Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “HOC storage”

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.

40 records · Page 3

Efficient Implementation of an Optimal Interpolator for Large Spatial Data Sets

Scattered data interpolation is a problem of interest in numerous areas such as electronic imaging, smooth surface modeling, and computational geometry. Our motivation arises from applications in geology and mining, which often involve large scattered data sets and a demand for high accuracy. The method of choice is ordinary kriging. This is because it is a best unbiased estimator. Unfortunately, this interpolant is computationally very expensive to compute exactly. For n scattered data points, computing the value of a single interpolant involves solving a dense linear system of size roughly n x n. This is infeasible for large n. In practice, kriging is solved approximately by local approaches that are based on considering only a relatively small'number of points that lie close to the query point. There are many problems with this local approach, however. The first is that determining the proper neighborhood size is tricky, and is usually solved by ad hoc methods such as selecting a fixed number of nearest neighbors or all the points lying within a fixed radius. Such fixed neighborhood sizes may not work well for all query points, depending on local density of the point distribution. Local methods also suffer from the problem that the resulting interpolant is not continuous. Meyer showed that while kriging produces smooth continues surfaces, it has zero order continuity along its borders. Thus, at interface boundaries where the neighborhood changes, the interpolant behaves discontinuously. Therefore, it is important to consider and solve the global system for each interpolant. However, solving such large dense systems for each query point is impractical. Recently a more principled approach to approximating kriging has been proposed based on a technique called covariance tapering. The problems arise from the fact that the covariance functions that are used in kriging have global support. Our implementations combine, utilize, and enhance a number of different approaches that have been introduced in literature for solving large linear systems for interpolation of scattered data points. For very large systems, exact methods such as Gaussian elimination are impractical since they require 0(n(exp 3)) time and 0(n(exp 2)) storage. As Billings et al. suggested, we use an iterative approach. In particular, we use the SYMMLQ method, for solving the large but sparse ordinary kriging systems that result from tapering. The main technical issue that need to be overcome in our algorithmic solution is that the points' covariance matrix for kriging should be symmetric positive definite. The goal of tapering is to obtain a sparse approximate representation of the covariance matrix while maintaining its positive definiteness. Furrer et al. used tapering to obtain a sparse linear system of the form Ax = b, where A is the tapered symmetric positive definite covariance matrix. Thus, Cholesky factorization could be used to solve their linear systems. They implemented an efficient sparse Cholesky decomposition method. They also showed if these tapers are used for a limited class of covariance models, the solution of the system converges to the solution of the original system. Matrix A in the ordinary kriging system, while symmetric, is not positive definite. Thus, their approach is not applicable to the ordinary kriging system. Therefore, we use tapering only to obtain a sparse linear system. Then, we use SYMMLQ to solve the ordinary kriging system. We show that solving large kriging systems becomes practical via tapering and iterative methods, and results in lower estimation errors compared to traditional local approaches, and significant memory savings compared to the original global system. We also developed a more efficient variant of the sparse SYMMLQ method for large ordinary kriging systems. This approach adaptively finds the correct local neighborhood for each query point in the interpolation process.

Memarsadeghi, Nargess↗

Acquisition of and Access to Research Omics Data

Omics data are essential for understanding the myriad and complex effects of space environments on humans. To assure maximum benefit from these kinds of data, the NASA Human Research Program Data Management Plan stipulates that human omics data should be archived within and accessed through the NASA Life Sciences Portal (NLSP). The NLSP has the capability to acquire and provision access to omics (and other kinds of) research results for individual and ad-hoc groups of subjects at the direction of institutional review boards, or other authorizing bodies or individuals, per institutional, program and investigation-specific policies and procedures. However, because some single-subject omics data, like CT scans and other kinds of large, complex biomedical data, could be used to identify heretofore unknown risks to the subject’s health, or, in certain cases, be used to identify a subject, NASA Policy Directive 7170.1 describes various policies regarding the management of and access to “research genetic testing” data, which includes many kinds of omics data. For example, NPD 7170.1 prohibits access to human research genetic data by NASA personnel who make employment decisions for the subjects from whom the data were obtained. To meet the objective of acquiring research omics data for NLSP in compliance with the policies in NPD 7170.1 and other applicable NASA policies, we designed NOMADS (the NLSP Omics Multimodal Acquisition of Data System), a new component that supports the transfer of large research data files, including research genetic testing data, using one of several different transfer mechanisms. The choice of mechanism is made by the submitter of the data, with guiding information from the system, and is likely to often be determined in large part by the nature and source location of the data. For example, for small files where the source data files are not already stored in a cloud storage system, users are likely to prefer to transfer their data to the NLSP via a web browser. Conversely, for large sets of files already organized and stored in a cloud storage system, users may opt for NOMAD’s cloud-to-cloud transfer method. All omics datasets targeted for the NASA Life Sciences Data Archive must pass a variety of quality checks to ensure data integrity and adherence to the standards defined by the LSDA Data Submission Guidelines (DSG) (see https://nlsp.nasa.gov/explore/lsdahome/datasubmit). These include requirements that data are consistent with open standards established by the omics community. Non-compliant data will not be accepted however archivists are available to advise submitters on how to revise data submissions and re-submit until compliance is achieved. Following compliance with the LSDA DSG, omics data next undergo a variety of additional quality checks to ensure the data meet omics community standards. Domain specific Omics data quality control tools and techniques are continually evolving and linked to the advancements in omics assays utilized and thus, the tools and techniques utilized by the LSDA for data quality control and validation will need to be sustained accordingly. All human omics data will be access controlled according to the policies described above, and requiring IRB approval for any additional access grants once the data are acquired (including access for analysis using the NLSP workspace tools).

Omics↗

Acquisition of and Access to Research Omics Data

Omics data are essential for understanding the myriad and complex effects of space environments on humans. To assure maximum benefit from these kinds of data, the NASA Human Research Program Data Management Plan stipulates that human omics data should be archived within and accessed through the NASA Life Sciences Portal (NLSP). The NLSP has the capability to acquire and provision access to omics (and other kinds of) research results for individual and ad-hoc groups of subjects at the direction of institutional review boards, or other authorizing bodies or individuals, per institutional, program and investigation-specific policies and procedures. However, because some single-subject omics data, like CT scans and other kinds of large, complex biomedical data, could be used to identify heretofore unknown risks to the subject’s health, or, in certain cases, be used to identify a subject, NASA Policy Directive 7170.1 describes various policies regarding the management of and access to “research genetic testing” data, which includes many kinds of omics data. For example, NPD 7170.1 prohibits access to human research genetic data by NASA personnel who make employment decisions for the subjects from whom the data were obtained. To meet the objective of acquiring research omics data for NLSP in compliance with the policies in NPD 7170.1 and other applicable NASA policies, we designed NOMADS (the NLSP Omics Multimodal Acquisition of Data System), a new component that supports the transfer of large research data files, including research genetic testing data, using one of several different transfer mechanisms. The choice of mechanism is made by the submitter of the data, with guiding information from the system, and is likely to often be determined in large part by the nature and source location of the data. For example, for small files where the source data files are not already stored in a cloud storage system, users are likely to prefer to transfer their data to the NLSP via a web browser. Conversely, for large sets of files already organized and stored in a cloud storage system, users may opt for NOMAD’s cloud-to-cloud transfer method. All omics datasets targeted for the NASA Life Sciences Data Archive must pass a variety of quality checks to ensure data integrity and adherence to the standards defined by the LSDA Data Submission Guidelines (DSG) (see https://nlsp.nasa.gov/explore/lsdahome/datasubmit). These include requirements that data are consistent with open standards established by the omics community. Non-compliant data will not be accepted however archivists are available to advise submitters on how to revise data submissions and re-submit until compliance is achieved. Following compliance with the LSDA DSG, omics data next undergo a variety of additional quality checks to ensure the data meet omics community standards. Domain specific Omics data quality control tools and techniques are continually evolving and linked to the advancements in omics assays utilized and thus, the tools and techniques utilized by the LSDA for data quality control and validation will need to be sustained accordingly. All human omics data will be access controlled according to the policies described above, and requiring IRB approval for any additional access grants once the data are acquired (including access for analysis using the NLSP workspace tools).

Omics↗

From Apollo to the Future, the NASA Curation Model for Engaging the Sample Science Community Maximizes Science on Extraterrestrial Samples

The Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office at Johnson Space Center (JSC) has enjoyed a long-term partnership (50 years!) with a broad community of planetary sample scientists. This partnership has enabled the curators of planetary samples to plan for and enact evolving requirements for preservation of sample scientific integrity and for handling and long-term storage. The basis for this relationship is a standing peer review advisory committee composed of leading scientists who are recognized for achievements in sample analysis. The committee and its descendants have brought familiarity with the most relevant scientific investigations and the associated analytical and contamination challenges. Beginning with Apollo, the review committee was charged with oversight of curatorial operations and with ensuring fair access to samples. As additional samples from other planetary bodies were acquired, the committee evolved, taking on new responsibilities, reflected in committee name changes. However, oversight of curatorial operations and fair allocation of samples remain basic responsibilities. Committee recommendations are sent to the NASA Headquarters Discipline Scientist for approval. To minimize conflict of interest and maximize fair access, the rules governing the make-up of the committee is structured. Systematic rotation of leadership and staggered terms of membership allow the committee to retain expertise while bringing in fresh ideas. The first peer review committee was called the Lunar Sample Analysis and Planning Team (LSAPT) and was formalized in early 1968 with about 15 members. Their function was to review a) the equipment and procedures used in the new Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL); b) the proficiency and capability of the LRL staff; c) the sequence of sample analysis and allocation after quarantine release; and d) the findings of the Preliminary Examination Team (PET). According to LSAPT member Gerald Wasserburg, one of the first issues they faced was deciding whether to have most of the sample analyses performed in house at the LRL or to distribute samples to members of the scientific community. LSAPT concluded that the major scientific investigations should be carried out externally to the LRL by scientists chosen for their expertise in specific disciplines. Further they recommended that the PET's basic characterization of samples be circulated to the broad scientific community. LSAPT set its own agenda, paid attention to facility details, closely monitored the move of samples from the LRL to the interim curatorial facility in 1973, and was active in inspecting curation facilities. Between 1975 and 1979, a Facility Subcommittee of LSAPT oversaw the design and construction of a permanent facility for preservation of lunar samples. The result was an outstanding facility still in use today. In 1977, a separate peer review committee, the Meteorite Working Group (MWG), was formed to evaluate requests for new meteorites then being collected in Antarctica under what would in 1980 become a 3-agency agreement (National Science Foundation, NASA, Smithsonian Institution). By 1979, after lunar samples were moved into the new permanent facility, the vacated gloveboxes and laboratory were prepared for meteorite curation. Recognizing that LSAPT had been helpful in setting up the JSC curatorial facility for Antarctic meteorites, JSC recommended the review committee be given expanded duties, including advice on curation and analysis of materials from other planetary bodies and the name be changed to Lunar and Planetary Sample Team (LAPST). In 1993, LAPST was renamed the Curation and Analysis Planning Team for Extraterrestrial Materials (CAPTEM) to reflect additional functions. CAPTEM is chartered to be (1) a community-based, interdisciplinary forum for discussion and analysis of matters concerning the collection and curation of extraterrestrial samples, including planning future sample return missions and (2) a standing review panel, charged with evaluating proposals requesting allocation of all extraterrestrial samples contained in NASA collections. Efficiency and flexibility are gained through use of subcommittees, both ad hoc and standing. Transition of the MWG to a subcommittee of CAPTEM was completed in 2017. Today subcommittees review allocation requests for lunar samples, Antarctic meteorites, cosmic dust, Stardust cometary samples, Genesis solar wind samples, and samples returned from asteroids. Other subcommittees address facilities, informatics, and micro-cratered substrates. Planetary samples have been sent to research teams in over 30 countries world-wide. The expertise in the care and fair distribution of astromaterials by NASA using this model spans generations of planetary sample scientists and is a valuable resource to be tapped for future sample returns - OSIRIS-REx, Hayabusa 2, and Mars 2020.

Allton, Judith↗