SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Performance standardization working group for analytical and experimental evaluation of performance of liquid propellant rocket engines
The Thermal Control Working Group limited its evaluation to issues associated with Earth orbiting and planetary spacecraft with power levels up to 50 kW. It was concluded that the space station technology is a necessary precursor but does not meet S/C 2000 needs (life, high heat flux, long term cryogenics, and survivability). Additional basic and applied research are required (fluid/materials compatibility and two phase system modeling). Scaling, the key issue, must define accelerated life test criteria. The two phase systems require 0g to 1 g correlation. Additional ground test beds are required and combined space environment tests of materials.
The Outer Planets Science Working Group (OPSWG) is the NASA Solar System Exploration Division (SSED) scientific steering committee for the Outer Solar Systems missions. The FY92 activities of OPSWG are summarized. A set of objectives for OPSWG over FY93 are described. OPSWG's activities for subsequent years are outlined. A paper which examines scientific questions motivating renewed exploration of the Neptune/Triton system and which reviews the technical results of the mission studies completed to date is included in the appendix.
The multilateral Earth Observations Working Group (EOWG) was chartered in May 2012 in order to improve coordination and collaboration of Earth observing payloads, research, and applications on the International Space Station (ISS). The EOWG derives its authority from the ISS Program Science Forum, and a NASA representative serves as a permanent co-chair. A rotating co-chair position can be occupied by any of the international partners, following concurrence by the other partners; a JAXA representative is the current co-chair. Primary functions of the EOWG include, 1) the exchange of information on plans for payloads, from science and application objectives to instrument development, data collection, distribution and research; 2) recognition and facilitation of opportunities for international collaboration in order to optimize benefits from different instruments; and 3) provide a formal ISS Program interface for collection and application of remotely sensed data collected in response to natural disasters through the International Charter, Space and Major Disasters. Recent examples of EOWG activities include coordination of bilateral data sharing protocols between NASA and TsNIIMash for use of crew time and instruments in support of ATV5 reentry imaging activities; discussion of continued use and support of the Nightpod camera mount system by NASA and ESA; and review and revision of international partner contributions on Earth observations to the ISS Program Benefits to Humanity publication.
SPHERES Working Group (SWG) Quarterly meeting. Membership includes MIT, FIT, AFS, DARPA, CASIS, SJSU, and NASA (HQ, KSC, JSC, MSFC, and ARC). Face-to-Face, twice a year. Next Face-to-Face will be scheduled in Feb. 2017 at NASA Ames. Purpose: Information sharing across the SPHERES community. Program office shares National Lab Facility availability. Status of resources (batteries, CO2 tanks, etc.), Overall Calendar (scheduled Test Sessions, upmassreturn), and Updates on new PD, Investigations, and ISS infrastructure.Provide the SPHERES community (PD, investigators, etc.) with up-to-date information to determine opportunities to use the NL Facility. Discuss proposed changes updates to SPHERES Nat Lab which may be required to support a specific activity or research. Discuss specific support requests made to the ISS Office.
The Aircraft Noise Simulation Working Group (ANSWr), comprised of NASA, DLR, and ONERA, recently completed an analysis campaign to compare aircraft noise simulation tools, establish guidelines for noise prediction, and launch activities to assess uncertainties associated with the simulation. The campaign included the analyses of two DLR conceptual aircraft, a reference tube-and-wing aircraft, and a low noise aircraft with engines mounted above the fuselage-wing-junction. While the total predicted noise for each of the concepts compared favorably among analyses at the peak level, significant differences were noted at the component level. This paper aims to further that effort by auralizing aircraft flyover noise associated with those predictions. Comparisons are made among the NASA, DLR/Empa, and ONERA generated sounds to determine how differences between the system noise prediction and auralization methods result in changes to the auralized sound.
The key to the success of this workshop is your active participation in the working group process. The goals of this workshop are to address four major questions regarding Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) Training. To some extent the working group topic areas parallel these issues, but in some cases they do not. However, it is important for all of the working groups to keep these general questions in mind during their deliberations: (1) What are the essential elements of an optimal CRM Training program; (2) What are the strengths and weaknesses of current approaches to CRM Training; (3) How can CRM Training best be implemented, and what barriers exist; and (4) Is CRM Training effective, do we know, and if not, how can we find out.
The discussions of the Working Group (based in large part on working papers, which will shortly be published separately) are summarized. These papers cover a broad range of subjects which need to be addressed in the formulation of such a formidable enterprise as a manned Mars program. Science objective and operations; Mars surface infrastructure and activities; mission and system concepts and configurations; life sciences; impacts on the space infrastructure; and costs, schedules, and organizations are addressed.
With the advent of the Space Exploration Initiative, the possibility of designing and using systems on scales not heretofore attempted presents exciting new challenges in systems design and space science. The environments addressed by the Space Exploration Initiative include the surfaces of the Moon and Mars, as well as the varied plasma and field environments which will be encountered by humans and cargo enroute to these destinations. Systems designers will need to understand environmental interactions and be able to model these mechanisms from the earliest conceptual design stages through design completion. To the end of understanding environmental interactions and establishing robotic precursor mission requirements, an Environmental Interactions Working Group has been established as part of the Robotic Missions Working Group. The current paper describes the working group and gives an update of its current activities. Working group charter and operation are reviewed, background information on the environmental interactions and their characteristics is offered, and the current status of the group's activities is presented along with anticipations for the future.
The topics covered by the sessions under the working group on Ionosphere-Thermosphere-Mesosphere dealt with various aspects of the response of the ionosphere-thermosphere coupled system and the middle atmosphere to solar variability. There were four plenary talks related to the theme of this working group, thirteen oral presentations in three sessions and six poster presentations. A number of issues related to effects of solar variability on the ionosphere-thermosphere, observed using satellite and ground-based data including ground magnetometer observations, radio beacon studies of equatorial spread F, and modeling of some of these effects, were discussed. Radar observations of the mesosphere-lower thermosphere region and a future mission to study the coupling of thunderstorm processes to this region, the ionosphere, and magnetosphere were also presented.
At its 18th meeting held December 09, 2001 in San Francisco, the IGS Governing Board recommended the formation of a working group to focus on data center issues. This working group will tackle many of the problems facing the IGS data centers as well as develop new ideas to aid users both internal and external to the IGS. The direction of the IGS has changed since its start in 1992 and many new working groups, projects, data sets, and products have been created and incorporated into the service since that time. Therefore, this may be an appropriate time to revisit the requirements of data centers within the IGS.
With the advent of the Space Exploration Initiative, the possibility of designing and using systems on scales heretofore unattempted presents exciting new challenges in systems design and space science. The environments addressed by the Space Exploration Initiative include the surfaces of the Moon and Mars, as well as the varied plasma and field environments which will be encountered by humans and cargo enroute to these destinations. Systems designers will need to understand environmental interactions and be able to model these mechanisms from the earliest conceptual design stages through design completion. To the end of understanding environmental interactions and establishing robotic precursor mission requirements, an Environmental Interactions Working Group was established as part of the Robotic Missions Working Group. The working group is described, and its current activities are updated.
The three involute plate research reactors RHF, HFIR, and FRM II have expressed an interest in using computational software to carry their steady-state safety analysis. Since these tools represent a significant departure from the methods used currently (one-dimensional), the acceptability of the new approach by regulators requires thorough verification and validation of these tools. Therefore, Argonne National Laboratory and the three involute-plate reactors formed an informal group called the Involute Working Group aiming at qualifying computational tools to perform steady-state safety analysis. The present report focuses on a comparison of finite volume and finite element methods to model solids in fluid-structure interaction problems with the goal to estimate the coolant flow-induced fuel plate deflections obtained with the two methods. The finite volume method will be obsoleted in STARCCM+ by the end of 2021, nevertheless, this evaluation is important because the method was used by ANL researchers to model the response of the fuel plates, despite its drawbacks, which are discussed in the report. It was essential to check how those estimates compare to the results obtained with the finite element method that is considered superior for structural analysis. Various geometries, i.e., flat, cylindrical and circle-involute fuel plates, as well as coolant flow speed, were considered. The comparison shows that, independently of the plate geometry, the finite volume method significantly underestimates the deflection as compared to finite element method for coarser meshes. When the discretization is developed as a result of a mesh sensitivity study using finite element method, the result obtained using finite volume method can be a few times smaller than the corresponding finite element method solution. A code-to-code comparison , between STAR-CCM+ and LS-DYNA was included in the analysis. Within the LS-DYNA models, two types of finite element formulations were used: solid and shell finite elements. Mesh sensitivity study showed that both approaches converge to a similar value that was obtained with STAR-CCM+ finite element solver. The evaluation of the computational solvers was extended by adding two benchmark cases from the STAR-CCM+ Verification Suite and presented in the Appendix A. The selected cases are: (1) bending of a cantilever beam under external load, and (2) cylindrical shell deformation analysis, known in the literature as ‘Scordelis-Lo roof’. The problems were solved with finite volume, and finite element methods, and the results confirmed the previously discussed findings. The analysis shows that the finite element solver is superior to the finite volume solver in terms of representation of model geometry and estimating the structural behavior of fuel plates. Depending on the ratio of the load to the flexibility of the plate, the finite volume solver can greatly under- or overestimate the structural response if a very carefully selected mesh is not used.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
On November 29th and 30th, 2022, the m:N UAS working group and its subgroups [small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS), Large UAS, High Altitude Platform Systems (HAPS), and Urban Air Mobility (UAM)] met at the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, CA for an in person meeting. The option to dial in remotely and use Conference.IO to engage with questions was offered as well. The subgroups meet multiple times throughout the year, virtually. Twice a year however, participants from all the subgroups come together to brief each other on progress, challenges, and path forward ideas for incorporating UAS into the airspace. The m:N UAS working group is run by Jay Shively (Adaptive Aerospace) and Andy Thurling (Thurling Aero Consulting) and is comprised of members from government, industry, and academia in an effort to identify and reduce barriers to m:N operations. This effort also includes identifying requirements, use cases, and metrics to support organizations and groups including the FAA and RTCA’s SC-228 Detect and Avoid. Each subgroup is run by a government/industry team.
The Satellite Needs Working Group (SNWG) in the U.S. Group on Earth Observations (USGEO) provides dedicated analysis and advice to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and is charged with identifying satellite data needs across the U.S. Government agencies to which the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) responds with solutions aligning with its missions and goals. The SNWG puts out a biennial survey to the U.S. Government agencies asking a variety of questions aimed at gleaning their current needs for satellite data. NASA’s response to the SNWG since 2016 has been to serve the community at large with open science and open data products derived through the SNWG process. With the next SNWG cycle set to kick off in 2022, the NASA SNWG team has been actively working to incorporate lessons learned from the past three cycles into the NASA-side process and tools. We will discuss the best practices and tools NASA has developed in response to the SNWG survey assessment process. These assist NASA’s decisions on how best to utilize existing, and proposing new, products and services to address the needs of other U.S. agencies.
The Satellite Needs Working Group (SNWG), part of the U.S. Group on Earth Observations (USGEO), surveys agencies across the U.S. Government to identify the satellite Earth observations each agency needs to fulfill its high-priority objectives and responsibilities. Around 20 civilian agencies participate in the SNWG survey every two years. After receiving the surveys, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducts an in-depth evaluation of each agency's needs in collaboration with fellow satellite Earth data providers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This assessment process, which takes place over an eight-month period, is divided into distinct phases. NASA first assembles an assessment team with the necessary subject matter expertise to evaluate each submitted need. An in-depth interview with each submitting agency then follows, featuring discussion of current and upcoming satellite missions as well as potential new activities that NASA, NOAA, and/or USGS could undertake to meet the agency's needs. The assessment teams then further evaluate these potential activities or solutions to identify how many agencies would benefit and estimate how much their level of satisfaction would increase. Solutions expected to have broad-reaching and significant agency benefits are proposed by NASA for funding. SNWG agencies receive an assessment report for each submitted need, in which the tri-agency assessment teams provide a detailed evaluation of the agency need, information on relevant satellite missions, and links to specific datasets or training resources. The SNWG Management Office at NASA’s Interagency Implementation and Advanced Concepts Team (IMPACT) contributes to NASA’s SNWG assessment in a variety of capacities, including statistical analysis of the survey responses to identify trends and similar needs across multiple agencies. The Management Office also provides analytics for the new proposed solutions, demonstrating and quantifying their potential value. For activities that receive funding, the Management Office manages the implementation process and works to maximize the benefit to SNWG agencies via a Stakeholder Engagement Program.
The Process Thresholds Working Group concerned itself with whether a geomorphic process to be monitored on satellite imagery must be global, regional, or local in its effect on the landscape. It was pointed out that major changes in types and magnitudes of processes operating in an area are needed to be detectable on a global scale. It was concluded from a review of geomorphic studies which used satellite images that they do record change in landscape over time (on a time-lapse basis) as a result of one or more processes. In fact, this may be one of the most important attributes of space imagery, in that one can document land form changes in the form of a permanent historical record. The group also discussed the important subject of the acquisition of basic data sets by different satellite imaging systems. Geomorphologists already have available one near-global basis data set resulting from the early LANDSAT program, especially images acquired by LANDSATs 1 and 2. Such historic basic data sets can serve as a benchmark for comparison with landscape changes that take place in the future. They can also serve as a benchmark for comparison with landscape changes that have occurred in the past (as recorded) by images, photography and maps.