrade of DI&C systems, DI&C software developers and reviewers, and cybersecurity specialists.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

Proposed Classifications of Remote Operations for Nuclear Reactors Based on Physical and Cybersecurity Considerations

The incorporation of remote operations into reactor operations is a topic of high interest among advanced and small modular reactor (A/SMR) vendors, with some considering it essential to the success of their business models. However, remote operations are a concept novel to the nuclear industry. While various technical aspects of remote operations have been explored, a significant gap remains in understanding the security implications of integrating remote operations into reactor designs, particularly concerning the security requirements for remote-operations facilities and infrastructure. This report aims to address this gap by first defining classes of remote operation based on the extent of remote access to reactor control systems and grounded in the existing regulatory framework with compatible terminology. Secondly, the report outlines the physical and cybersecurity requirements applicable to remote-operations facilities and infrastructure at each defined class. These requirements are based on existing licensing frameworks provided by 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 52, as well as the upcoming A/SMR licensing framework in the proposed Part 53. The assessment focuses specifically on security regulations, such as 10 CFR Part 73, which includes provisions for both cybersecurity (§ 73.54) and physical security (§ 73.55). This report proposes five classes of remote reactor operations. Class 1 involves remote monitoring only, with no control over reactor systems. Class 2 allows for the remote issuance of allowlisted commands to the reactor facility. Class 3 extends control to non-safety-significant, non-safety-related, or not important to safety systems and equipment. Class 4 permits remote control of safety-significant systems. Finally, Class 5 allows remote control of safety-related systems. It is important to note that these classes were defined purely with functionality in mind, without considering the practicality or feasibility of implementation for each class under current or upcoming regulatory guidance. The intention behind this approach is to enable an assessment of which security requirements apply to each class, allowing readers to evaluate the implementation possibilities for their specific use cases. Following the definition of remote-operation classes, the report assesses the specific physical and cybersecurity requirements applicable to the remote-operations facility and infrastructure within each defined class. This includes defining the types and locations of operators that are possible at each class of operation and, based on operator type and location, as well as functionality within each class, outlining the physical and cybersecurity requirements. By detailing the security requirements by class, the report provides readers with the information needed to determine the type of security program they may need to implement for their desired concept of operation. The next contribution of this report was to assess the practicality of implementing each proposed class of remote operations based upon the security requirement assessment. In short, three of the five proposed remote-operation classes were found to possibly have a practical path forward to implementation under the U.S. regulatory framework. Class 1 remote operations are currently in use in the U.S. while Class 2 and 3 remote operations may be logistically possible to implement under the U.S. regulatory framework. The final two Classes, 4 and 5, would likely be logistically difficult, if not infeasible to implement within the current U.S. physical- and cybersecurity regulatory framework. Given the results of the feasibility assessment, an example architecture is proposed for both Class 2, remote allowlisted commands, and Class 3, remote control of non-safety systems as well as security implication assessments of each architecture. These example implementations are not meant to be prescriptive in terms of how Class 2 or Class 3 remote operations should be deployed; instead, they are intended to be informative to stakeholders on how Class 2 or Class 3 could potentially be applied in order to inform their system design. An example architecture for Class 1 remote monitoring was not provided as Class 1 in already in use in U.S. nuclear operations. Example architectures for Class 4 and Class 5 were not provided due to their assessment of being likely infeasible to implement. The final contribution is an assessment of the physical- and cybersecurity implications of introducing autonomous operations into an A/SMR. What was found was that the security implications can be separated into two cases. Autonomous operations supported by SSCs located only at the reactor site, and autonomous operations supported by SSCs outside of the reactor site. For the first case, the introduction of autonomous systems will likely not change the facility’s requirement to comply with existing cyber and physical security regulation

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Hubble Space Telescope cycle 5. Phase 1: Proposal instructions, version 4.0

This document has the following purposes: it describes the information that must be submitted to the Space Telescope Science Institute by Phase 1 proposers, both electronically and on paper, and describes how to submit it; it describes how to fill out the proposal LATEX templates; it describes how to estimate the number of spacecraft orbits that the proposed observations will require; it provides detailed information about the parameters that are used in the forms to describe the requested observations; and it provides information about the preparation and electronic submission of proposal files. Examples of completed proposal forms are included.

Madau, Piero↗

Proposal Improvements That Work

Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power, an operating location of Boeing in Canoga Park, California is under contract with NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama for design, development, production, and mission support of Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs). The contract was restructured in 1996 to emphasize a mission contracting environment under which Rocketdyne supports the Space Transportation System launch manifest of seven flights a year without the need for a detailed list of contract deliverables such as nozzles, turbopumps, and combustion devices. This contract structure is in line with the overall Space Shuttle program goals established by the NASA to fly safely, meet the flight manifest, and reduce cost. Rocketdyne's Contracts, Pricing, and Estimating team has worked for the past several years with representatives from MSFC, the local Defense Contract Management Command, and the DCAA to improve the quality of cost proposals to MSFC for contract changes on the SSME. The contract changes on the program result primarily from engineering change proposals for product enhancements to improve safety, maintainability, or operability in the space environment. This continuous improvement team effort has been successful in improving proposal quality, reducing cycle time, and reducing cost. Some of the principal lessons learned are highlighted here to show how proposal improvements can be implemented to enhance customer satisfaction and ensure cost proposals can be evaluated easily by external customers.

Dunn, F.↗

FY27 Annual LDRD Call for Proposals - external release

Proposals are now being accepted for the fiscal year 2027 (FY-27) Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) call, the FY-27 Annual LDRD Call for Proposals. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has renewed its research and development (R&D) portfolio to align with its strategy, and this call seeks high-quality proposals that address these renewed research priorities. The LDRD Office encourages proposals that offer the potential to achieve breakthroughs in the three science and technology (S&T) strategic initiatives: • Unleashing America’s Energy Abundance: Enabling the Quadrupling of Nuclear Power by 2050; • Securing America’s Future by Developing Domestic Supply Chains for Critical and Strategic Minerals and Materials (CSMM); and • Delivering Critical National Security Technology. Proposals that support INL’s four strategic thrust areas are also encouraged: • Enabling Future Fusion Energy Systems; • Delivering Small Nuclear Reactor Technology for Space Exploration and Defense Missions; • Accelerating Technologies for Hybrid Energy and Nuclear Applications; and • Securing America’s Energy Future Through Artificial Intelligence (AI).

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

Hybrid Power Plants: Status of Installed and Proposed Projects [Slides]

As battery prices fall and wind and solar generation rises, power plant developers are increasingly combining wind and solar projects with on-site batteries, creating “hybrid” power plants. But hybrid or co-located plants have been part of the U.S. electricity mix for decades, with widely ranging configurations that extend beyond pairing a generator with a battery. This new summary tracks and maps existing hybrid and co-located plants across the United States while also synthesizing data from generation interconnection queues to illustrate developer interest in the next wave of plants. The scope is inclusive of co-located hybrid plants that pair two or more generators and/or that pair generation with storage at a single point of interconnection, and also full hybrids that feature co-location and co-control. The focus is on larger, 1 MW+ systems: smaller (often behind-the-meter) projects are also increasingly common, but are not included in the data synthesis. Based in part on EIA Form 860 data, there were at least 125 co-located hybrid plants (>1 MW) already operating across the United States at the end of 2019, totaling over 14 GW of aggregate capacity. Some of the most common configurations include wind+storage (13 projects, 1,290 MW wind, 184 MW storage), PV+storage (40 projects, 882 MW PV, 169 MW storage), and fossil+storage (10 projects, 2,414 MW fossil, 91 MW storage). Data from interconnection queues demonstrates the considerable commercial interest that exists in hybrid power plants, especially solar co-located with storage. By the end of 2019, there were at least 367 GW of solar plants in the nation’s queues; 102 GW (~28%) of this capacity was proposed as a hybrid, most typically pairing PV with battery storage. For wind, 225 GW of capacity sat in the queues, with 11 GW (~5%) proposed as a hybrid, again most-often pairing wind with storage. The proposed solar+storage plants are located throughout the United States, but with California and the non-ISO West being the most prominent areas of commercial interest. Proposed wind+storage and standalone storage plants also center to a degree on these regions of the country.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Discussion of the General Electric proposal to develop a computer program to select thermal coatings for passive temperature control of satellites

The General Electric Company, Missiles and Space Division, submitted/a proposal to NASA for the development of an IBM 7094 computer program which would select the exterior surface coatings for passively controlling spacecraft temperatures. G. E. claims that the "trial and error" procedures currently used can be accomplished more rationally and can therefore be programmed for a digital computer. In the ASME paper, 63-HT-41, which was presented at the ASME-AIChE Heat Transfer Conference at Boston in August, 1963, Costello, Harper, and Cline, described the procedures that have been used at G. E. to develop a coating selection program subject to the following restrictions: 1. Steady-state conditions prevail, 2. Heat transfer occurs by radiation only, 3. Temperatures are optimized at only one interior point in the spacecraft, an d 4. Only the solar absorptance of the external coatings is varied to optimize temperature. The emittance must remain constant at initially specified values. General Electric proposes to develop a generalized program in three steps: 1. The program would vary both solar absorptance and hemispherical emittance to obtain the optimum coating patterns; 2. Temperatures would be optimized at more than one interior point; and 3. The equations would be modified to account for both conduction and radiation heat transfer. In the development of the general program, the scope would be restricted to steady-state heat transfer. Since the thermal designs of most spacecraft are based primarily on nearly equilibrium conditions, the proposed program could have wide application. An obvious extension of the proposed program would be to account for transient temperatures.

IBM 7090 COMPUTER↗

Proposed input for determining longitudinal aerodynamic parameters for the space shuttle

A control input form to improve the identification of longitudinal aerodynamic parameters for the Space Shuttle, especially at low Mach numbers, has been proposed. This input combines features of several inputs currently used with the Shuttle to improve the response in angle-of-attack without exceeding pitch rate limits. The responses of the proposed input were generated using a simple three-degree-of-freedom simulation. An examination of the power spectral densities of these responses showed them to have more power near the vehicle natural frequency than doublet inputs previously used with the Shuttle. When the responses to the proposed input were corrupted with noise and processed using a maximum likelihood parameter extraction program, the identifiability of the parameters was improved over the identifiability of the same parameters using actual Shuttle responses from doublet input of a similar magnitude. This preliminary study indicates that the proposed input form should result in improved identifiability of longitudinal static and control parameters for the Shuttle vehicle.

Suit, W. T.↗

NASA RECON: Course development, administration, and evaluation. A research and development proposal

This proposal addresses the development, administration, and evaluation of a set of transportable, college-level courses to educate science and engineering students in the effective use of automated scientific and technical information storage and retrieval systems, and, in particular, in the use of the NASA RECON system. Chapter 1 presents a brief introduction. Chapter 2 identifies general and specific objectives, i.e., needs analysis, course development, course administration, and course evaluation. Chapter 3 proposes the methodology to be used in successfully accomplishing these objectives. Chapter 4 highlights expected results and product deliverables, and Chapter 5 presents the project evaluation plan to be followed. Chapter 6 is a brief overview of the institutional resources available at the proposing institutions, i.e., at the University of Southwestern Louisiana and at Southern University to support the project. Chapter 7 proposes a budget, time schedule, and management plan. Chapter 8 is a summary of the foregoing.

Dominick, Wayne D.↗

Database of proposed payloads and instruments for SEI missions

A database of all payloads and instruments proposed for lunar and Mars missions was compiled by the author for the Exploration Programs Office at NASA's Johnson Sapce Center. The database is an outgrowth of the document produced by C. J. Budney et al. at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in 1991. The present database consists not only of payloads proposed for human exploratory missions of the Moon and Mars, but also experiments selected or proposed for robotic precursor missions such as Lunar Scout, Mars Observer, and MESUR. The database consists of two parts: a written payload description and a matrix that provides a breakdown of payload components. Each payload description consists of the following information: (1) the rationale for why the instrument or payload package is being proposed for operation on the Moon or Mars; (2) a description of how the instrument works; (3) a breakdown of the payload, providing detailed information about the mass, volume, power requirements, and data rates for the constituent pieces of the experiment; (4) estimates of the power consumption and data rate; (5) how the data will be returned to Earth and distributed to the scientific community; (6) any constraints on the location or conditions under which the instrument can or cannot operate; (7) what type of crew interaction (if any) is needed; (8) how the payload is to be delivered to the lunar or martian surface (along with alternative delivery options); (9) how long the instrument or payload package will take to set up; (10) what type of maintenance needs are anticipated for the experiment; (11) stage of development for the instrument and environmental conditions under which the instrument has been tested; (12) an interface required by the instrument with the lander, a rover, an outpost, etc.; (13) information about how often the experiment will need to be resupplied with parts or consumables, if it is to be resupplied; (14) the name and affiliation of a contact person for the experiment; and (15) references where further information about the experiment can be found.

Barlow, N. G.↗

The EUVE proposal database and scheduling system

The proposal database and scheduling system for the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer will be described. The proposal database has been implemented to take input for approved observations selected by the EUVE Peer Review Panel and output target information suitable for the scheduling system to digest. The scheduling system is a hybrid of the SPIKE program and EUVE software which checks spacecraft constraints, produces a proposed schedule and selects spacecraft orientations with optimal configurations for acquiring star trackers, etc. This system has been used to schedule the In Orbit Calibration activities that took place this summer, following the EUVE launch in early June 1992. The implemented strategy has implications for the selection of approved targets, which have impacted the Peer Review process. In addition, it will be discussed how the proposal database, founded on Sybase, controls the processing of EUVE Guest Observer data.

Christian, C.↗

Horizon: A Proposal for Large Aperture, Active Optics in Geosynchronous Orbit

In 1999, NASA's New Millennium Program called for proposals to validate new technology in high-earth orbit for the Earth Observing-3 (NMP EO3) mission to fly in 2003. In response, we proposed to test a large aperture, active optics telescope in geosynchronous orbit. This would flight-qualify new technologies for both Earth and Space science: 1) a future instrument with LANDSAT image resolution and radiometric quality watching continuously from geosynchronous station, and 2) the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST) for deep space imaging. Six enabling technologies were to be flight-qualified: 1) a 3-meter, lightweight segmented primary mirror, 2) mirror actuators and mechanisms, 3) a deformable mirror, 4) coarse phasing techniques, 5) phase retrieval for wavefront control during stellar viewing, and 6) phase diversity for wavefront control during Earth viewing. Three enhancing technologies were to be flight- validated: 1) mirror deployment and latching mechanisms, 2) an advanced microcontroller, and 3) GPS at GEO. In particular, two wavefront sensing algorithms, phase retrieval by JPL and phase diversity by ERIM International, were to sense optical system alignment and focus errors, and to correct them using high-precision mirror mechanisms. Active corrections based on Earth scenes are challenging because phase diversity images must be collected from extended, dynamically changing scenes. In addition, an Earth-facing telescope in GEO orbit is subject to a powerful diurnal thermal and radiometric cycle not experienced by deep-space astronomy. The Horizon proposal was a bare-bones design for a lightweight large-aperture, active optical system that is a practical blend of science requirements, emerging technologies, budget constraints, launch vehicle considerations, orbital mechanics, optical hardware, phase-determination algorithms, communication strategy, computational burdens, and first-rate cooperation among earth and space scientists, engineers and managers. This manuscript presents excerpts from the Horizon proposal's sections that describe the Earth science requirements, the structural -thermal-optical design, the wavefront sensing and control, and the on-orbit validation.

Chesters, Dennis↗