Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Validation”

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

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

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2020

Validation on the Europa Clipper Mission in the Formulation Phase

The Europa Clipper mission will perform a detailed investigation of Europa’s environment and habitability by placing a spacecraft into a looping orbit around Jupiter and performing repeated close Europa flybys. The Europa Clipper Project Verification and Validation (V&V) team is responsible for verifying that the Project System is compliant with the science and engineering requirements levied on it and validating that it is capable of meeting the mission objectives. Europa Clipper has developed a V&V framework to ensure that mission capabilities are realized at a reasonable confidence level prior to launch. The V&V team will coordinate the validation activities defined by this framework throughout the project lifecycle as the spacecraft evolves from design to implementation and operations. Validation of space missions is typically grouped into three categories: 1) requirements validation, 2) model validation, and 3) system validation. System validation, along with verification activities, are often the primary focus of V&V programs and these efforts peak in the implementation phase. However, the increasing reliance of exploration missions on models and simulations, and the complexity of the Europa Clipper mission, have dictated attention to requirements and model validation in the formulation phase. This paper discusses the development of the Europa Clipper V&V framework with emphasis on the validation of models and simulations, and of requirements. Approaches include the adaptation of institutional guidelines, such as those in the NASA-STD-7009 document, to create a Project Model V&V Plan and the use of tools such as DOORS NG to plan model validation and derive requirement quality metrics.

Srivastava, Priyanka↗
DOE OSTI2025

Progress Towards the Validation of a new RELAP5-3D model of the High Temperature Test Facility

Validation is a key step in the development of any type of systems model. As the next generation of reactors approaches, the need for codes that have been validated for these new types of systems continues to grow. An example of a prominent option is the Reactor Excursion Leak Analysis Program (RELAP5-3D), developed by Idaho National Laboratory. This code was developed for the purpose of systems level thermal-hydraulic modeling of light water reactors (LWRS) and postulated transients that can occur in LWRS.RELAP5-3D has been substantially validated against LWR data. Due to its long history as a reactor safety analysis tool, there has been an effort to adapt RELAP5-3D for the purposes of advanced reactor concepts such as prismatic high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs). However, RELAP5-3D has not nearly been validated and verified for HTGRs to the degree of LWRs, warranting verification and validation opportunities with computational benchmarks and existing experimental facilities. Examples of such facilities include the modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR) 350 and the high temperature engineering test reactor (HTTR) from Japan. The MHTGR 350 is a benchmark design concept for code-to-code verification purposes; therefore, it does not provide any experimental data for validation opportunities The HTTR provides useful multiphysics validation data but does not have the in-core instruments to generate thermal-hydraulic experimental data to help with RELAP5-3D validation. Consequently, a facility that could provide key in-core temperatures for thermal-hydraulic validation was still needed. The High Temperature Test Facility (HTTF) is an integral effects facility for HTGR thermal hydraulics developed and operated by Oregon State University. HTTF represents ¼ length scale of the General Atomics MHTGR and is rated for a total power of 2.2 MW. Axially, the core consists of an upper and lower reflector and 10 blocks, numbered from bottom to top (Block 1 is right above lower reflector). The core is heated via graphite resistive heater rods, with respective channels distributed throughout the core. The primary coolant is helium and heat can radiate out of the core to the reactor cavity cooling system (RCCS), which is cooled by water. The primary purpose of the facility is to investigate pressurized conduction cooldown (PCC) and depressurized conduction cooldown (DCC) transients, which are also referred to as the pressurized and depressurized loss of forced cooling respectively. Two experiments were chosen to perform the validation study with a RELAP5-3D model of HTTF. These experiments are PG-27 (PCC) and PG-29 (DCC). These were chosen based off of the quality of available experimental data before and during the experiment which led to their inclusion in the HTGR Thermal Hydraulics Benchmark.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS1987

Design and validation of fault-tolerant flight systems

Flight systems must be validated to show that they are consistent with the requirements of their intended applications. While high reliability is difficult to validate, the additional complexity of fault tolerance further compounds the validation problem. The objective of NASA’s research is to develop a methodology for designing validatable fault-tolerant systems. Under the design-for-validation philosophy, emphasis is placed on developing validation methods that can be incorporated into the design process right from the start and design methods and guidance which, while incorporating fault tolerance, can assure validatability. This paper examines the statistical issues of validating highly reliable, fault tolerant system. There are many problems associated with traditional methods of designing and validating these potentially complex hardware and software systems. Useful design-for-validation methods, which include structured specification and design methodologies, mathematical proof techniques, analytical modeling, simulation and emulation, and physical testing, are discussed. Important design issues associated with fault tolerance are presented along with the related validation concerns which must be addressed. Experience has shown that synchronization and Byzantine resilience must accompany fault tolerance. Other design attributes associated with fault tolerance may be used by a designer on the basis of cost, weight, performance, and validation considerations.

Computer systems↗
NASA NTRS1990

CFD validation for aerodynamic flows - Challenge for the '90's

The process of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) validation is described from two perspectives, numerical error validation and physical model validation. Errors associated with time and space discretization, grid refinement, numerical dissipation, and level of solution convergence, are all possible sources of numerical error. The second aspect of CFD code validation is associated with the governing equations and the physical models, e.g., chemistry and turbulence models. This type of validation requires comparisons with carefully conducted experiments and is the primary aspect of the validation process discussed in this paper. Examples of validation are shown for selected Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes codes for conditions from transonic through hypersonic. Since code applications are becoming more complex, it no longer suffices to use data from surface or integral quantities alone to provide the required validation. Flow field surveys and experimental boundary condition measurements are emerging as critical data that must be obtained for CFD code validation. Progress in the overall level of validation is shown to be improving. However, future challenges remain, some of which are enumerated.

Marvin, Joseph G.↗
NASA NTRS1989

NASA's CFD Validation Program

With computational fluid dynamics (CFD) becoming a productive research and design tool, the requirement to validate CFD codes has grown significantly. NASA had emphasized CFD validation activities since 1986 when a separate work element was formed to fund experimental activities related to validation. NASA's CFD and CFD validation programs are closely coordinated to ensure that experimental data bases are available as soon as possible for validating codes. In response to industry and academic requirements, four levels of experimental research have been defined as part of CFD validation with NASA's Aeronautics Advisory Committee (AAC) support although only the fourth level actually has the detailed information necessary for validating codes. Critical flow physics especially turbulence modeling are key to improved CFD codes. NASA has focused additional resources on transition and turbulence physics to meet these requirements. With improved turbulence models, CFD codes will be more accurate, robust, and efficient. However, with the level of detailed information available from CFD codes, highly accurate and detailed experiments are required to capture the critical information for validating codes. Advanced instrumentation especially non-intrusive instrumentation is required to acquire this information in validation experiments. The CFD validation program is being coordinated and managed to address these critical activities. A list of experiments which are currently being supported at least partially are included.

Satran, Dale R.↗
NASA NTRS1996

Validation of NASA Thermal Ice Protection Computer Codes: Program Overview - Part 1

The Icing Technology Branch at NASA Lewis has been involved in an effort to validate two thermal ice protection codes developed at the NASA Lewis Research Center. LEWICE/Thermal (electrothermal deicing & anti-icing), and ANTICE (hot-gas & electrothermal anti-icing). The Thermal Code Validation effort was designated as a priority during a 1994 'peer review' of the NASA Lewis Icing program, and was implemented as a cooperative effort with industry. During April 1996, the first of a series of experimental validation tests was conducted in the NASA Lewis Icing Research Tunnel(IRT). The purpose of the April 96 test was to validate the electrothermal predictive capabilities of both LEWICE/Thermal, and ANTICE. A heavily instrumented test article was designed and fabricated for this test, with the capability of simulating electrothermal de-icing and anti-icing modes of operation. Thermal measurements were then obtained over a range of test conditions, for comparison with analytical predictions. This paper will present an overview of the test, including a detailed description of: (1) the validation process; (2) test article design; (3) test matrix development; and (4) test procedures. Selected experimental results will be presented for de-icing and anti-icing modes of operation. Finally, the status of the validation effort at this point will be summarized. Detailed comparisons between analytical predictions and experimental results are contained in the following two papers: 'Validation of NASA Thermal Ice Protection Computer Codes: Part 2- The Validation of LEWICE/Thermal' and 'Validation of NASA Thermal Ice Protection Computer Codes: Part 3-The Validation of ANTICE'

Miller, Dean↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TROPOMI Methane Validation in the GeoCarb Domain

Objective: GeoCarb validation •Purpose: •Do the four TCCON sites in the GeoCarb domain characterize satellite validation? •Method: •Assess the error estimates globally vs. in the GeoCarb domain •Assess the use of GML/DOE aircraft for CH4 validation •Systematic error estimate (from Kulawik, 2016): •+ regional bias (stdevof average bias versus validation at each station) •+ correlated error (stdev of daily average versus validation) •-co-location error (above quantities for model@satelliteminus model@valid) •-validation error (systematic error of validation estimates, e.g. model extension) Aircraft validation error •CH4 profile extension error estimate: 7 ppb •Extend aircraft observations to the top of the atmosphere with different model configurations •CAMS, scaling to stratosphere, then taking stratosphere •Extend by repeating top aircraft value to the troposphere, then taking CAMS •Extend with GEOS-Chem run (from 2010). •Difference CAMS-Scale vs. CAMS-Tropo: •3.6 +-5.5 ppb •Systematic error: 6.6 ppb •Extending aircraft to tropopause is blatantly wrong, but these two have the same stratosphere. •Difference CAMS-Scale vs. GEOS-Scale: •6.2 +-8.7 ppb •Do not consider bias since model is 10 years off. Systematic error ~8.7 ppb. •Estimate of systematic error from profile extension (possibly underestimated, resulting in possibly higher TROPOMI error estimate) •7 ppb •Would likely vary some by season, site, other conditions •Aircraft measurement error: 1 ppb •1 ppb from measurement error3

TROMPOMI↗
NASA NTRS2004

The Role of Structural Models in the Solar Sail Flight Validation Process

NASA is currently soliciting proposals via the New Millennium Program ST-9 opportunity for a potential Solar Sail Flight Validation (SSFV) experiment to develop and operate in space a deployable solar sail that can be steered and provides measurable acceleration. The approach planned for this experiment is to test and validate models and processes for solar sail design, fabrication, deployment, and flight. These models and processes would then be used to design, fabricate, and operate scaleable solar sails for future space science missions. There are six validation objectives planned for the ST9 SSFV experiment: 1) Validate solar sail design tools and fabrication methods; 2) Validate controlled deployment; 3) Validate in space structural characteristics (focus of poster); 4) Validate solar sail attitude control; 5) Validate solar sail thrust performance; 6) Characterize the sail's electromagnetic interaction with the space environment. This poster presents a top-level assessment of the role of structural models in the validation process for in-space structural characteristics.

Johnston, John D.↗
NASA NTRS2021

Validation Assessment for the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) Level 4 Carbon (L4_C) Data Product Version 5

The post-launch Cal/Val phase of the SMAP mission is guided by two primary objectives for each science product team: 1) to calibrate, verify, and improve the performance of the science algorithms, and 2) validate accuracies of the science data products as specified in the SMAP Level-1 mission science requirements. Algorithm science and product maintenance activities during the SMAP extended mission phase have also involved periodic algorithm calibration and product refinements to maintain or enhance product consistency and performance as well as science utility. This report provides an assessment of the latest (Version 5) SMAP Level 4 Carbon (L4_C) product. The L4_C Version 5 (v5) global record now spans more than six years (March 2015 – present) of SMAP operations and has benefited from five major reprocessing updates to the operational product. These reprocessing events and L4_C product release updates have incorporated various algorithm refinements and calibration adjustments to account for similar refinements to the upstream GEOS land model assimilation system, SMAP brightness temperatures, and MODIS vegetation inputs used for L4_C processing. The SMAP L4_C algorithms utilize a terrestrial carbon flux model informed by daily surface and root zone soil moisture information contributed from the SMAP Level 4 Soil Moisture (L4_SM) product along with optical remote sensing-based (e.g. MODIS-based) land cover and canopy fractional photosynthetic active radiation (fPAR), and other ancillary biophysical data. The carbon flux model estimates global daily net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE) and the component carbon fluxes, namely, vegetation gross primary production (GPP) and soil heterotrophic respiration (Rh). Other L4_C product elements include surface (~0-5 cm depth) soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks and associated environmental constraints to these processes, including soil moisture-related controls on GPP and ecosystem respiration (Kimball et al. 2014, Jones et al. 2017). The L4_C product addresses SMAP carbon cycle science objectives by: 1) providing a direct link between terrestrial carbon fluxes and underlying freeze/thaw and soil moisture-related constraints to these processes, 2) documenting primary connections between terrestrial water, energy and carbon cycles, and 3) improving understanding of terrestrial carbon sink activity. The SMAP L4_C algorithms and operational product are mature and at a CEOS Validation Stage 4 level (Jackson et al. 2012) based on extensive validation of the multi-year record against a diverse array of independent benchmarks, well characterized global performance, and systematic refinements gained from five major reprocessing events. There are no Level-1 mission science requirements for the L4_C product; however, self-imposed requirements have been established focusing on NEE as the primary product field for validation, and on demonstrating L4_C accuracy and success in meeting product science requirements (Jackson et al. 2012). The other L4_C product fields also have strong utility for carbon science applications (e.g., Liu et al. 2019, Endsley et al. 2020); however, analysis of these other fields is considered secondary relative to primary validation activities focusing on NEE. The L4_C targeted accuracy requirements are to meet or exceed a mean unbiased root-mean-square error (ubRMSE, or standard deviation of the error) for NEE of 1.6 g C m-2 d-1 and 30 g C m-2 yr-1, emphasizing northern (≥45°N) boreal and arctic ecosystems; this accuracy is similar to that of tower eddy covariance measurement-based observations (Baldocchi 2008). Methods used for the latest v5 L4_C product performance and validation assessment have been established from the SMAP Cal/Val plan and previous studies (Jackson et al. 2012, Jones et al. 2017) and include: 1) consistency evaluations of the product fields against earlier product releases (version 4 or earlier); 2) comparisons of daily carbon flux estimates with independent tower eddy 4covariance measurement-based daily carbon (CO2) flux observations from core tower validation sites (CVS); and 3) consistency checks against other global carbon products, including soil carbon inventory records, global GPP records derived from tower observation upscaling methods, and satellite-based observations of canopy solar induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) as a surrogate for GPP. Metrics used to evaluate relative agreement between L4_C product fields and observational benchmarks include correlation (r-value), RMSE differences, bias and model sensitivity diagnostics. Following these validation criteria, the present report provides a validation assessment of the latest L4_C product release (v5). Detailed descriptions of the L4_C algorithm and additional global product accuracy and performance results are given elsewhere (Jones et al. 2017, Endsley et al. 2020). The v5 L4_C product replaces earlier product versions and continues to show: (i) accuracy and performance levels meeting or exceeding SMAP L4_C science requirements; (ii) improvement over the previous product version (version 4); and (iii) suitability for a diversity of science applications. Example L4_C applications from the recent literature include clarifying environmental trends and controls on the northern terrestrial carbon sink (Liu et al. 2019), diagnosing drought-related impacts on ecosystem productivity (Li et al. 2020), and regional monitoring of cropland conditions for projecting annual yields (Wurster et al. 2020). 2EXPECTED L4_C ALGORITHM AND PRODUCTPERFORMANCE The L4_C algorithm performance, including variance and uncertainty estimates of model outputs, was determined during the mission pre-launch phase through spatially explicit model sensitivity studies using available model inputs similar to those currently being used for operational production and evaluating the resulting model simulations over the observed range of northern (≥45 °N) and global conditions (Kimball et al. 2012, Entekhabi et al. 2014). The L4_C algorithm options were also evaluated during the mission prelaunch phase, including deriving canopy fPAR from lower order NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) inputs in lieu of using MODIS (MOD15) fPAR; and including an explicit model representation of boreal fire disturbance recovery impacts. These results indicated that the L4_C accuracy requirements (i.e., NEE ubRMSE ≤ 30 g C m-2 yr-1or ≤ 1.6 g C m-2 d-1) could be met from the baseline algorithms over more than 82% and 89% of global and northern vegetated land areas, respectively (Yi et al. 2013, Kimball et al. 2014). The global L4_C algorithm error budget for NEE derived during the mission prelaunch phase indicated that the estimated NEE ubRMSE uncertainty is proportional to GPP and is therefore larger in higher biomass productivity areas, including forests and croplands (Kimball et al. 2014). Likewise, NEE ubRMSE uncertainty is expected to be lower in less-productive areas, including grasslands and shrublands. Expected model NEE ubRMSE levels were also generally within targeted accuracy levels for characteristically less-productive boreal and Arctic biomes, even though relative model error as a proportion of total productivity (NEE RMSE / GPP) may be large in these areas. The estimated NEE uncertainty was lower than expected in some warmer tropical high biomass productivity areas (e.g. Amazon rainforest) because of reduced low temperature and moisture constraints to the L4_C respiration calculations so that the bulk of model uncertainty is contributed by GPP in these areas. Model NEE uncertainty in the African Congo was estimated to

SMAP↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Identification and Study of Validation Level Test Cases for Computational Modeling of Non-Charring Ablators

Computational modeling of Thermal Protection System (TPS) materials, used for aerospace applications, provides numerous advantages in preliminary selection and design of a heatshield material and shape for atmospheric entry vehicles. However, to serve as a reliable tool for prediction of material thermal and ablative behavior, the modeling approach needs to be validated against real experimental and flight data, preferably at a range of applied conditions. The validation study is typically very complex as it requires reliable measured data not only for the material thermal response and surface recession, but also well characterized environmental conditions. The validation problem becomes even more complex when the material thermal response is dictated by multi-physics effects such as solid conduction, in-depth thermal decomposition, pyrolysis gas flow and chemical reactions. The multi-physics effects complicate not only the modeling effort, but also the experimental measurement for validation of various aspects of the highly coupled problem. In this study, an attempt is made to identify suitable experimental data that could serve as a source for validation of material thermal response modeling tools. To reduce the computational complexity, this study focuses only on non-charring ablators, where the material thermal response could be modeled with a single governing equation for solid conduction and the ablation is limited only to the surface of the material. With a well characterized and publicly available experimental data being sparse, the study is limited in presenting test cases for only three materials: camphor, graphite and FiberForm® in the sequence of increased modeling complexity. Graphite is a commonly used TPS material for aerospace applications, both for leading edges of high-speed vehicles and internal insulation of solid rocket motors. FiberForm® is a porous carbon pre-form used in preparation of the well known PICA material Tran et al. [1996]. Inclusion of camphor into the list is conditioned with the relative simplicity in modeling the material thermal and chemical response and the low-enthalpy flow environment. In addition, camphor has been used as a simple test material for study of flow transition behavior by Stock and Ginoux [1973] and assessment of a heatshield shape change at flight relevant conditions by Rotondi et al. [2022]. In this work, the identified experimental data was extracted from the public literature and test cases that yet have been published. As it was found from the review, not a single test case contains an exhaustive set of data that would validate every aspect of the material physics. However, in the data collected, various aspects of the material behavior can be still validated, such as surface and in-depth temperature, amount of recession and a shape change. The identified experimental data for each case is accompanied with a characterized flow environment and simulated boundary conditions predicted by a Data-Parallel Line Relaxation (DPLR) code Wright et al. [1998]. In addition, material thermal response numerical simulations in each test case are performed with Kentucky Aerothermodynamics and Thermal Response System (KATS-MR) Zibitsker et al. [2022] providing a comparative study and a sanity check for the proposed validation data. Sample results from the performed numerical study are shown below. Figure 1 shows distribution of surface heat flux and pressure values on a hemi-cylinder model made of FiberForm® and tested in HyMETS arc-jet facility. The results are shown for the high pressure condition among the two tests. Flow simulation was performed with DPLR code on a quarter of original geometry. In the figure, the quarter shape was mirrored across zx and xy planes to show the complete distribution. Figure 2 shows the material response results for the high pressure case (7500 Pa), simulated with KATS-MR and a comparison to the experimental data for the surface temperature and shape shape. The simulation was performed on a 2-D slice, extracted in the xy plane at the middle of the sample. Figure 3 shows the material response simulation for the low pressure case (3500 Pa) and a comparison to the experimental data for surface temperature and shape change.

ablation↗
DOE OSTI2025

Thermal Hydraulics Validation Activities in the ART-GCR Campaign

The Advanced Reactor Technologies - Gas Cooled Reactor Campaign (ART-GCR) is part of the United States Department of Energy - Office of Nuclear Energy's Advanced Reactor Technologies program aimed at developing a High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) which will offer enhancements in safety and efficiency. The Design, Methods, and Validation arm of the ART-GCR program provides experience and advanced tools for HTGR design and analysis. The Methods and Validation arm is developing data to validate predictions of decay heat removal through an extensive experimental campaign the Natural Convection Shutdown Heat Removal Test Facility at Argonne National Laboratory. In-core thermal hydraulics validation is being facilitated through the OECD/NEA's Thermal Hydraulic Code Validation Benchmark for High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors using HTTF Data. That benchmark contains code-to-code and code-to-data comparisons for 3 sets of HTGR thermal hydraulics phenomena. This ongoing benchmark activity has 16 participants from 9 countries developing leading insights into HTGR thermal hydraulics code validation. The ART-GCR campaign is also working on the development of state-of-the-art MOOSE-based models of the High Temperature Engineering Test Reactor (HTTR). Through the OECD/NEA's HTTR Loss of Forced Cooling (LOFC) program, the ART-GCR campaign is developing a multiphysics transient code validation benchmark based on 3 HTTR experiments that will provide an opportunity for international collaboration on multiphysics code validation.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS2000

Earth Science Enterprise Scientific Data Purchase Project: Verification and Validation

This paper presents viewgraphs on the Earth Science Enterprise Scientific Data Purchase Project's verification,and validation process. The topics include: 1) What is Verification and Validation? 2) Why Verification and Validation? 3) Background; 4) ESE Data Purchas Validation Process; 5) Data Validation System and Ingest Queue; 6) Shipment Verification; 7) Tracking and Metrics; 8) Validation of Contract Specifications; 9) Earth Watch Data Validation; 10) Validation of Vertical Accuracy; and 11) Results of Vertical Accuracy Assessment.

Jenner, Jeff↗
NASA NTRS2004

Review of TRMM/GPM Rainfall Algorithm Validation

A review is presented concerning current progress on evaluation and validation of standard Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) precipitation retrieval algorithms and the prospects for implementing an improved validation research program for the next generation Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Mission. All standard TRMM algorithms are physical in design, and are thus based on fundamental principles of microwave radiative transfer and its interaction with semi-detailed cloud microphysical constituents. They are evaluated for consistency and degree of equivalence with one another, as well as intercompared to radar-retrieved rainfall at TRMM's four main ground validation sites. Similarities and differences are interpreted in the context of the radiative and microphysical assumptions underpinning the algorithms. Results indicate that the current accuracies of the TRMM Version 6 algorithms are approximately 15% at zonal-averaged / monthly scales with precisions of approximately 25% for full resolution / instantaneous rain rate estimates (i.e., level 2 retrievals). Strengths and weaknesses of the TRMM validation approach are summarized. Because the dew of convergence of level 2 TRMM algorithms is being used as a guide for setting validation requirements for the GPM mission, it is important that the GPM algorithm validation program be improved to ensure concomitant improvement in the standard GPM retrieval algorithms. An overview of the GPM Mission's validation plan is provided including a description of a new type of physical validation model using an analytic 3-dimensional radiative transfer model.

Smith, Eric A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Decompression Sickness Risk Mitigation Protocols for Planetary Spaceflight Missions

BACKGROUND: Apollo missions used a 100% O2 cabin atmosphere which effectively eliminated the risk of decompression sickness (DCS) during extravehicular activity (EVA) on the moon. NASA’s future missions to the moon and Mars are expected to use nitrox gas mixtures of up to 34% O2, 66% N2, which will reduce flammability risk compared with Apollo, but will necessitate Oxygen prebreathe prior to EVA to reduce DCS risk to acceptable levels. Prebreathe protocols used on the space shuttle and International Space Station are validated for microgravity EVAs, but the significantly increased risk of DCS during equivalent ambulatory EVAs make these protocols inapplicable to planetary EVA. An “exploration atmosphere” of 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, 66% N2 has been recommended by NASA as a compromise that balances prebreathe duration, hypoxia, and flammability risk, assuming a 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi) spacesuit. However, this atmosphere may not be used for vehicles that do not support frequent EVA, and with commercial providers and international providers expected to provide landers, pressurized rovers, habitats, and spacesuits, different combinations of vehicle and spacesuit atmospheres are possible and will each require validated prebreathe protocols. OVERVIEW: Key components of a multi-year strategic roadmap include: 1) Establish hypobaric chamber facility capable of supporting 8-person EVA prebreathe validation tests at saturation atmospheres up to 36% O2; 2) validate an EVA physical workload simulation for use during prebreathe validation testing; 3) validate the recommended “exploration atmosphere” prebreathe protocol; 4) validate prebreathe protocols for additional atmospheric combinations that bound the most likely potential operating ranges of future vehicles and spacesuits; and 5) update DCS risk estimation models based on results of prebreathe validation studies. DISCUSSION: Details and data from completion of the first two steps of the strategic roadmap will be presented; the third step is currently underway, with pilot results provided in a companion presentation. Steps four and five will require a multi-year series of chamber tests; collaborations are being pursued.

Andrew F. J. Abercromby↗
NASA NTRS2016

Experience with Aero- and Fluid-Dynamic Testing for Engineering and CFD Validation

Ever since computations have been used to simulate aerodynamics the need to ensure that the computations adequately represent real life has followed. Many experiments have been performed specifically for validation and as computational methods have improved, so have the validation experiments. Validation is also a moving target because computational methods improve requiring validation for the new aspect of flow physics that the computations aim to capture. Concurrently, new measurement techniques are being developed that can help capture more detailed flow features pressure sensitive paint (PSP) and particle image velocimetry (PIV) come to mind. This paper will present various wind-tunnel tests the author has been involved with and how they were used for validation of various kinds of CFD. A particular focus is the application of advanced measurement techniques to flow fields (and geometries) that had proven to be difficult to predict computationally. Many of these difficult flow problems arose from engineering and development problems that needed to be solved for a particular vehicle or research program. In some cases the experiments required to solve the engineering problems were refined to provide valuable CFD validation data in addition to the primary engineering data. All of these experiments have provided physical insight and validation data for a wide range of aerodynamic and acoustic phenomena for vehicles ranging from tractor-trailers to crewed spacecraft.

experiment↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

AVT-297 Development of a Framework for Validation of Computational Tools

Design of aerospace vehicles relies on system models. These models rely on validation data to ensure accurate representation of the system. This paper provides an introduction to the problem and an overview of a NATO STO Activity, AVT-297, which developed a framework to determine validation experiments required to support system level models. The goals of the research group were to develop a process to identify a validation database for intended uses of a vehicle system, demonstrate the process on vehicles and document the process. Applying this process to multiple intended uses and collecting this set of validation databases identifies a set of validation experiments that could be applied to the design of multiple vehicles, further reducing the cost and time to develop air and naval vehicles. Four subgroup teams focused on different aspects of the validation database process: two focused on different aspects of a missile, and two focused on different aspects of a fixed-wing mobility transport class vehicle. This resulted in three different processes to decompose the multi-disciplinary problem to identify critical validation data. All four of the teams demonstrated their process on a sample problem demonstrating the benefit of the process.

Validation↗
NASA NTRS1999

EOS Terra Validation Program

The EOS Terra mission will be launched in July 1999. This mission has great relevance to the atmospheric radiation community and global change issues. Terra instruments include ASTER, CERES, MISR, MODIS and MOPITT. In addition to the fundamental radiance data sets, numerous global science data products will be generated, including various Earth radiation budget, cloud and aerosol parameters, as well as land surface, terrestrial ecology, ocean color, and atmospheric chemistry parameters. Significant investments have been made in on-board calibration to ensure the quality of the radiance observations. A key component of the Terra mission is the validation of the science data products. This is essential for a mission focused on global change issues and the underlying processes. The Terra algorithms have been subject to extensive pre-launch testing with field data whenever possible. Intensive efforts will be made to validate the Terra data products after launch. These include validation of instrument calibration (vicarious calibration) experiments, instrument and cross-platform comparisons, routine collection of high quality correlative data from ground-based networks, such as AERONET, and intensive sites, such as the SGP ARM site, as well as a variety field experiments, cruises, etc. Airborne simulator instruments have been developed for the field experiment and underflight activities including the MODIS Airborne Simulator (MAS), AirMISR, MASTER (MODIS-ASTER), and MOPITT-A. All are integrated on the NASA ER-2, though low altitude platforms are more typically used for MASTER. MATR is an additional sensor used for MOPITT algorithm development and validation. The intensive validation activities planned for the first year of the Terra mission will be described with emphasis on derived geophysical parameters of most relevance to the atmospheric radiation community. Detailed information about the EOS Terra validation Program can be found on the EOS Validation program homepage i/e.: http://ospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/validation/valpage.html).

Starr, David↗
NASA NTRS2003

Validation and Error Characterization for the Global Precipitation Measurement

The Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) is an international effort to increase scientific knowledge on the global water cycle with specific goals of improving the understanding and the predictions of climate, weather, and hydrology. These goals will be achieved through several satellites specifically dedicated to GPM along with the integration of numerous meteorological satellite data streams from international and domestic partners. The GPM effort is led by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of the United States and the National Space Development Agency (NASDA) of Japan. In addition to the spaceborne assets, international and domestic partners will provide ground-based resources for validating the satellite observations and retrievals. This paper describes the validation effort of Global Precipitation Measurement to provide quantitative estimates on the errors of the GPM satellite retrievals. The GPM validation approach will build upon the research experience of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) retrieval comparisons and its validation program. The GPM ground validation program will employ instrumentation, physical infrastructure, and research capabilities at Supersites located in important meteorological regimes of the globe. NASA will provide two Supersites, one in a tropical oceanic and the other in a mid-latitude continental regime. GPM international partners will provide Supersites for other important regimes. Those objectives or regimes not addressed by Supersites will be covered through focused field experiments. This paper describes the specific errors that GPM ground validation will address, quantify, and relate to the GPM satellite physical retrievals. GPM will attempt to identify the source of errors within retrievals including those of instrument calibration, retrieval physical assumptions, and algorithm applicability. With the identification of error sources, improvements will be made to the respective calibration, assumption, or algorithm. The instrumentation and techniques of the Supersites will be discussed. The GPM core satellite, with its dual-frequency radar and conically scanning radiometer, will provide insight into precipitation drop-size distributions and potentially increased measurement capabilities of light rain and snowfall. The ground validation program will include instrumentation and techniques commensurate with these new measurement capabilities.

Bidwell, Steven W.↗