SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Unmanned Aircraft”
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.
Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (CUAS) Security Performance Metrics and Requirements.
Abstract not provided.
Process to Down-Select a Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System for Testing and Evaluation.
Abstract not provided.
An Uncertainty Quantification Framework for Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems Using Deep Ensembles.
Abstract not provided.
Paper #20: Systems and Implementation: Integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems into Physical Protection Systems at Fixed Sites and During Transportation.
Abstract not provided.
Paper #51: Multiple-Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems for Improved Physical Security, Source Recovery, and Emergency Response.
Abstract not provided.
Inspection and Mapping of Savannah River Site (SRS) Waste Tanks via Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) – 25351
The CSTF at SRS contain 51 waste tanks with 8 closed waste tanks between FTF and HTF. SRMC is the LW contractor. The LW mission includes removing legacy nuclear waste from these tanks and treating it for final disposition. Once the bulk of the waste has been removed from a tank, it will undergo inspection and sampling to characterize the remaining waste in the tank prior to it being operationally closed. There are multiple points in the tank closure process where an inspection is performed, and there are multiple parts of a tank that get inspected. Waste tanks have a primary containment vessel (referred to as the “Primary”) and a secondary containment vessel (referred to as the “Annulus”) that surrounds the primary. Both of these sections of a tank receive multiple inspections throughout the closure process.
Evaluation of ARM tethered-balloon system instrumentation for supercooled liquid water and distributed temperature sensing in mixed-phase Arctic clouds
A tethered-balloon system (TBS) has been developed and is being operated by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) User Facility in order to collect in situ atmospheric measurements within mixed-phase Arctic clouds. Periodic tethered-balloon flights have been conducted since 2015 within restricted airspace at ARM's Advanced Mobile Facility 3 (AMF3) in Oliktok Point, Alaska, as part of the AALCO (Aerial Assessment of Liquid in Clouds at Oliktok), ERASMUS (Evaluation of Routine Atmospheric Sounding Measurements using Unmanned Systems), and POPEYE (Profiling at Oliktok Point to Enhance YOPP Experiments) field campaigns. The tethered-balloon system uses helium-filled 34 m 3 helikites and 79 and 104 m 3 aerostats to suspend instrumentation that is used to measure aerosol particle size distributions, temperature, horizontal wind, pressure, relative humidity, turbulence, and cloud particle properties and to calibrate ground-based remote sensing instruments. Supercooled liquid water content (SLWC) sondes using the vibrating-wire principle, developed by Anasphere Inc., were operated at Oliktok Point at multiple altitudes on the TBS within mixed-hase clouds for over 200 h. Sonde-collected SLWC data were compared with liquid water content derived from a microwave radiometer, Ka-band ARM zenith radar, and ceilometer at the AMF3, as well as liquid water content derived from AMF3 radiosonde flights. The in situ data collected by the Anasphere sensors were also compared with data collected simultaneously by an alternative SLWC sensor developed at the University of Reading, UK; both vibrating-wire instruments were typically observed to shed their ice quickly upon exiting the cloud or reaching maximum ice loading. Temperature sensing measurements distributed with fiber optic tethered balloons were also compared with AMF3 radiosonde temperature measurements. Combined, the results indicate that TBS-distributed temperature sensing and supercooled liquid water measurements are in reasonably good agreement with remote sensing and radiosonde-based measurements of both properties. From these measurements and sensor evaluations, tethered-balloon flights are shown to offer an effective method of collecting data to inform and constrain numerical models, calibrate and validate remote sensing instruments, and characterize the flight environment of unmanned aircraft, circumventing the difficulties of in-cloud unmanned aircraft flights such as limited flight time and in-flight icing.
Measurements from mobile surface vehicles during the Lower Atmospheric Profiling Studies at Elevation – a Remotely-piloted Aircraft Team Experiment (LAPSE-RATE)
Abstract. Between 14 and 20 July 2018, small unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) were deployed to the San Luis Valley of Colorado (USA) alongside surface-based remote sensors, in situ sensors, and radiosonde systems as part of the Lower Atmospheric Profiling Studies at Elevation – a Remotely-piloted Aircraft Team Experiment (LAPSE-RATE). The measurements collected as part of LAPSE-RATE targeted quantities related to enhancing our understanding of boundary layer structure, cloud and aerosol properties and surface–atmosphere exchange and provide detailed information to support model evaluation and improvement work. Additionally, intensive intercomparison between the different unmanned aircraft platforms was completed. The current paper describes the observations obtained using three different types of surface-based mobile observing vehicles. These included the University of Colorado Mobile UAS Research Collaboratory (MURC), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Severe Storms Laboratory Mobile Mesonet, and two University of Nebraska Combined Mesonet and Tracker (CoMeT) vehicles. Over the 1-week campaign, a total of 143 h of data were collected using this combination of vehicles. The data from these coordinated activities provide detailed perspectives on the spatial variability of atmospheric state parameters (air temperature, humidity, pressure, and wind) throughout the northern half of the San Luis Valley. These datasets have been checked for quality and published to the Zenodo data archive under a specific “community” setup for LAPSE-RATE (https://zenodo.org/communities/lapse-rate/, last access: 21 January 2021) and are accessible at no cost by all registered users. The primary dataset DOIs are https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3814765 (CU MURC measurements; de Boer et al., 2020d), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3738175 (NSSL MM measurements; Waugh, 2020), and https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3838724 (UNL CoMeT measurements; Houston and Erwin, 2020).
Data generated during the 2018 LAPSE-RATE campaign: an introduction and overview
Unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) offer innovative capabilities for providing new perspectives on the atmosphere, and therefore atmospheric scientists are rapidly expanding their use, particularly for studying the planetary boundary layer. In support of this expansion, from 14 to 20 July 2018 the International Society for Atmospheric Research using Remotely piloted Aircraft (ISARRA) hosted a community flight week, dubbed the Lower Atmospheric Profiling Studies at Elevation – a Remotely-piloted Aircraft Team Experiment (LAPSE-RATE; de Boer et al., 2020a). This field campaign spanned a 1-week deployment to Colorado's San Luis Valley, involving over 100 students, scientists, engineers, pilots, and outreach coordinators. These groups conducted intensive field operations using unmanned aircraft and ground-based assets to develop comprehensive datasets spanning a variety of scientific objectives, including a total of nearly 1300 research flights totaling over 250 flight hours. This article introduces this campaign and lays the groundwork for a special issue on the LAPSE-RATE project. The remainder of the special issue provides detailed overviews of the datasets collected and the platforms used to collect them. All of the datasets covered by this special issue have been uploaded to a LAPSE-RATE community set up at the Zenodo data archive (https://zenodo.org/communities/lapse-rate/, last access: 3 December 2020).
Operational Uncrewed Aircraft Systems Development for Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics Field Campaign Report
The overarching goal of the project is to develop integrated small, unmanned aircraft systems (SUAS) capabilities for enhanced atmospheric physics measurements. This team included atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, engineers, computer scientists, geographers, and chemists necessary to evaluate the needs and develop the advanced sensing and imaging, robust autonomous navigation, enhanced data communication, and data management capabilities required to use SUAS in atmospheric physics. The flight campaigns at the Southern Great Plains (SGP) U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) observatory were an integrated evaluation of the systems in coordinated field tests. This enabled sensor testing, and validation of SUAS technology and integration of unmanned aircraft into the airspace. The set of experiments enabled evaluation and progression of remote UAS deployment operations with observing atmospheric sensors. Each flight test endeavor was notable for the significant lessons learned during every deployment event. Team size and roles, equipment use, aircraft instruments, meteorological instruments, and deployment logistics, were all evaluated and improved at every flight-testing day. The details of these are further discussed in the Results section.
UAS Activity Profile Survey
Commercial vendors, trying to tap into the physical protection of critical infrastructure, are offering nuclear facilities the opportunity to borrow detection counter-unmanned aircraft systems (CUAS) equipment to survey the airspace over and around the facility. However, using one vendor or method of detection (e.g., radio frequency [RF], radar, acoustic, visual) will not necessarily provide a complete airspace profile since no single method can detect all UAS threats. Using several detection technologies, the unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) Team, who supports the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of International Nuclear Security (INS), would like to offer partners a comprehensive airspace profile of the types and frequency of UAS that fly within and around critical infrastructure. Improved UAS awareness will aid in the risk assessment process.
Use of Unmanned Aerial Systems for Post-closure Waste Site Maintenance and Surveillance - 20143
The P- and R-Area Reactor buildings, located at SRS near Aiken, SC, were in-situ decommissioned by grouting below-grade portions of the buildings and demolishing some above-grade structures to grade level. Other reactor building structures were left above-grade and sealed to prevent human or animal access. Because the above grade-structures are expected to continue in their present state for hundreds of years, the condition of the building roofs is critical to mitigate rainwater intrusion. For this reason, building roof areas were strengthened with high strength concrete to ensure the long-term integrity of the roof structure. Periodic inspections of the roof structures are required to ensure that the roofs are functioning properly and to identify damage areas. The traditional method of inspecting closed reactor buildings requires the use of a helicopter and photographer to generate photographs and videos for review. This method proved sufficient but lacked the resolution and clarity that is required for a thorough inspection of the building structure. Fortunately, the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) has established a Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) program using commercially available and custom-built remote-controlled aircraft. EC and ACP contacted the SRNL program to evaluate whether the sUAS technology could be employed for periodic reactor building inspections. The sUAS can fly within a few meters of the reactor buildings and hover, allowing for a more thorough aerial inspection. The initial sUAS inspection of the P-Area Reactor building was completed in February 2018 and at the R-Area Reactor building in August 2018 and were successful in providing higher resolution photos and videos. The sUAS inspections also revealed that vegetation had begun to grow on the roofs that could potentially damage the structure integrity. SRNL partnered with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University to build a custom heavy lift sUAS that could be equipped with herbicides to remotely treat the vegetative growth. Herbicides were successfully applied to the R-Area Reactor building roof using the custom sUAS in September 2018. The use of unmanned aircraft systems at SRS to perform aerial inspections and herbicide treatment in otherwise inaccessible areas has proven to be an efficient and cost-effective technology that provides high value, increases knowledge of facility conditions, and provides for early detection of damage. Periodic inspections of the reactor building roofs using sUAS technology are performed safely, efficiently, and at a significant cost and schedule savings while reducing emissions, noise, and fossil fuel use. The use of sUAS equipment for building inspections and herbicide application at SRS is unique within the DOE complex. The goal of SRS is to apply this remote technology to other waste unit operations and maintenance activities in the future. (authors)
Estimation of Corn Latent Heat Flux from High Resolution Thermal Imagery
Crop evapotranspiration (ET), which is directly related to latent heat flux, is also a key indicator in determining the water status of crops. In order to estimate the latent heat flux, two-source energy balance (TSEB) models have been developed for thermal imagery from satellite platforms. However, because of the coarse resolution of thermal sensors on the satellite, distinguishing soil and vegetation is difficult which complicates the calculation process and introduces errors in latent heat estimates. In this research, high-resolution thermal datasets (0.05 m) and corresponding RGB datasets (0.03 m) were used for calculating crop latent heat flux using an adapted TSEB model. The RGB datasets were used for supervised classification of soil and vegetation, and the classification results were then used to filter the thermal mosaics to separate vegetation and soil temperatures. The vegetation temperature is used for calculating latent heat flux and the results are validated against the ground reference measurements of latent heat using a handheld porometer. The objective of this research is to introduce a workflow including an adapted TSEB model which is customized for high resolution thermal images from unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to estimate the latent heat flux of row crops in agricultural fields. Nine dates of data collection in 2018 and 2020 have been evaluated and the root mean square error (RMSE) varies between 16 to 106 W/m2 depending on the days after planting (DAP) and the time of measurement for each day. The results indicate that the workflow introduced here is able to provide estimates of instantaneous latent heat flux (evapotranspiration) measurements for row crops in agricultural fields which will enable people to make reliable decisions related to irrigation scheduling.
Combined Mesonet and Tracker
Title: Combined Mesonet and Trackers (UNL Mobile Mesonets) Authors University of Nebraska PI: Adam Houston, UNL Professor (ahouston2@unl.edu) Mailing Address: 126 Bessey Hall P.O. Box 880340 Lincoln, NE 68588-0340 CoMeT Overview The University of Nebraska-Lincoln operates three Combined Mesonet and Tracker (CoMeTs). CoMeTs are Ford Explorers (model years 2015, 2017, and 2019) with forward-mounted suites of meteorological sensors and dual moonroofs, combining the capability of a mobile mesonet to collect near-surface observations with the capability of an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) tracker vehicle, which enables an observer in the second row of seats to see the aircraft and maintain compliance with Federal Aviation Administration policies on UAS operation. The CoMeTs collect observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155A, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass (Barbieri et al. 2019). The HMP155A and 109SS-L thermistor are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). This list of sensors is also included in the CoMeT data file metadata. Manufacturer specifications for these instruments are given in Table 1 of Hanft and Houston (2018). The reported measured quantities are summarized below.CoMeT-3 was funded through an equipment allocation included in the NSF TORUS award (AGS-1824649). Instrument Description The specific sensors included on each CoMeT are summarized in the table at the end of this section. In general each CoMeT collects observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210 barometer with a Gill pressure port, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, position using a Garmin 19x HVS receiver, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass. The HMP155 and 109SS are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). Fast temperature and corrected RH measurements (using sensors housed within the U-tube) have a time constant of 10-12 s based on data collected across a temperature and RH shock during the CLOUD-MAP 2017 calibration/validation tests on June 26, 2017. Vehicle speed was < 10 kts for this test. CoMeT-1 CoMeT-2 CoMeT-3 Slow Temperature Slow RH Vaisala HMP155A-L20-PT Part #: 22280-7 Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Fast temperature Campbell Scientific 109SS-L20-PT Part #: 21448-3 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-109 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-150 Pressure Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Wind RM Young 05103-L20-PT Part #: 18435-310 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 GPS Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Compass KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 Logger Campbell Scientific CR6-NA-XT-SW Part #: 28385-9 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Data Collection and Real-Time Processing The reported measured quantities are summarized in the table below. Quantity Units Source Epoch time Seconds GPS Latitude and longitude Degrees GPS Altitude m GPS Pressure hPa PTB210 Temperature (fast) deg C 109SS-L Temperature (slow) deg C HMP155 RH (slow) % HMP155 Vehicle speed m/s GPS Vehicle heading deg C-100 and GPS In addition to the measured variables, several derived variables are calculated. Corrected/fast relative humidity (%) Relative humidity is adjusted to the fast temperature following Richardson et al. (1998) and Houston et al. (2016). Water vapor mixing ratio (g/kg) Dew point temperature (°C) Potential temperature (Kelvin) Virtual potential temperature (Kelvin) Equivalent potential temperature (Kelvin) Regular intercomparisons between all three CoMeTs were performed during TORUS 2019. Comparisons were also conducted between CoMeT-1 and CoMeT-2 during LAPSE-RATE (2018) on 14 July. In these intercomparisons, the vehicles were parked adjacent to each other aligned perpendicular to (and facing into) the wind. To minimize engine heating effects, intercomparisons were only conducted when the wind speed was >10 kts. Data Format Original data files for each deployment are saved as text files and then converted to NetCDF. NetCDF versions have units that are CF compliant and may not match the original units in the txt files. The naming convention for the NetCDF files is as follows: UNL.CoMeT3.{deployment date YYYYMMDD}.{start time of observation collection in UTC HHMM}.L2.{post-processing codes}.cdf example: UNL.CoMeT3.20190627.1931.L2.g1.f1.cdf Post-processing codes are included to track modifications to the raw data. These codes are closely connected to error flags associated with each record. Each letter corresponds to a particular instrument: g: GPS p: Barometer tf: Fast temperature ts: Slow temperature rh: Relative humidity f: Compass w: Wind monitor a: All instruments Each number corresponds to a particular post-processing action described more below. Measured and derived variables are included in the following table. Variable Heading Standard Name Units time Time seconds since 00:00:00, 01-01-1970 Alt Altitude meters lat Latitude degrees north lon Longitude degrees east fast_temp Air Temperature kelvin slow_temp Air Temperature kelvin pressure Air Pressure pascals logger_RH Relative Humidity percent calc_corr_RH Relative Humidity percent wind_speed Wind Speed meters per second wind_dir Wind From Direction degrees vehicle_dir Vehicle Direction degrees dewpoint Dew Point Temperature kelvin mixing_ratio Humidity Mixing Ratio g/g theta Air Potential Temperature kelvin theta_v Virtual Potential Temperature kelvin theta_e Equivalent Potential Temperature Kelvin error_flag The error_flag variable is a string that matches the post-processing codes listed above. All instruments will have an associated code, but will have a “0” if the datum is unchanged from the initial processed value. Error Codes The following table summarizes the error codes for data collected before 2020: Error Code Relevant CoMeT Description g1 1,2,3 Exact correction. GPS position and time reprocessed from raw data g2 1 As far as we can tell this is an exact correction to an error in the GPS time. During the correct time periods the time suddenly went backwards ~250s and stayed at this offset for 750s when it corrected itself. The offset was applied to the “time warp” period. p1 2 Approximate correction. Hole in the pressure tube connecting the pressure port to the barometer. Resulted in erroneously low air pressure measurements when the vehicle was in motion. Derived variables recalculated (dew point temperature [e depends on qv and p], water vapor mixing ratio, potential temperature, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) a1 3 Exact correction. Missing data reprocessed from raw data a2 1 Bug fix to bias correction for ts1, ts2, and rh1: water vapor mixing ratio was off by a factor of 10 and virtual potential temperature was wrong because of this. f1 3 No correction, missing data. Fluxgate compass inoperable. Wind speed and direction calculated using GPS-derived vehicle heading instead. rh1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.7% removed from relative humidity. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +0.6 K removed from slow temperature. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts2 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.0 K removed. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) References Bolton, D., 1980: The Computation of Equivalent Potential Temperature. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1046–1053, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1980)108<1046:TCOEPT>2.0.CO;2. Hanft, W., and A. L. Houston, 2018: An Observational and Modeling Study of Mesoscale Air Masses with High Theta-E. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 2503–2524, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0389.1.Wexler Houston, A. L., R. J. Laurence III, T. W. Nichols, S. Waugh, B. Argrow, and C. L. Ziegler, 2016: Intercomparison of unmanned aircraft-borne and mobile mesonet atmospheric sensors. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 33, 1569-1582, doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0178.1. Lowe, P. R., 1977: An Approximating Polynomial for the Computation of Saturation Vapor Pressure. J. Applied Meteorology, 16, 100–103. Richardson, S. J., S. E. Frederickson, F. V. Brock, and J. A. Brotzge, 1998: Combination temperature and relative humidity probes: Avoiding large air temperature errors and associated relative humidity errors. Preprints, 10th Symp. On Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 278–283. Waugh, S., and S. E. Frederickson, 2010: An improved aspirated temperature system for mobile meteorological observations, especially in severe weather. 25th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Denver, CO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., P5.2. [Available online at https://ams.confex.com/ams/25SLS/techprogram/paper_176205.htm.]
Turbulence dissipation rate estimated from lidar observations during the LAPSE-RATE field campaign
The International Society for Atmospheric Research using Remotely-piloted Aircraft (ISARRA) hosted a flight week in July 2018 to demonstrate unmanned aircraft systems' (UASs) capabilities in sampling the atmospheric boundary layer. This week-long experiment was called the Lower Atmospheric Profiling Studies at Elevation – a Remotely-piloted Aircraft Team Experiment (LAPSE-RATE) field campaign. Numerous remotely piloted aircraft and ground-based instruments were deployed with the objective of capturing meso- and microscale phenomena in the atmospheric boundary layer. The University of Oklahoma deployed one Halo Streamline lidar, and the University of Colorado Boulder deployed two WindCube lidars. In this paper, we use data collected from these Doppler lidars to estimate turbulence dissipation rate throughout the campaign. We observe large temporal variability of turbulence dissipation close to the surface with the WindCube lidars that is not detected by the Halo Streamline. However, the Halo lidar enables estimating dissipation rate within the whole boundary layer, where a diurnal variability emerges. We also find a higher correspondence in turbulence dissipation between the WindCube lidars, which are not co-located, compared to the Halo and WindCube lidar that are co-located, suggesting a significant influence of measurement volume on the retrieved values of dissipation rate.