SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “concurrent programs”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

565 records · Page 32

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2024

Influence of Antarctic and Greenland Continental Shelf Circulation on High‐Latitude Oceans in E3SM

The science objectives of this project are to simulate and understand the impacts of both deep-basin warm-water intrusions and land-ice melt on the continental shelf circulations and sea-ice distributions around the margins of Greenland and Antarctica. As well, the role of subsurface ocean heat from the Atlantic on declining sea-ice cover in the Arctic is explored. Mesoscale processes and fine bathymetry are implicated in cross-shelf property transports around both Greenland and Antarctica. Therefore, we configured and ran an atmospheric reanalysis-forced global ocean/sea-ice simulation on a grid that reduces from 8 km at the Equator to 2 km at the poles (UH8to2) with 60 vertical levels. It was produced using the Energy Exascale Earth System Model ‘‘HiLAT’’ code (E3SMv0-HiLAT) that uses the Parallel Ocean Program (POP) and CICE5 as its ocean and sea-ice components, respectively. Two main UH8to2 simulations were carried out: one for 1975-2009 and the other for July 2016-2020 after it was initialized from a 1/25° data-assimilative ocean/sea-ice prediction system ocean/sea-ice state. The UH8to2 is not coupled to an active land-ice model. Rather, land-ice melt is represented by observationally informed freshwater fluxes (FWFs). Short (multi-year) UH8to2 simulations were conducted to understand sensitivities when Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) melt is released only at the ocean surface or when it is distributed over the upper water column in accordance with fjord melt plume behavior; these cases were compared with a no GrIS melt case. West Greenland continental shelf currents were fastest in the vertical distribution case and an increase in baroclinic conversion at the shelf break associated with increased eddy kinetic energy was found relative to the surface release case. Further, salinity is lower and meltwater volume greater in the eastern Labrador Sea in the vertical distribution case. For the Arctic, the veracity of the UH8to2 was evaluated for 2017-2020 using available observations. Simulated seasonal sea-ice thickness and concentration are realistic, but the ice is unrealistically thin in the central and eastern Arctic in the fall. Comparisons of vertical sections of ocean temperature, salinity, and buoyancy collected from Ice-Tethered Profilers (ITPs) in the eastern Arctic in the fall and winter of 2019/2020 and co-located/concurrent UH8to2 fields show the stratification over the top 100 m of the water column is too low in the model, the simulated mixed layer too deep, and the simulated subsurface Atlantic Water (AW) too warm; these biases may contribute to the sea-ice biases. A model intercomparison study using the UH8to2 and a forced 1/25° regional Arctic ocean/sea-ice (uses the HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model and CICE5) simulation further investigates the relationship between AW and sea-ice in the eastern Arctic. The models show a mesoscale-rich pulse of Atlantic Water extending into the eastern basin that reaches maximum intensity in late winter of 2018, after which it decreases in strength. Concurrent and co-located sea-ice melt or the inhibition of sea-ice growth is seen and is attributed to halocline mesoscale eddies doming into the mixed layer with convection bringing this heat into the vicinity of the sea-ice.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CERES Monthly TOA and SRB Averages (SRBAVG) data in HDF-EOS Grid (CER_SRBAVG_Terra-FM1-MODIS_Edition2C)

The Monthly TOA/Surface Averages (SRBAVG) product contains a month of space and time averaged Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) data for a single scanner instrument. The SRBAVG is also produced for combinations of scanner instruments. The monthly average regional flux is estimated using diurnal models and the 1-degree regional fluxes at the hour of observation from the CERES SFC product. A second set of monthly average fluxes are estimated using concurrent diurnal information from geostationary satellites. These fluxes are given for both clear-sky and total-sky scenes and are spatially averaged from 1-degree regions to 1-degree zonal averages and a global average. For each region, the SRBAVG also contains hourly average fluxes for the month and an overall monthly average. The cloud properties from SFC are column averaged and are included on the SRBAVG. [Location=GLOBAL] [Temporal_Coverage: Start_Date=1998-02-01; Stop_Date=2003-02-28] [Spatial_Coverage: Southernmost_Latitude=-90; Northernmost_Latitude=90; Westernmost_Longitude=-180; Easternmost_Longitude=180] [Data_Resolution: Latitude_Resolution=1 degree; Longitude_Resolution=1 degree; Horizontal_Resolution_Range=100 km - < 250 km or approximately 1 degree - < 2.5 degrees; Temporal_Resolution=1 month; Temporal_Resolution_Range=Monthly - < Annual].

ICE PARTICLE DIAMETER↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CERES Monthly TOA and SRB Averages (SRBAVG) data in HDF-EOS Grid (CER_SRBAVG_Terra-FM2-MODIS_Edition2D)

The Monthly TOA/Surface Averages (SRBAVG) product contains a month of space and time averaged Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) data for a single scanner instrument. The SRBAVG is also produced for combinations of scanner instruments. The monthly average regional flux is estimated using diurnal models and the 1-degree regional fluxes at the hour of observation from the CERES SFC product. A second set of monthly average fluxes are estimated using concurrent diurnal information from geostationary satellites. These fluxes are given for both clear-sky and total-sky scenes and are spatially averaged from 1-degree regions to 1-degree zonal averages and a global average. For each region, the SRBAVG also contains hourly average fluxes for the month and an overall monthly average. The cloud properties from SFC are column averaged and are included on the SRBAVG. [Location=GLOBAL] [Temporal_Coverage: Start_Date=1998-02-01; Stop_Date=2004-05-31] [Spatial_Coverage: Southernmost_Latitude=-90; Northernmost_Latitude=90; Westernmost_Longitude=-180; Easternmost_Longitude=180] [Data_Resolution: Latitude_Resolution=1 degree; Longitude_Resolution=1 degree; Horizontal_Resolution_Range=100 km - < 250 km or approximately 1 degree - < 2.5 degrees; Temporal_Resolution=1 month; Temporal_Resolution_Range=Monthly - < Annual].

CLEAR-SKY SHORTWAVE FLUX↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CERES Monthly TOA and SRB Averages (SRBAVG) data in HDF-EOS Grid (CER_SRBAVG_Terra-FM2-MODIS_Edition2C)

CLEAR-SKY SOLAR INCIDENCE↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CERES Monthly TOA and SRB Averages (SRBAVG) data in HDF-EOS Grid (CER_SRBAVG_TRMM-PFM-VIRS_Edition2B)

The Monthly TOA/Surface Averages (SRBAVG) product contains a month of space and time averaged Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) data for a single scanner instrument. The SRBAVG is also produced for combinations of scanner instruments. The monthly average regional flux is estimated using diurnal models and the 1-degree regional fluxes at the hour of observation from the CERES SFC product. A second set of monthly average fluxes are estimated using concurrent diurnal information from geostationary satellites. These fluxes are given for both clear-sky and total-sky scenes and are spatially averaged from 1-degree regions to 1-degree zonal averages and a global average. For each region, the SRBAVG also contains hourly average fluxes for the month and an overall monthly average. The cloud properties from SFC are column averaged and are included on the SRBAVG. [Location=GLOBAL] [Temporal_Coverage: Start_Date=1998-02-01; Stop_Date=2000-03-31] [Spatial_Coverage: Southernmost_Latitude=-90; Northernmost_Latitude=90; Westernmost_Longitude=-180; Easternmost_Longitude=180] [Data_Resolution: Latitude_Resolution=1 degree; Longitude_Resolution=1 degree; Horizontal_Resolution_Range=100 km - < 250 km or approximately 1 degree - < 2.5 degrees; Temporal_Resolution=1 month; Temporal_Resolution_Range=Monthly - < Annual].

CLEAR-SKY ALBEDO↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CERES Monthly TOA and SRB Averages (SRBAVG) data in HDF-EOS Grid (CER_SRBAVG_Terra-FM1-MODIS_Edition2D)

The Monthly TOA/Surface Averages (SRBAVG) product contains a month of space and time averaged Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) data for a single scanner instrument. The SRBAVG is also produced for combinations of scanner instruments. The monthly average regional flux is estimated using diurnal models and the 1-degree regional fluxes at the hour of observation from the CERES SFC product. A second set of monthly average fluxes are estimated using concurrent diurnal information from geostationary satellites. These fluxes are given for both clear-sky and total-sky scenes and are spatially averaged from 1-degree regions to 1-degree zonal averages and a global average. For each region, the SRBAVG also contains hourly average fluxes for the month and an overall monthly average. The cloud properties from SFC are column averaged and are included on the SRBAVG. [Location=GLOBAL] [Temporal_Coverage: Start_Date=1998-02-01; Stop_Date=2004-05-31] [Spatial_Coverage: Southernmost_Latitude=-90; Northernmost_Latitude=90; Westernmost_Longitude=-180; Easternmost_Longitude=180] [Data_Resolution: Latitude_Resolution=1 degree; Longitude_Resolution=1 degree; Horizontal_Resolution_Range=100 km - < 250 km or approximately 1 degree - < 2.5 degrees; Temporal_Resolution=1 month; Temporal_Resolution_Range=Monthly - < Annual].

EOSDIS↗

NASA NTRS2022

Recommendations on the Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions - Phase II

This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗