SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Error”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 397 records · Page 22

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1990

Statistical analysis of modeling error in structural dynamic systems

The paper presents a generic statistical model of the (total) modeling error for conventional space structures in their launch configuration. Modeling error is defined as the difference between analytical prediction and experimental measurement. It is represented by the differences between predicted and measured real eigenvalues and eigenvectors. Comparisons are made between pre-test and post-test models. Total modeling error is then subdivided into measurement error, experimental error and 'pure' modeling error, and comparisons made between measurement error and total modeling error. The generic statistical model presented in this paper is based on the first four global (primary structure) modes of four different structures belonging to the generic category of Conventional Space Structures (specifically excluding large truss-type space structures). As such, it may be used to evaluate the uncertainty of predicted mode shapes and frequencies, sinusoidal response, or the transient response of other structures belonging to the same generic category.

Hasselman, T. K.↗

NASA NTRS1991

Theoretical computation of trace gases retrieval random error from measurements of high spectral resolution infrared sounder

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the trace gas profiling capabilities of future passive high spectral resolution (1 cm(exp -1) or better) infrared (600 to 2700 cm(exp -1)) satellite tropospheric sounders. These sounders, such as the grating spectrometer, Atmospheric InfRared Sounders (AIRS) (Chahine et al., 1990) and the interferometer, GOES High Resolution Interferometer Sounder (GHIS), (Smith et al., 1991) can provide these unique infrared spectra which enable us to conduct this analysis. In this calculation only the total random retrieval error component is presented. The systematic error components contributed by the forward and inverse model error are not considered (subject of further studies). The total random errors, which are composed of null space error (vertical resolution component error) and measurement error (instrument noise component error), are computed by assuming one wavenumber spectral resolution with wavenumber span from 1100 cm(exp -1) to 2300 cm(exp -1) (the band 600 cm(exp -1) to 1100 cm(exp -1) is not used since there is no major absorption of our three gases here) and measurement noise of 0.25 degree at reference temperature of 260 degree K. Temperature, water vapor, ozone and mixing ratio profiles of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and methane are taken from 1976 US Standard Atmosphere conditions (a FASCODE model). Covariance matrices of the gases are 'subjectively' generated by assuming 50 percent standard deviation of gaussian perturbation with respect to their US Standard model profiles. Minimum information and maximum likelihood retrieval solutions are used.

Huang, Hung-Lung↗

NASA NTRS1993

Evaluation of lens distortion errors in video-based motion analysis

In an effort to study lens distortion errors, a grid of points of known dimensions was constructed and videotaped using a standard and a wide-angle lens. Recorded images were played back on a VCR and stored on a personal computer. Using these stored images, two experiments were conducted. Errors were calculated as the difference in distance from the known coordinates of the points to the calculated coordinates. The purposes of this project were as follows: (1) to develop the methodology to evaluate errors introduced by lens distortion; (2) to quantify and compare errors introduced by use of both a 'standard' and a wide-angle lens; (3) to investigate techniques to minimize lens-induced errors; and (4) to determine the most effective use of calibration points when using a wide-angle lens with a significant amount of distortion. It was seen that when using a wide-angle lens, errors from lens distortion could be as high as 10 percent of the size of the entire field of view. Even with a standard lens, there was a small amount of lens distortion. It was also found that the choice of calibration points influenced the lens distortion error. By properly selecting the calibration points and avoidance of the outermost regions of a wide-angle lens, the error from lens distortion can be kept below approximately 0.5 percent with a standard lens and 1.5 percent with a wide-angle lens.

Poliner, Jeffrey↗

NASA NTRS2000

Non-Systematic Errors of Monthly Oceanic Rainfall Derived From TMI

A major objective of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) is to produce a multi-year time series of monthly rainfall over 50 latitude by 50 longitude boxes with an uncertainty of 1 mm/day for low rain rates and 10% for high rain rates. Based on some simple assumptions about the error structure, we compute the non-systematic errors of monthly oceanic rainfall over the same space/time domain derived from data taken by the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) on board the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellites and TRMM Microwave Imager (TMI). The mean rain rates over a two-year period (1998-1999) are calculated to be 3.0, 2.85, 2.94 mm/day for SSM/I onboard the DMSP F-13, F-14 and TMI, respectively. Assuming that the non-systematic errors for each sensor are independent, the errors are calculated to be 22.2%, 22.4% and 19.7% for F-13, F-14 and for TMI, respectively. The non-systematic error for the TMI is smaller than that for either F-13 or F-14 SSM/I at the low rain rates but is comparable at rain rates higher than about 5 mm/day. The TRMM objective of 1 mm/day for non-systematic error is met by TMI for rain rates up to 5-6 mm/day. For higher rain rates, the nonsystematic error is in the 15% range. The goal of a 10% error for high rain rates may be realized by a combination of sensor measurements from multiple satellites, such as that advocated by the Global Precipitation Mission (GPM).

Chiu, Long S.↗

NASA NTRS1997

Reduction of Maintenance Error Through Focused Interventions

It is well known that a significant proportion of aviation accidents and incidents are tied to human error. In flight operations, research of operational errors has shown that so-called "pilot error" often involves a variety of human factors issues and not a simple lack of individual technical skills. In aircraft maintenance operations, there is similar concern that maintenance errors which may lead to incidents and accidents are related to a large variety of human factors issues. Although maintenance error data and research are limited, industry initiatives involving human factors training in maintenance have become increasingly accepted as one type of maintenance error intervention. Conscientious efforts have been made in re-inventing the "team" concept for maintenance operations and in tailoring programs to fit the needs of technical operations. Nevertheless, there remains a dual challenge: to develop human factors interventions which are directly supported by reliable human error data, and to integrate human factors concepts into the procedures and practices of everyday technical tasks. In this paper, we describe several varieties of human factors interventions and focus on two specific alternatives which target problems related to procedures and practices; namely, 1) structured on-the-job training and 2) procedure re-design. We hope to demonstrate that the key to leveraging the impact of these solutions comes from focused interventions; that is, interventions which are derived from a clear understanding of specific maintenance errors, their operational context and human factors components.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

NASA NTRS1998

Errors in Aviation Decision Making: Bad Decisions or Bad Luck?

Despite efforts to design systems and procedures to support 'correct' and safe operations in aviation, errors in human judgment still occur and contribute to accidents. In this paper we examine how an NDM (naturalistic decision making) approach might help us to understand the role of decision processes in negative outcomes. Our strategy was to examine a collection of identified decision errors through the lens of an aviation decision process model and to search for common patterns. The second, and more difficult, task was to determine what might account for those patterns. The corpus we analyzed consisted of tactical decision errors identified by the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) from a set of accidents in which crew behavior contributed to the accident. A common pattern emerged: about three quarters of the errors represented plan-continuation errors, that is, a decision to continue with the original plan despite cues that suggested changing the course of action. Features in the context that might contribute to these errors were identified: (a) ambiguous dynamic conditions and (b) organizational and socially-induced goal conflicts. We hypothesize that 'errors' are mediated by underestimation of risk and failure to analyze the potential consequences of continuing with the initial plan. Stressors may further contribute to these effects. Suggestions for improving performance in these error-inducing contexts are discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS1997

Operational Interventions to Maintenance Error

A significant proportion of aviation accidents and incidents are known to be tied to human error. However, research of flight operational errors has shown that so-called pilot error often involves a variety of human factors issues and not a simple lack of individual technical skills. In aircraft maintenance operations, there is similar concern that maintenance errors which may lead to incidents and accidents are related to a large variety of human factors issues. Although maintenance error data and research are limited, industry initiatives involving human factors training in maintenance have become increasingly accepted as one type of maintenance error intervention. Conscientious efforts have been made in re-inventing the team7 concept for maintenance operations and in tailoring programs to fit the needs of technical opeRAtions. Nevertheless, there remains a dual challenge: 1) to develop human factors interventions which are directly supported by reliable human error data, and 2) to integrate human factors concepts into the procedures and practices of everyday technical tasks. In this paper, we describe several varieties of human factors interventions and focus on two specific alternatives which target problems related to procedures and practices; namely, 1) structured on-the-job training and 2) procedure re-design. We hope to demonstrate that the key to leveraging the impact of these solutions comes from focused interventions; that is, interventions which are derived from a clear understanding of specific maintenance errors, their operational context and human factors components.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Human Error: A Concept Analysis

Human error is the subject of research in almost every industry and profession of our times. This term is part of our daily language and intuitively understood by most people however, it would be premature to assume that everyone's understanding of human error s the same. For example, human error is used to describe the outcome or consequence of human action, the causal factor of an accident, deliberate violations,a nd the actual action taken by a human being. As a result, researchers rarely agree on the either a specific definition or how to prevent human error. The purpose of this article is to explore the specific concept of human error using Concept Analysis as described by Walker and Avant (1995). The concept of human error is examined as currently used in the literature of a variety of industries and professions. Defining attributes and examples of model, borderline, and contrary cases are described. The antecedents and consequences of human error are also discussed and a definition of human error is offered.

Hansen, Frederick D.↗

NASA NTRS2000

Low-dimensional Representation of Error Covariance

Ensemble and reduced-rank approaches to prediction and assimilation rely on low-dimensional approximations of the estimation error covariances. Here stability properties of the forecast/analysis cycle for linear, time-independent systems are used to identify factors that cause the steady-state analysis error covariance to admit a low-dimensional representation. A useful measure of forecast/analysis cycle stability is the bound matrix, a function of the dynamics, observation operator and assimilation method. Upper and lower estimates for the steady-state analysis error covariance matrix eigenvalues are derived from the bound matrix. The estimates generalize to time-dependent systems. If much of the steady-state analysis error variance is due to a few dominant modes, the leading eigenvectors of the bound matrix approximate those of the steady-state analysis error covariance matrix. The analytical results are illustrated in two numerical examples where the Kalman filter is carried to steady state. The first example uses the dynamics of a generalized advection equation exhibiting nonmodal transient growth. Failure to observe growing modes leads to increased steady-state analysis error variances. Leading eigenvectors of the steady-state analysis error covariance matrix are well approximated by leading eigenvectors of the bound matrix. The second example uses the dynamics of a damped baroclinic wave model. The leading eigenvectors of a lowest-order approximation of the bound matrix are shown to approximate well the leading eigenvectors of the steady-state analysis error covariance matrix.

Tippett, Michael K.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Estimation of Separation Buffers for Wind-Prediction Error in an Airborne Separation Assistance System

Wind prediction errors are known to affect the performance of automated air traffic management tools that rely on aircraft trajectory predictions. In particular, automated separation assurance tools, planned as part of the NextGen concept of operations, must be designed to account and compensate for the impact of wind prediction errors and other system uncertainties. In this paper we describe a high fidelity batch simulation study designed to estimate the separation distance required to compensate for the effects of wind-prediction errors throughout increasing traffic density on an airborne separation assistance system. These experimental runs are part of the Safety Performance of Airborne Separation experiment suite that examines the safety implications of prediction errors and system uncertainties on airborne separation assurance systems. In this experiment, wind-prediction errors were varied between zero and forty knots while traffic density was increased several times current traffic levels. In order to accurately measure the full unmitigated impact of wind-prediction errors, no uncertainty buffers were added to the separation minima. The goal of the study was to measure the impact of wind-prediction errors in order to estimate the additional separation buffers necessary to preserve separation and to provide a baseline for future analyses. Buffer estimations from this study will be used and verified in upcoming safety evaluation experiments under similar simulation conditions. Results suggest that the strategic airborne separation functions exercised in this experiment can sustain wind prediction errors up to 40kts at current day air traffic density with no additional separation distance buffer and at eight times the current day with no more than a 60% increase in separation distance buffer.

Consiglio, Maria C.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Error Cost Escalation Through the Project Life Cycle

It is well known that the costs to fix errors increase as the project matures, but how fast do those costs build? A study was performed to determine the relative cost of fixing errors discovered during various phases of a project life cycle. This study used three approaches to determine the relative costs: the bottom-up cost method, the total cost breakdown method, and the top-down hypothetical project method. The approaches and results described in this paper presume development of a hardware/software system having project characteristics similar to those used in the development of a large, complex spacecraft, a military aircraft, or a small communications satellite. The results show the degree to which costs escalate, as errors are discovered and fixed at later and later phases in the project life cycle. If the cost of fixing a requirements error discovered during the requirements phase is defined to be 1 unit, the cost to fix that error if found during the design phase increases to 3 - 8 units; at the manufacturing/build phase, the cost to fix the error is 7 - 16 units; at the integration and test phase, the cost to fix the error becomes 21 - 78 units; and at the operations phase, the cost to fix the requirements error ranged from 29 units to more than 1500 units

Stecklein, Jonette M.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Determination of Barometric Altimeter Errors for the Orion Exploration Flight Test-1 Entry

The Exploration Flight Test 1 (EFT-1) mission is the unmanned flight test for the upcoming Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). During entry, the EFT-1 vehicle will trigger several Landing and Recovery System (LRS) events, such as parachute deployment, based on on-board altitude information. The primary altitude source is the filtered navigation solution updated with GPS measurement data. The vehicle also has three barometric altimeters that will be used to measure atmospheric pressure during entry. In the event that GPS data is not available during entry, the altitude derived from the barometric altimeter pressure will be used to trigger chute deployment for the drogues and main parachutes. Therefore it is important to understand the impact of error sources on the pressure measured by the barometric altimeters and on the altitude derived from that pressure. The error sources for the barometric altimeters are not independent, and many error sources result in bias in a specific direction. Therefore conventional error budget methods could not be applied. Instead, high fidelity Monte-Carlo simulation was performed and error bounds were determined based on the results of this analysis. Aerodynamic errors were the largest single contributor to the error budget for the barometric altimeters. The large errors drove a change to the altitude trigger setpoint for FBC jettison deploy.

Brown, Denise L.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Covariance Analysis Tool (G-CAT) for Computing Ascent, Descent, and Landing Errors

G-CAT is a covariance analysis tool that enables fast and accurate computation of error ellipses for descent, landing, ascent, and rendezvous scenarios, and quantifies knowledge error contributions needed for error budgeting purposes. Because GCAT supports hardware/system trade studies in spacecraft and mission design, it is useful in both early and late mission/ proposal phases where Monte Carlo simulation capability is not mature, Monte Carlo simulation takes too long to run, and/or there is a need to perform multiple parametric system design trades that would require an unwieldy number of Monte Carlo runs. G-CAT is formulated as a variable-order square-root linearized Kalman filter (LKF), typically using over 120 filter states. An important property of G-CAT is that it is based on a 6-DOF (degrees of freedom) formulation that completely captures the combined effects of both attitude and translation errors on the propagated trajectories. This ensures its accuracy for guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) analysis. G-CAT provides the desired fast turnaround analysis needed for error budgeting in support of mission concept formulations, design trade studies, and proposal development efforts. The main usefulness of a covariance analysis tool such as G-CAT is its ability to calculate the performance envelope directly from a single run. This is in sharp contrast to running thousands of simulations to obtain similar information using Monte Carlo methods. It does this by propagating the "statistics" of the overall design, rather than simulating individual trajectories. G-CAT supports applications to lunar, planetary, and small body missions. It characterizes onboard knowledge propagation errors associated with inertial measurement unit (IMU) errors (gyro and accelerometer), gravity errors/dispersions (spherical harmonics, masscons), and radar errors (multiple altimeter beams, multiple Doppler velocimeter beams). G-CAT is a standalone MATLAB- based tool intended to run on any engineer's desktop computer.

Boussalis, Dhemetrios↗

NASA NTRS2014

Propagation of Radiosonde Pressure Sensor Errors to Ozonesonde Measurements

Several previous studies highlight pressure (or equivalently, pressure altitude) discrepancies between the radiosonde pressure sensor and that derived from a GPS flown with the radiosonde. The offsets vary during the ascent both in absolute and percent pressure differences. To investigate this problem further, a total of 731 radiosonde-ozonesonde launches from the Southern Hemisphere subtropics to Northern mid-latitudes are considered, with launches between 2005 - 2013 from both longer-term and campaign-based intensive stations. Five series of radiosondes from two manufacturers (International Met Systems: iMet, iMet-P, iMet-S, and Vaisala: RS80-15N and RS92-SGP) are analyzed to determine the magnitude of the pressure offset. Additionally, electrochemical concentration cell (ECC) ozonesondes from three manufacturers (Science Pump Corporation; SPC and ENSCI-Droplet Measurement Technologies; DMT) are analyzed to quantify the effects these offsets have on the calculation of ECC ozone (O3) mixing ratio profiles (O3MR) from the ozonesonde-measured partial pressure. Approximately half of all offsets are 0.6 hPa in the free troposphere, with nearly a third 1.0 hPa at 26 km, where the 1.0 hPa error represents 5 persent of the total atmospheric pressure. Pressure offsets have negligible effects on O3MR below 20 km (96 percent of launches lie within 5 percent O3MR error at 20 km). Ozone mixing ratio errors above 10 hPa (30 km), can approach greater than 10 percent ( 25 percent of launches that reach 30 km exceed this threshold). These errors cause disagreement between the integrated ozonesonde-only column O3 from the GPS and radiosonde pressure profile by an average of +6.5 DU. Comparisons of total column O3 between the GPS and radiosonde pressure profiles yield average differences of +1.1 DU when the O3 is integrated to burst with addition of the McPeters and Labow (2012) above-burst O3 column climatology. Total column differences are reduced to an average of -0.5 DU when the O3 profile is integrated to 10 hPa with subsequent addition of the O3 climatology above 10 hPa. The RS92 radiosondes are superior in performance compared to other radiosondes, with average 26 km errors of -0.12 hPa or +0.61 percent O3MR error. iMet-P radiosondes had average 26 km errors of -1.95 hPa or +8.75 percent O3MR error. Based on our analysis, we suggest that ozonesondes always be coupled with a GPS-enabled radiosonde and that pressure-dependent variables, such as O3MR, be recalculated-reprocessed using the GPS-measured altitude, especially when 26 km pressure offsets exceed 1.0 hPa 5 percent.

pressure measurements↗

NASA NTRS2013

Reducing Pointing Errors During Cassini Reaction Control System Orbit Trim Maneuvers

The effect of altering a gain parameter in the Cassini reaction control system (RCS) delta-V controller on the maneuver execution errors during orbit trim maneuvers (OTMs) is explored. Cassini consists of two reaction control thruster branches (A & B) each with eight thrusters. Currently, the B-branch is operational while the A-branch serves as a back-up. The four Z-thrusters control the X and Y-axes, while the four Y-thrusters control the Z-axis. During an OTM, the Z-thrusters fire to maintain the X and Y-axes pointing within an attitude control dead-zone (-10 to 10 milliradians). The errors do not remain at zero due to pointing error sources such as spacecraft center of mass offset from the geometric center of the Z-facing thrusters, and variability in the thruster forces due to the thruster hardware differences. The delta-V reaction control system (RCS) controller ensures that the attitude error remains within this dead-zone. Gain parameters within the RCS delta-V controller affect the maneuver execution errors. Different parameter values are used to explore effect on these errors. It is found that pointing error decreases and magnitude error increases rapidly for gain parameters 10 times greater than the current parameter values used in the flight software.

European Space Agency (ESA)↗

NASA NTRS2014

Data Analysis & Statistical Methods for Command File Errors

This paper explains current work on modeling for managing the risk of command file errors. It is focused on analyzing actual data from a JPL spaceflight mission to build models for evaluating and predicting error rates as a function of several key variables. We constructed a rich dataset by considering the number of errors, the number of files radiated, including the number commands and blocks in each file, as well as subjective estimates of workload and operational novelty. We have assessed these data using different curve fitting and distribution fitting techniques, such as multiple regression analysis, and maximum likelihood estimation to see how much of the variability in the error rates can be explained with these. We have also used goodness of fit testing strategies and principal component analysis to further assess our data. Finally, we constructed a model of expected error rates based on the what these statistics bore out as critical drivers to the error rate. This model allows project management to evaluate the error rate against a theoretically expected rate as well as anticipate future error rates.

Correlation Analysis↗

NASA NTRS2016

Effect of Vertical Rate Error on Recovery from Loss of Well Clear Between UAS and Non-Cooperative Intruders

When an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) encounters an intruder and is unable to maintain required temporal and spatial separation between the two vehicles, it is referred to as a loss of well-clear. In this state, the UAS must make its best attempt to regain separation while maximizing the minimum separation between itself and the intruder. When encountering a non-cooperative intruder (an aircraft operating under visual flight rules without ADS-B or an active transponder) the UAS must rely on the radar system to provide the intruders location, velocity, and heading information. As many UAS have limited climb and descent performance, vertical position andor vertical rate errors make it difficult to determine whether an intruder will pass above or below them. To account for that, there is a proposal by RTCA Special Committee 228 to prohibit guidance systems from providing vertical guidance to regain well-clear to UAS in an encounter with a non-cooperative intruder unless their radar system has vertical position error below 175 feet (95) and vertical velocity errors below 200 fpm (95). Two sets of fast-time parametric studies was conducted, each with 54000 pairwise encounters between a UAS and non-cooperative intruder to determine the suitability of offering vertical guidance to regain well clear to a UAS in the presence of radar sensor noise. The UAS was not allowed to maneuver until it received well-clear recovery guidance. The maximum severity of the loss of well-clear was logged and used as the primary indicator of the separation achieved by the UAS. One set of 54000 encounters allowed the UAS to maneuver either vertically or horizontally, while the second permitted horizontal maneuvers, only. Comparing the two data sets allowed researchers to see the effect of allowing vertical guidance to a UAS for a particular encounter and vertical rate error. Study results show there is a small reduction in the average severity of a loss of well-clear when vertical maneuvers are suppressed, for all vertical error rate thresholds examined. However, results also show that in roughly 35 of the encounters where a vertical maneuver was selected, forcing the UAS to do a horizontal maneuver instead increased the severity of the loss of well-clear for that encounter. Finally, results showed a small reduction in the number of severe losses of well-clear when the high performance UAS (2000 fpm climb and descent rate) was allowed to maneuver vertically, and the vertical rate error was below 500 fpm. Overall, the results show that using a single vertical rate threshold is not advisable, and that limiting a UAS to horizontal maneuvers when vertical rate errors are above 175 fpm can make a UAS less safe about a third of the time. It is suggested that the hard limit be removed, and system manufacturers instructed to account for their own UAS performance, as well as vertical rate error and encounter geometry, when determining whether or not to provide vertical guidance to regain well-clear.

detect and avoid↗

NASA NTRS2022

Using an Explainable Machine Learning Approach to Characterize Earth System Model Errors: Application of SHAP Analysis to Modeling Lightning Flash Occurrence

Computational models of the Earth System are critical tools for modern scientific inquiry. Effortstoward evaluating and improving errors in representations of physical and chemical processes inthese large computational systems are commonly stymied by highly nonlinear and complexerror behavior. Recent work has shown that these errors can be effectively predicted usingmodern Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) techniques. In this work, we go beyond these previousstudies to apply an interpretable A.I. technique to not only predict model errors but also movetoward understanding the underlying reasons for successful error prediction. We use XGBoostclassification trees and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis to explore the errors inthe prediction of lightning occurrence in the NASA GEOS model, a widely used Earth SystemModel. This explainable error prediction system can effectively predict the model error andindicates that the errors are strongly related to convective processes and the characteristics ofthe land surface.

Artificial intelligence↗