Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “lidar 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.

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

478 records · Page 27
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

CCN data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.5 LPM is directed to the CCN. To calculate particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate particle loss through the inlet during sampling. Second, the corrected SMPS data was used to calculate the average of the total losses per scan down the CCN line. Then, the correction was applied to the CCN data. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. The supersaturation uncertainty is estimated conservatively at +/- 0.03%, where variation in the inlet temperature, pressure, and calibration technique prevents a more accurate measurement. Confidence in the reported supersaturation measurements is based on a pre-campaign calibration (following the methods from our previous work and Deng, 2014 based on Rose, 2008) in addition to inter-comparisons with the DOE for two days (22/08/18 and 22/09/01) where TAMU was co-located with AMF1. The inter-comparisons show good agreement between our instrument and the DOEs instrument on both days at all supersaturations. After the last inter-comparison on 22/09/01, there was no indication of a malfunction by our instrument through the rest of the campaign. Unfortunately, the instrument was dropped during demobilization. A post-campaign calibration was conducted, which showed a substantial departure from the pre-campaign calibration. The drop may have damaged the instrument’s ability to produce the desired supersaturations. Therefore, we do consider the data after 22/09/01 to be correct, but it should be used with caution. The CCN counter sampled for 3 minutes at each supersaturation setpoint (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%). At the end of a cycle, the instrument was set to 0.01% supersaturation for 5 minutes. The data is comprised of the last 60 seconds of each supersaturation set point (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%) to ensure the instrument stabilized and was able to reach thermal equilibrium. We removed the data during the periods where there were operational difficulties, setup, or maintenance. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Rose et. al. Calibration and Measurement Uncertainties of a Continuous-Flow Cloud Condensation Nuclei Counter (DMT-CCNC): CCN Activation of Ammonium Sulfate and Sodium Chloride Aerosol Particles in Theory and Experiment. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 1153-1179, 2008. Deng et. al. Using Raman Microspectroscopy to Determine Chemical Composition and Mixing State of Airborne Marine Aerosols over the Pacific Ocean. Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol 48, Issue 2, 2014. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Clarifying remotely-retrieved precipitation of shallow marine clouds from the NSF/NCAR Gulfstream V

Precipitation is a key process within the shallow cloud lifecycle. The Cloud System Evolution in the Trades (CSET) campaign included the first deployment of a 94 GHz Doppler radar and 532 nm lidar. Despite a larger sampling volume, initial mean radar/lidar retrieved rain rates (Schwartz et al. 2019) based on the upward-pointing remote sensor datasets are systematically less than those measured by in-situ precipitation probes in the cumulus regime. Subsequent retrieval improvements produce rainrates that compare better to in-situ values, but still underestimate. Retrieved shallow cumulus drop sizes can remain too small and too few, with an overestimated shape parameter narrowing the raindrop size distribution too much. Three potential causes for the discrepancy are explored: the gamma functional fit to the dropsize distribution, attenuation by rain and cloud water, and an underaccounting of Mie dampening of the reflectivity. A truncated exponential fit may represent the dropsizes below a showering cumulus cloud more realistically, although further work would be needed to fully evaluate the impact of a different dropsize representation upon the retrieval. The rain attenuation is within the measurement uncertainty of the radar. Mie dampening of the reflectivity is shown to be significant, in contrast to previous stratocumulus campaigns with lighter rain rates, and may be difficult to constrain well with the remote measurements. An alternative approach combines an a priori determination of the dropsize distribution width based on the in-situ data with the mean radar Doppler velocity and reflectivity. This can produce realistic retrievals, although a more comprehensive assessment is needed to better characterize the retrieval errors.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2003

Investigation of Overlap Correction Techniques for Application in the Micro-Pulse Lidar Network (MPLNET)

The Micro-Pulse Lidar NETwork (MPLNET) is comprised of micro-pulse lidars (MPL) stationed around the globe to provide measurements of aerosol and cloud vertical distribution on a continuous basis. MPLNET sites are co-located with sunphotometers in the AErosol Robotic NETwork (AERONET) to provide joint measurements of aerosol optical depth, size, and other inherent optical properties. The IPCC 2001 report discusses . the importance of obtaining routine measurements of aerosol vertical structure, especially for absorbing aerosols. MPLNET provides exactly this sort of measurement, including calculation of aerosol extinction profiles, in a near real-time basis for all sites in the network. In order to obtain aerosol profiles, near range signal returns (0-6 km) must be accurately measured by the MPL. This measurement is complicated by the instrument s overlap range: Le., the minimum distance at which returning signals are completely in the instrument s field-of-view (FOV). Typical MPL overlap distances are large, between 5 - 6 km, due to the narrow FOV of the MPL receiver. A function describing the MPL overlap must be determined and used to correct signals in this range. Currently, overlap functions for MPLNET are determined using horizontal MPL measurements along a path with 10-1 5 km clear line-of-sight and a homogenous atmosphere. These conditions limit the location and ease in which successful overlaps can be obtained. Furthermore, the current MPLNET process of correcting for overlap increases the uncertainty and bias error for the near range signals and the resulting aerosol extinction profiles. To address these issues, an alternative overlap correction method using a small-diameter, wide FOV receiver is being considered for potential use in MPLNET. The wide FOV receiver has a much shorter overlap distance and will be used to calculate the overlap function of the MPL receiver. This approach has a significant benefit in that overlap corrections could be obtained without the need for horizontal measurements. A review of both overlap methods is presented, including a discussion of the impact on reducing the uncertainty and bias error in MPLNET aerosol profiles.

Berkoff, Timothy A.↗
NASA NTRS1999

The Geoscience Laser Altimeter System (GLAS) for the ICESAT Mission

Accurate measurements of surface heights and atmospheric backscatter have been demonstrated with the SLA, MOLA and LITE space lidar. Recent MOLA measurements of the Mars surface have 40 cm resolution and have reduced the global uncertainty in Mars topography from a few km to approx. 10 m. GLAS is a next generation lidar being developed as part of NASA's Icesat Mission for Earth orbit . The GLAS design combines a 10 cm precision surface lidar with a sensitive dual wavelength cloud and aerosol lidar. GLAS will precisely measure the heights of the Earth's polar ice sheets, determine the height profiles of the Earth's land topography, and profile the vertical backscatter of clouds and aerosols on a global scale. GLAS will fly on a small dedicated spacecraft in a polar orbit at 598 km altitude with an inclination of 94 degrees. GLAS is scheduled to launch in summer 2001 and to operate continuously for a minimum of 3 years with a goal of 5 years. The primary mission for GLAS is to measure the seasonal and annual changes in the heights of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. GLAS will measure the vertical distance to the ice sheet from orbit with 1064 nm pulses from a Nd:Yag laser at 40 Hz. Each 5 nsec wide laser pulse is used for a single range measurement. When over land GLAS will profile the heights of the topography and vegetation. The GLAS receiver uses a I m diameter telescope and a Si APD detector. The detector signal is sampled by an all digital receiver which records each surface echo waveform with I nsec resolution and a stored echo record lengths of either 200, 400, or 600 samples. Analysis of the echo waveforms within the instrument permits discrimination between cloud and surface echoes. Ground based echo analysis permits precise ranging, determining the roughness or slopes of the surface as well as the vertical distributions of vegetation illuminated by the laser, Errors in knowledge of the laser beam pointing angle can bias height measurements of sloped surfaces. For surfaces with 2 deg. slopes, knowledge of pointing angle of the beam centroid to about 8 urad is required to achieve 10 cm height accuracy. GLAS uses a stellar reference system (SRS) to determine the pointing angle of each laser firing relative to inertial space. The SRS uses a high precision star camera oriented toward local zenith whose measurements are combined with a gyroscope to determine the inertial orientation of the SRS optical bench. The far field pattern of each laser pulse is measured with a laser reference system (LRS). Optically measuring each laser far field pattern relative to the star camera and gyroscope permits the angular offsets of each laser pulse to be determined. GLAS will also determine the vertical distributions of clouds and aerosols by measuring atmospheric backscatter profiles at both 1064 and 532 nm. The 1064 nm measurements use an analog detector and profile the height and vertical structure of thicker clouds. Measurements at 532 nm use new highly sensitive photon counting detectors, and measure the height distributions of very thin clouds and aerosol layers. With averaging these can be used to determine the height of the planetary boundary layer. The instrument design and expected performance will be discussed.

Abshire, James B.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Remote Sensing of Aerosol and their Radiative Forcing of Climate

Remote sensing of aerosol and aerosol radiative forcing of climate is going through a major transformation. The launch in next few years of new satellites designed specifically for remote sensing of aerosol is expected to further revolutionized aerosol measurements: until five years ago satellites were not designed for remote sensing of aerosol. Aerosol optical thickness was derived as a by product, only over the oceans using one AVHRR channel with errors of approx. 50%. However it already revealed a very important first global picture of the distribution and sources of aerosol. In the last 5 years we saw the introduction of polarization and multi-view observations (POLDER and ATSR) for satellite remote sensing of aerosol over land and ocean. Better products are derived from AVHRR using its two channels. The new TOMS aerosol index shows the location and transport of aerosol over land and ocean. Now we anticipate the launch of EOS-Terra with MODIS, MISR and CERES on board for multi-view, multi-spectral remote sensing of aerosol and its radiative forcing. This will allow application of new techniques, e.g. using a wide spectral range (0.55-2.2 microns) to derive precise optical thickness, particle size and mass loading. Aerosol is transparent in the 2.2 microns channel, therefore this channel can be used to detect surface features that in turn are used to derive the aerosol optical thickness in the visible part of the spectrum. New techniques are developed to derive the aerosol single scattering albedo, a measure of absorption of sunlight, and techniques to derive directly the aerosol forcing at the top of the atmosphere. In the last 5 years a global network of sun/sky radiometers was formed, designed to communicate in real time the spectral optical thickness from 50-80 locations every day, every 15 minutes. The sky angular and spectral information is also measured and used to retrieve the aerosol size distribution, refractive index, single scattering albedo and the spectral flux reaching the surface. Effort to introduce remote sensing from lidars will literally additional dimension to aerosol remote sensing. The vertical dimension is a critical link between the global satellite observations and modeling of aerosol transport. Lidars are also critical to study aerosol impact on cloud microphysics and reflectance. Both lidar ground networks and satellite systems are in development. This new capability is expected to put remote sensing in the forefront of aerosol and climate studies. Together with field experiments, chemical analysis and chemical transport models we anticipate, in the next decade, to be able to resolve some of the outstanding questions regarding the role of aerosol in climate, in atmospheric chemistry and its influence on human health and life on this planet.

Kaufman, Yoram J.↗
NASA NTRS2022

Lunar Rover Localization Using Craters as Landmarks

Onboard localization capabilities for planetary rovers to date have used relative navigation, by integrating combinations of wheel odometry, visual odometry, and inertial measurements during each drive to track position relative to the start of each drive. At the end of each drive, a “ground-in-the-loop” (GITL) interaction is used to get a position update from human operators in a more global reference frame, such as a map frame defined by orbital reconnaissance imaging of a large region around the rover’s current position. For Mars rovers, this typically has involved downlinking imagery from the rover mast cameras and using interactive visualization tools on Earth to register such images to the orbital reconnaissance images. For safety purposes, rover mission operations typically specify “keep out zones”, which human operators recognize as being unsafe in the orbital images. Autonomous rover drives are limited in distance so that accumulated relative navigation error does not risk the possibility of the rover driving into a keep out zone. The allowable autonomous drive distance in this mode of operation depends on the distribution of keep out zones and the accuracy of relative navigation; in practice, drive limits of a few hundred meters between GITL cycles are to be expected. Several rover mission concepts have recently been studied that require much longer drives between GITL cycles, particularly for the Moon. This includes lunar rover mission concepts that involve (1) driving mostly in sunlight at low latitudes, (2) driving in permanently shadowed regions near the south pole, and (3) a mixture of day and night driving in mid-latitudes. These concepts include total traverse distance requirements of up to 1,800 km in 4 Earth years, with individual drives of several kilometers between stops for downlink. These concepts require greater autonomy to minimize GITL cycles to enable such large range; onboard global localization is a key element of such autonomy. Multiple techniques have been studied in the past for onboard rover global localization, including radio navigation aiding from an orbiter, recognizing horizon landmarks that are known in a regional elevation map, and correlating a local elevation map created onboard the rover with a regional elevation map. These techniques all have drawbacks, including requiring an expensive extra mission element (navigation orbiter), unavailability of sufficient regional elevation map data, or limited accuracy in resulting position estimates (e.g. a few hundred meters with horizon landmarks). For the Moon, the ubiquitous craters offer another possibility, which involves mapping craters from orbit, then recognizing crater landmarks with cameras and/or a lidar onboard the rover. This approach is applicable everywhere on the Moon, does not require high resolution stereo imaging from orbit as some other approaches do, and has potential to enable position knowledge with order of 10 m accuracy at all times. This paper will provide more detail on our technical approach to crater-based lunar rover localization and will present initial results on crater detection using 3-D point cloud data from onboard lidar or stereo cameras and using shading cues in monocular onboard imagery.

Ono, M.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Non Radiation Hardened Microprocessors in Spaced Based Remote Sensing Systems

The CALIPSO (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations) mission is a comprehensive suite of active and passive sensors including a 20Hz 230mj Nd:YAG lidar, a visible wavelength Earth-looking camera and an imaging infrared radiometer. CALIPSO flies in formation with the Earth Observing System Post-Meridian (EOS PM) train, provides continuous, near-simultaneous measurements and is a planned 3 year mission. CALIPSO was launched into a 98 degree sun synchronous Earth orbit in April of 2006 to study clouds and aerosols and acquires over 5 gigabytes of data every 24 hours. The ground track of one CALIPSO orbit as well as high and low intensity South Atlantic Anomaly outlines is shown. CALIPSO passes through the SAA several times each day. Spaced based remote sensing systems that include multiple instruments and/or instruments such as lidar generate large volumes of data and require robust real-time hardware and software mechanisms and high throughput processors. Due to onboard storage restrictions and telemetry downlink limitations these systems must pre-process and reduce the data before sending it to the ground. This onboard processing and realtime requirement load may mean that newer more powerful processors are needed even though acceptable radiation-hardened versions have not yet been released. CALIPSO's single board computer payload controller processor is actually a set of four (4) voting non-radiation hardened COTS Power PC 603r's built on a single width VME card by General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems (GDAIS). Significant radiation concerns for CALIPSO and other Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites include the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA), the north and south poles and strong solar events. Over much of South America and extending into the South Atlantic Ocean the Van Allen radiation belts dip to just 200-800km and spacecraft entering this area are subjected to high energy protons and experience higher than normal Single Event Upset (SEU) and Single Event Latch-up (SEL) rates. Although less significant, spacecraft flying in the area around the poles experience similar upsets. Finally, powerful solar proton events in the range of 10MeV/10pfu to 100MeV/1pfu as are forecasted and tracked by NOAA's Space Environment Center in Colorado can result in Single Event Upset (SEU), Single Event Latch-up (SEL) and permanent failures such as Single Event Gate Rupture (SEGR) in some technologies. (Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) are another source, especially for gate rupture) CALIPSO mitigates common radiation concerns in its data handling through the use of redundant processors, radiation-hardened Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASIC), hardware-based Error Detection and Correction (EDAC), processor and memory scrubbing, redundant boot code and mirrored files. After presenting a system overview this paper will expand on each of these strategies. Where applicable, related on-orbit data collected since the CALIPSO initial boot on May 4, 2006 will be noted.

Decoursey, Robert J.↗
NASA NTRS2024

High Spectral Resolution Lidar – Generation 2 (HSRL-2) Retrievals of Ocean Surface Wind Speed: Methodology and Evaluation

Ocean surface wind speed (i.e., wind speed 10 m above sea level) is a critical parameter used by atmospheric models to estimate the state of the marine atmospheric boundary layer (MABL). Accurate surface wind speed measurements in diverse locations are required to improve characterization of MABL dynamics and assess how models simulate large-scale phenomena related to climate change and global weather patterns. To provide these measurements, this study introduces and evaluates a new surface wind speed data product from the NASA Langley Research Center nadir-viewing High Spectral Resolution Lidar – generation 2 (HSRL-2) using data collected as part of the NASA Aerosol Cloud meTeorology Interactions oVer the western ATlantic Experiment (ACTIVATE) mission. The HSRL-2 can directly measure vertically resolved aerosol backscatter and extinction profiles without additional constraints or assumptions, enabling the instrument to accurately derive atmospheric attenuation and directly determine surface reflectance (i.e., surface backscatter). Also, the high horizontal spatial resolution of the HSRL-2 retrievals (0.5 s or ∼ 75 m along track) allows the instrument to probe the fine-scale spatial variability in surface wind speeds over time along the flight track and over breaks in broken cloud fields. A rigorous evaluation of these retrievals is performed by comparing coincident HSRL-2 and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Airborne Vertical Atmosphere Profiling System (AVAPS) dropsonde data, owing to the joint deployment of these two instruments on the ACTIVATE King Air aircraft. These comparisons show correlations of 0.89, slopes of 1.04 and 1.17, and y intercepts of −0.13 and −1.05 m s−1 for linear and bisector regressions, respectively, and the overall accuracy is calculated to be 0.15 ± 1.80 m s−1. It is also shown that the dropsonde surface wind speed data most closely follow the HSRL-2 distribution of wave slope variance using the distribution proposed by Hu et al. (2008) rather than the ones proposed by Cox and Munk (1954) and Wu (1990) for surface wind speeds below 7 m s−1, with this category comprising most of the ACTIVATE data set. The retrievals are then evaluated separately for surface wind speeds below 7 m s−1 and between 7 and 13.3 m s−1 and show that the HSRL-2 retrieves surface wind speeds with a bias of ∼ 0.5 m s−1 and an error of ∼ 1.5 m s−1, a finding not apparent in the cumulative comparisons. Also, it is shown that the HSRL-2 retrievals are more accurate in the summer (−0.18 ± 1.52 m s−1) than in the winter (0.63 ± 2.07 m s−1), but the HSRL-2 is still able to make numerous (N=236) accurate retrievals in the winter. Overall, this study highlights the abilities and assesses the performance of the HSRL-2 surface wind speed retrievals, and it is hoped that further evaluation of these retrievals will be performed using other airborne and satellite data sets.

Sanja Dmitrovic↗
NASA NTRS2006

A Climatology of Midlatitude Continental Clouds from the ARM SGP Site: Cloud Fraction and Surface Radiative Forcing - Part II

Data collected at the Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Southern Great Plains (SGP) Central Facility (SCF) are analyzed to determine the monthly and hourly variations of cloud fraction and radiative forcing between January 1997 and December 2002. Cloud fractions are estimated for total cloud cover and for single-layered low (0-3 km), middle (3-6 km), and high clouds (more than 6 km) using ARM SCG ground-based paired lidar-radar measurements. Shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) fluxes are derived from up- and down-looking standard precision spectral pyranometers and precision infrared radiometer measurements with uncertainties of approximately 10 Wm(exp -2). The annual averages of total, and single-layered low, middle and high cloud fractions are 0.49, 0.11, 0.03, and 0.17, respectively. Both total and low cloud amounts peak during January and February and reach a minimum during July and August, high clouds occur more frequently than other types of clouds with a peak in summer. The average annual downwelling surface SW fluxes for total and low clouds (151 and 138 Wm(exp-2), respectively) are less than those under middle and high clouds (188 and 201 Wm(exp -2), respectively), but the downwelling LW fluxes (349 and 356 Wm(exp -2)) underneath total and low clouds are greater than those from middle and high clouds (337 and 333 Wm(exp -2)). Low clouds produce the largest LW warming (55 Wm(exp -2) and SW cooling (-91 Wm(exp -2)) effects with maximum and minimum absolute values in spring and summer, respectively. High clouds have the smallest LW warming (17 Wm(exp -2)) and SW cooling (-37 Wm(exp -2)) effects at the surface. All-sky SW CRF decreases and LW CRF increases with increasing cloud fraction with mean slopes of -0.984 and 0.616 Wm(exp -2)%(exp -1), respectively. Over the entire diurnal cycle, clouds deplete the amount of surface insolation more than they add to the downwelling LW flux. The calculated CRFs do not appear to be significantly affected by uncertainties in data sampling and clear-sky screening. Traditionally, cloud radiative forcing includes, not only the radiative impact of the hydrometeors, but also the changes in the environment. Taken together over the ARM SCF, changes in humidity and surface albedo between clear and cloudy conditions offset approximately 20% of the NET radiative forcing caused by the cloud hydrometeors alone. Variations in water vapor, on average, account for 10% and 83% of the SW and LW CRFs, respectively, in total cloud cover conditions. The error analysis further reveals that the cloud hydrometeors dominate the SW CRF, while water vapor changes are most important for LW flux changes in cloudy skies. Similar studies over other locales are encouraged where water and surface albedo changes from clear to cloudy conditions may be much different than observed over the ARM SCF.

Xi, B.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Autonomous System Subversion Tactics: Prototypes and Recommended Countermeasures

One of the fielding requirements for Advanced and Small Modular Reactors (AR/SMR) is the ability to support remote and autonomous operations. Autonomous Control Systems (ACS) are found on platforms such as Autonomous Space Vehicles, Cruise Missiles, and advanced driver-assistance systems. Each of these ACS implementations depends upon a set of decision support subsystems responsible for supporting Autonomous Mission Managers (names vary based upon field and author preferences). These Autonomous Mission Managers receive inputs from system sensors (e.g., LIDAR collection from an automobile travelling down a street; transients from a nuclear reactor), and perform a set of classifications (e.g., Red Traffic Light; Small Pedestrian at 10m; Load Rejection; Single Coolant Pump Trip), and then use these classifications in combination with recommendation algorithms to achieve platform goals (e.g., Stop the Vehicle at the Traffic Light, Avoid the Small Pedestrian; Trip the Reactor to prevent a Safety Event). The design, implementation, and fielding of an ACS capability will alter the cyber-attack surface such that existing risk management plans will need to be updated to include how to protect and defend against data-science and decision-support-system attack classes. These attack classes would include protection of the design and training environments where algorithm selection and testing and training data would be obvious attack vectors. These attack classes would also require an informed set of detection and response procedures to identify anomalous behaviors and document best practices for anomaly assessment and vulnerability mitigation and remediation. Last year we published a Cyber Threat Assessment Methodology for Autonomous and Remote Operations for AR/SMRs along with a companion publication on Cyber Attack and Defense Use Cases. The focus of the methodology was on describing and enumerating ACS processes, components, and functions such that security engineers could: evaluate subversion options against the target; identify threat actor attributes and capabilities derived from each subversion option; and identify security controls and response countermeasures. The Use Cases document offered detailed methodology examples including an assessment of a Military Base SMR, an Autonomous System Decision Loop, and implementation of AR/SMR Machine Learning algorithms. Our proposal at the end of last year was to focus on implementation of subversion prototypes related to the last Use Case area: AR/SMR Machine Learning (ML) Algorithms. We included six attack scenarios in our Use Cases paper: a Poisoning Attack against ML functions implemented using an FPGA; a Trojaning Attack against ML classifiers exploiting the excitability of Nuclear Engineers; a Backdooring Attack against ML Training environments to ensure persistence of an attack vector; a False Positive Evasion Attack against multi-factor Access Control Systems using clever inputs; an Inference Attack against ML models by an Insider with access to the Operational environment; and an Adversarial Reprogramming Attack against a Material Access Control Video Surveillance System. At the beginning of this year these six attack scenarios were provided to our research teams at Georgia Tech and Idaho State University and each team successfully implemented a subversion attack against a ML implementation to include transient misclassifications. While this is a notable outcome from this type of research, this paper offers the reader insight into not only how to structure and execute these types of attacks, but into the thought process behind how the researcher investigated the problem space, performed initial algorithm implementation, and the trial-and-error behind arriving at the successful subversion prototypes. We include in this paper a set of associated Scenarios on how these subversion prototypes could be implemented and an initial set of guidance for AR/SMR architects, Nuclear Regulators, and Cyber Defenders to implement awareness and defense capabilities into their current operational portfolios.

42 ENGINEERING↗