SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Extended object tracking”

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.

At least 73 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2015

Advanced Concept Studies for Supersonic Commercial Transports Entering Service in the 2018-2020 Period Phase 2

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LM), working in conjunction with General Electric Global Research (GE GR) and Stanford University, executed a 19 month program responsive to the NASA sponsored "N+2 Supersonic Validation: Advanced Concept Studies for Supersonic Commercial Transports Entering Service in the 2018-2020 Period" contract. The key technical objective of this effort was to validate integrated airframe and propulsion technologies and design methodologies necessary to realize a supersonic vehicle capable of meeting the N+2 environmental and performance goals. The N+2 program is aligned with NASA's Supersonic Project and is focused on providing system level solutions capable of overcoming the efficiency, environmental, and performance barriers to practical supersonic flight. The N+2 environmental and performance goals are outlined in the technical paper, AIAA-2014-2138 (Ref. 1) along with the validated N+2 Phase 2 results. Our Phase 2 efforts built upon our Phase 1 studies (Ref. 2) and successfully demonstrated the ability to design and test realistic configurations capable of shaped sonic booms over the width of the sonic boom carpet. Developing a shaped boom configuration capable of meeting the N+2 shaped boom targets is a key goal for the N+2 program. During the LM Phase 1 effort, LM successfully designed and tested a shaped boom trijet configuration (1021) capable of achieving 85 PLdB under track (forward and aft shock) and up to 28 deg off-track at Mach 1.6. In Phase 2 we developed a refined configuration (1044-2) that extended the under 85 PLdB sonic boom level over the entire carpet of 52 deg off-track at a cruise Mach number of 1.7. Further, the loudness level of the configuration throughout operational conditions calculates to an average of 79 PLdB. These calculations rely on propagation employing Burger's (sBOOM) rounding methodology, and there are indications that the configuration average loudness would actually be 75 PLdB. We also added significant fidelity to the design of the configuration in this phase by performing a low speed wind tunnel test at our LTWT facility in Palmdale, by more complete modelling of propulsion effects in our sonic boom analysis, and by refining our configuration packaging and performance assessments. Working with General Electric, LM performed an assessment of the impact of inlet and nozzle effects on the sonic boom signature of the LM N+2 configurations. Our results indicate that inlet/exhaust streamtube boundary conditions are adequate for conceptual design studies, but realistic propulsion modeling at similar stream-tube conditions does have a small but measurable impact on the sonic boom signature. Previous supersonic transport studies have identified aeroelastic effects as one of the major challenges associated with the long, slender vehicles particularly common with shaped boom aircraft (Ref. 3). Under the Phase 2 effort, we have developed a detailed structural analysis model to evaluate the impact of flexibility and structural considerations on the feasibility of future quiet supersonic transports. We looked in particular at dynamic structural modes and flutter as a failure that must be avoided. We found that for our N+2 design in particular, adequate flutter margin existed. Our flutter margin is large enough to cover uncertainties like large increases in engine weight and the margin is relatively easy to increase with additional stiffening mass. The lack of major aeroelastic problems probably derives somewhat from an early design bias. While shaped boom aircraft require long length, they are not required to be thin. We intentionally developed our structural depths to avoid major flexibility problems. So at the end of Phase 2, we have validated that aeroelastic problems are not necessarily endemic to shaped boom designs. Experimental validation of sonic boom design and analysis techniques was the primary objective of the N+2 Supersonic Validations contract; and in this Phase, LM participated in four high speed wind tunnel tests. The first so-called Parametric Test in the Ames 9x7 tunnel did an exhaustive look at variation effects of the parameters: humidity, total pressure, sample time, spatial averaging distance and number of measurement locations, and more. From the results we learned to obtain data faster and more accurately, and made test condition tolerances easy to meet (eliminating earlier 60 percent wasted time when condition tolerances could not be held). The next two tests used different tunnels. The Ames 11 ft tunnel was used to test lower Mach numbers of 1.2 and 1.4. There were several difficulties using this tunnel for the first time for sonic boom including having to shift the measurement Mach numbers to 1.15 and 1.3 to avoid flow problems. It is believed that the 11 ft could be used successfully to measure sonic boom but there are likely to be a number of test condition restrictions. The Glenn 8x6 ft tunnel was used next and the tunnel has a number of desirable features for sonic boom measurement. While the Ames 9x7 can only test Mach 1.55 to 2.55 and the 11 ft can only test Mach 1.3 and lower, the Glenn 8x6 can test continuously from Mach 0.3 to 2.0. Unfortunately test measurement accuracy was compromised by a reference pressure drift. Post-test analysis revealed that the drift occurred when Mach number drifted slightly. Test measurements indicated that if Mach number drift is eliminated, results from the 8x6 would be more accurate, especially at longer distances, than results from the 9x7. The fourth test in the 9x7, called LM4, used everything we learned to comprehensively and accurately measure our new 1044-02 configuration with a full-carpet shaped signature design. Productivity was 8 times greater than our Phase 1 LM3 test. Measurement accuracy and repeatability was excellent out to 42 in. However, measurements at greater distances require the rail in the aft position and become substantially less accurate. Further signature processing or measurement improvements are needed for beyond near-field signature validation.

Morgenstern, John↗

NASA NTRS2007

Emergency Response Fire-Imaging UAS Missions over the Southern California Wildfire Disaster

Objectives include: Demonstrate capabilities of UAS to overfly and collect sensor data on widespread fires throughout Western US. Demonstrate long-endurance mission capabilities (20-hours+). Image multiple fires (greater than 4 fires per mission), to showcase extendable mission configuration and ability to either linger over key fires or station over disparate regional fires. Demonstrate new UAV-compatible, autonomous sensor for improved thermal characterization of fires. Provide automated, on-board, terrain and geo-rectified sensor imagery over OTH satcom links to national fire personnel and Incident commanders. Deliver real-time imagery (within 10-minutes of acquisition). Demonstrate capabilities of OTS technologies (GoogleEarth) to serve and display mission-critical sensor data, coincident with other pertinent data elements to facilitate information processing (WX data, ground asset data, other satellite data, R/T video, flight track info, etc).

Cobleigh, Brent R.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Emergency Response Fire-Imaging UAS Missions over the Southern California Wildfire Disaster

DelFrate, John H.↗

NASA NTRS2008

NASA 2007 Western States Fire Missions (WSFM)

This viewgraph presentation describes the Western states Fire Missions (WSFM) that occurred in 2007. The objectives of this mission are: (1) Demonstrate capabilities of UAS to overfly and collect sensor data on widespread fires throughout Western US. (1) Demonstrate long-endurance mission capabilities (20-hours+). (2) Image multiple fires (greater than 4 fires per mission), to showcase extendable mission configuration and ability to either linger over key fires or station over disparate regional fires. (3) Demonstrate new UAV-compatible, autonomous sensor for improved thermal characterization of fires. (4) Provide automated, on-board, terrain and geo-rectified sensor imagery over OTH satcom links to national fire personnel and Incident commanders. (5) Deliver real-time imagery to (within 10-minutes of acquisition). (6) Demonstrate capabilities of OTS technologies (GoogleEarth) to serve and display mission-critical sensor data, coincident with other pertinent data elements to facilitate information processing (WX data, ground asset data, other satellite data, R/T video, flight track info, etc).

Buoni, Greg↗

NASA NTRS1994

Aging jets from low-mass stars

An extended faint optical jet is associated with the compact emission region plus faint star known as HH 55. HH 55 is located in the Lupus 2 cloud 2 min SW of the well studied T Tauri star RU Lupi. The HH 55 jet extends 55 sec N and 35 sec S in PA 160 deg. The HH 55 star is an emission line star of spectral type M3.5. Its image in the emission lines of H-alpha and (S II) is slightly elongated by 2 sec - 3 sec to the S but in continuum light is symmetrical and pointlike ((full width at half maximum) (FWHM) = 1.7 sec). The star and jet have several features in common with the star and jet known as Sz 102 = Th 28 in the nearby Lupus 3 cloud. We suggest that these objects are representative of the late evolutionary stage of the HH jet-outflow phenomenon and point out that such objects may be quite common although difficult to detect. With L(sub bol) approximately = 0.005 solar luminosity, and log T(sub e) approximately = 3.5, the HH 55 star is close to the main sequence and evolutionary tracks suggest an age of 3 x 10(exp 7) yr.

Graham, J. A.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Technical Overview of the Mission Engagement Onboarding Process Managed by the Mission Engagement Working Group (MEWG)

NASA's intricate network, encompassing the Near Space Network (NSN) and Deep Space Network (DSN), plays a pivotal role in supporting an array of space missions. These range from those in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO), to the more distant Cislunar and Deep Space endeavors. To manage the vast communications needs, we utilize multiple ground stations globally, coupled with the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS). The Mission Engagement Working Group (MEWG), within the Commercialization, Innovation, and Synergies (CIS) division, stands as the primary gateway for all Space Communications and Network (SCaN) communication and navigation requests. This includes not only NASA's internal missions but also extends to other governmental agencies and commercial sector endeavors. How does the MEWG Process Work? - Initial Contact : Clients initiate their interaction with the NSN by submitting their service requirements through a dedicated online portal. - Preliminary Assessment by MEWG: Upon submission, MEWG embarks on a primary screening of the request. This involves evaluating the client's identity and the foundational concept of their mission. - Detailed Analysis by the NSN Team: Parallelly, the NSN team conducts a comprehensive review of the service request. This often necessitates additional clarification from the requester, ensuring that the final assessment is both thorough and accurate. - Coordination & Streamlining: MEWG's overarching objective is to effectively log, classify, orchestrate, and guarantee that pertinent actions are delegated based on initial client interactions. Acting as the central hub for these primary contacts, MEWG ensures that each request is sufficiently detailed for an in-depth evaluation. - Feedback & Remediation: If a request is deemed unsuitable or lacking, MEWG doesn't merely reject it. Instead, the team discerns the reasons for the inadequacy and suggests potential rectification strategies. This approach ensures that feedback delivered to clients is precise, prompt, constructive, and actionable. Conclusion: This plenary presentation will detail the efforts of the MEWG resulting in a greatly streamlined and refined onboarding process for space communication Direct-To-Earth (DTE) and Space Relay (SR) support requests. By centralizing the preliminary interactions and assessments, we've reduced the complexity for clients, ensuring they engage with a singular, efficient, and responsive point of contact. This initiative, we believe, fortifies NASA's commitment to fostering effective and synergistic collaborations with its partners.

Devin L Bitner↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Technical Overview of the Mission Engagement Onboarding Process Managed by the Mission Engagement Working Group (MEWG)

Devin Bitner↗

NASA NTRS2022

Near-Earth Object Surveyor Overview

The Near-Earth Object (NEO) Surveyor is designed to detect, categorize and characterize Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) using infrared imaging. The project was approved to enter the preliminary design phase (Phase B) in FY21 after an extended Concept Development Phase (Phase A). The NEO Surveyor project responds to US Public Law 109-155[1], National Research Council’s report “Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys & Hazard Mitigation Strategies (2010)”[2], the U. S. National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan (June 2018)[3], and the objectives of NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO). The goals of the NEO Surveyor project are to: (1) identify impact hazards to the Earth posed by NEOs (defined as asteroids and comets that come within 1.3 AU of the Sun) by performing a comprehensive survey of the NEO population; (2) obtain detailed physical characterization data for individual objects that are likely to pose an impact hazard; (3) characterize the entire population of potentially hazardous NEOs to inform potential mitigation strategies. The mission will make significant progress toward the George E. Brown, Jr. NEO Survey Program objective defined by the U. S. Congress of detecting, tracking, cataloging, and characterizing at least 90% of NEOs equal to or larger than 140 m in diameter. The project is a collaboration between NASA-JPL, the University of Arizona (UA) and industry, with Ball Aerospace notably providing the spacecraft and key instrument elements. This paper will describe the overall NEO Surveyor Project objectives, initial spacecraft and instrument design and development plans and mission concept.

Veto, Michael↗

NASA NTRS1999

The Lunar Prospector Mission: Final Results of Trajectory Design, Quasi-Frozen Orbits, Extended Mission Targeting, and Lunar Topography and Potential Models

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) selected Lunar Prospector (LP) as one of the discovery missions to conduct solar system exploration science investigations. The mission was NASA's first lunar voyage to investigate key science objectives since Apollo and was launched in January 1998. In keeping with discovery program requirements to reduce total mission cost and utilize new technology, Lunar Prospector's mission design and control will focus on the use of innovative and proven trajectory analysis programs. As part of this effort, the Goddard Space Flight Center and the Ames Research Center became partners in the Lunar Prospector trajectory team to provide the trajectory analysis and orbit determination support. At the end of 1998, Lunar Prospector completed its one-year primary mission at 100-km altitude above the lunar surface. On December 19, 1998, Lunar Prospector entered its extended mission phase. The mission orbit was lowered from 100 km to a mean altitude of 40 km. Due to lunar potential effects, the altitude of Lunar Prospector varied from 25 to 55 km above the mean lunar geoid. After one month at 40 km, the lunar potential model was updated based upon the new tracking data at 40 km. On January 15, 1999, the altitude was lowered again to a mean altitude of 30 km. The spherical altitude varied between 15 km and 45 km above the mean lunar geoid while the topographical altitude varied between 10 km and 50 km. Various means were employed to get accurate lunar surface elevation including Clementine altimetry and LOS analysis. Based upon the best available terrain maps, Lunar Prospector reached actual altitudes of 8 km above lunar mountains in the southern polar region. This extended mission phase of six months will enable LP to obtain science data up to 3 orders of magnitude better than at the mission orbit. At the end of the operations mission, LP was targeted for impact at a chosen location that allowed optical observation of the lunar ejecta as LP ended its mission at 1.6 km/sec. This paper details the trajectory design and orbit determination planning and actual results of the Lunar Prospector nominal and extended mission including maneuver design, eccentricity vs. argument of perigee evolution, topographical altitude estimation, and lunar potential modeling. This paper provides understanding of the quasi-frozen orbit design of the LP mission, the optimization process of lunar orbit targets, the impacts that the selected lunar potential models play, and discusses the feasibility of meeting the mission goals. Observed evolution of the Keplerian orbit elements are compared to the theoretical predictions using the latest lunar potential model available which incorporates the Lunar Prospector Doppler data. Mapping orbit maintenance maneuver design along with results of the actual maneuvers to maintain the orbital requirements are also presented.

Folta, David↗

NASA NTRS1999

Lunar Prospector Extended Mission

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) selected Lunar Prospector as one of the discovery missions to conduct solar system exploration science investigations. The mission is NASA's first lunar voyage to investigate key science objectives since Apollo and was launched in January 1998. In keeping with discovery program requirements to reduce total mission cost and utilize new technology, Lunar Prospector's mission design and control focused on the use of innovative and proven trajectory analysis programs. As part of this effort, the Ames Research Center and the Goddard Space Flight Center have become partners in the Lunar Prospector trajectory team to provide the trajectory analysis, maneuver planning, orbit determination support, and product generation. At the end of 1998, Lunar Prospector completed its one-year primary mission at 100 km altitude above the lunar surface. On December 19, 1998, Lunar Prospector entered the extended mission phase. Initially the mission orbit was lowered from 100 km to a mean altitude of 40 km. The altitude of Lunar Prospector varied between 25 and 55 km above the mean lunar geode due to lunar potential effects. After one month, the lunar potential model was updated based upon the new tracking data at 40 km. On January 29, 1999, the altitude was lowered again to a mean altitude of 30 km. This altitude varies between 12 and 48 km above the mean lunar geode. Since the minimum altitude is very close to the mean geode, various approaches were employed to get accurate lunar surface elevation including Clementine altimetry and line of sight analysis. Based upon the best available terrain maps, Lunar Prospector will reach altitudes of 8 km above lunar mountains in the southern polar and far side regions. This extended mission phase of six months will enable LP to obtain science data up to 3 orders of magnitude better than at the mission orbit. This paper details the trajectory design and orbit determination planning, and actual results of the the Lunar Prospector extended mission including maneuver design, eccentricity & argument of perigee evolution, and lunar potential modeling.

Folta, David↗

NASA NTRS1999

Lunar Prospector Extended Mission

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) selected Lunar Prospector (LP) as one of the discovery missions to conduct solar system exploration science investigations. The mission is NASA's first lunar voyage to investigate key science objectives since Apollo and was launched in January 1998. In keeping with discovery program requirements to reduce total mission cost and utilize new technology, Lunar Prospector's mission design and control focused on the use of innovative and proven trajectory analysis programs. As part of this effort, the Ames Research Center and the Goddard Space Flight Center have become partners in the Lunar Prospector trajectory team to provide the trajectory analysis, maneuver planning, orbit determination support, and product generation. At the end of 1998, Lunar Prospector completed its one-year primary mission at 100 km altitude above the lunar surface. On December 19, 1998, Lunar Prospector entered the extended mission phase. Initially the mission orbit was lowered from 100 km to a mean altitude of 40 km. The altitude of Lunar Prospector varied between 25 and 55 km above the mean lunar geode due to lunar potential effects. After one month, the lunar potential model was updated based upon the new tracking data at 40 km. On January 29, 1999, the altitude was lowered again to a mean altitude of 30 km. This altitude varies between 12 and 48 km above the mean lunar geode. Since the minimum altitude is very close to the mean geode, various approaches were employed to get accurate lunar surface elevation including Clementine altimetry and line of sight analysis. Based upon the best available terrain maps, Lunar Prospector will reach altitudes of 8 km above lunar mountains in the southern polar and far side regions. This extended mission phase of six months will enable LP to obtain science data up to 3 orders of magnitude better than at the mission orbit. This paper details the trajectory design and orbit determination planning and actual results of the Lunar Prospector extended mission including maneuver design, eccentricity & argument of perigee evolution, and lunar potential modeling.

Folta, David↗

NASA NTRS2015

A Journey with MOM

In late 2013, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) launched its "Mars Orbiter Mission" (MOM). ISRO engaged NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for navigation services to support ISRO's objectives of MOM achieving and maintaining Mars orbit. The navigation support included planning, documentation, testing, orbit determination, maneuver design /analysis, and tracking data analysis. Several of MOM's attributes had an impact on navigation processes, e.g., S -band telecommunications, Earth Orbit Phase maneuvers, and frequent angular momentum desaturation s (AMDs). The primary source of tracking data was NASA/ JPL's Deep Space Network (DSN); JPL also conducted a performance assessment of Indian Deep Space Network (IDSN) tracking data. Planning for the Mars Orbit Insertion (MOI) was complicated by a pressure regulator failure that created uncertainty regarding MOM's main engine and raised potential planetary protection issues. A successful main engine test late on approach resolved these issues; it was quickly followed by a successful MOI on 24-September - 2014 at 02:00 UTC. Less than a month later, Comet Siding Spring's Mars flyby necessitated plans to minimize potential spacecraft damage. At the time of this writing, MOM's orbital operations continue, and plans to extend JPL 's support are in progress. This paper covers the JPL 's support of MOM through the Comet Siding Spring event.

Mars orbiter↗

NASA NTRS1991

Giotto Extended Mission (GEM)

The primary objectives of the Giotto Extended Mission (GEM), are to determine the composition and physical state of the Grigg Skjellerup Comet's nucleus; to determine the processes that govern the composition and distribution of neutral and ionized species in the cometary atmosphere. Giotto consists of a single European Space Agency (ESA) spacecraft that was launched in 1985 from Center Spatial Guyanis in French Guiana on an Ariane launch vehicle. After a successful launch into geostationary orbit and a heliocentric transfer trajectory, the spacecraft successfully encountered Halley's Comet in 1986. One month after encountering Halley's Comet, Mar. 1986, the spacecraft was placed in hibernation in a heliocentric orbit slightly less than 1 AU. Between Feb. and Jul. 1990 the spacecraft was successfully reactivated, checked out, and placed on a trajectory course to intercept comet Grigg Skjellerup. The spacecraft has been in hibernation since Jul. 1990. Information is presented in tabular form in the following areas: coverage goals, Deep Space Network Support, frequency assignments, telemetry, command, and tracking support responsibility.

Wilkins, D. E. B.↗

NASA NTRS2001

Laser Calibration Experiment for Small Objects in Space

The Air Force Research Laboratory/Directed Energy Directorate (AFRL/DE) and NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) are looking at a series of joint laser space calibration experiments using the 12J 15Hz CO2 High Performance CO2 Ladar Surveillance Sensor (FU-CLASS) system on the 3.67 meter aperture Advanced Electro-Optics System (AEOS). The objectives of these experiments are to provide accurate range and signature measurements of calibration spheres, demonstrate high resolution tracking capability of small objects, and support NASA in technology development and tracking projects. Ancillary benefits include calibrating radar and optical sites, completing satellite conjunction analyses, supporting orbital perturbations analyses, and comparing radar and optical signatures. In the first experiment, a Global Positioning System (GPS)/laser beacon instrumented microsatellite about 25 cm in diameter will be deployed from a Space Shuttle Hitchhiker canister or other suitable launch means. Orbiting in low earth orbit, the microsatellite will pass over AEOS on the average of two times per 24-hour period. An onboard orbit propagator will activate the GPS unit and a visible laser beacon at the appropriate times. The HI-CLASS/AEOS system will detect the microsatellite as it rises above the horizon, using GPS-generated acquisition vectors. The visible laser beacon will be used to fine-tune the tracking parameters for continuous ladar data measurements throughout the pass. This operational approach should maximize visibility to the ground-based laser while allowing battery life to be conserved, thus extending the lifetime of the satellite. GPS data will be transmitted to the ground providing independent location information for the microsatellite down to sub-meter accuracies.

Campbell, Jonathan↗

NASA NTRS2002

STARSAT: A Joint NASA/AF Project for Laser Calibration of Small Objects in Space

The Air Force Research Laboratory/Directed Energy Directorate (AFRL/DE) and the NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center are planning a joint laser space calibration experiments using the HI-CLASS ladar system and the Advanced Electro-Optical System (AEOS) located at Maui Space Surveillance System (MSSS). These experiments will use ladar data to provide accurate range and signature measurements of calibration spheres with known sizes. Ancillary experiment benefits could include calibrating operational sensors, analyzing effects of orbital perturbations on micro-satellites, and correlating radar and optical signatures. In the first experiment, a GPS/laser beacon instrumented micro-satellite about 20 cm in diameter would be deployed from a Space Shuttle Hitchhiker canister. Orbiting in LEO, the micro-satellite would pass over MSSS on the average of two times per 24 hour period. A timing circuit would activate the GPS unit that would in turn activate the laser beacon at the appropriate time. The HI-CLASS/AEOS system will detect and acquire the micro-sat as it rises above the horizon and demonstrate that continuous track can be maintained throughout the pass. Orbital parameters will be obtained. This operational approach should maximize visibility to the ground-based laser while allowing battery life to be conserved thus extending the lifetime of the satellite. GPS data will be transmitted to the ground, providing independent location information down to cm accuracies for comparison and evaluation purposes.

Campbell, Jonathan W.↗

NASA NTRS2018

MoonBEAM: A Beyond Earth-Orbit Gamma-Ray Burst Detector for Multi-Messenger Astronomy

Moon Burst Energetics All-sky Monitor (MoonBEAM) is a CubeSat concept of deploying gamma-ray detectors in cislunar space to increase gamma-ray burst detections and improve localization precision with the timing triangulation technique. A gamma-ray instrument in cislunar orbit will have greatly reduced sky blockage compared to instruments in low Earth orbit. Working in conjunction with another instrument in low Earth orbit, MoonBEAM can also help constrain the arrival direction of the wavefront to an annulus on the sky by utilizing the light arrival times between the different orbits. This method has been demonstrated by the Interplanetary Gamma- Ray Burst Timing Network. However, delays in data downlink for instruments outside the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite network prevent rapid follow-up observations. We present here a gamma-ray CubeSat concept in Earth-Moon L3 halo orbit that is capable of faster response and provide a timing baseline for localization improvement. Such an instrument would aid in the gravitational wave follow-up observations in other wavelengths to identify the gamma-ray burst afterglow and kilonova emission. Reducing the region of interest makes identifying afterglows much faster, allowing for rapid on-source observations and monitoring of the rise and decay times. It will also prevent source confusion between two transients and enable robust association. A gamma-ray detection could also increase the confidence of a simultaneous but marginal gravitational wave signal, extending the detection horizon. MoonBEAM is a 12U CubeSat concept of deploying gamma-ray detectors in cislunar space to increase gamma-ray burst detections and improve localization precision with the timing triangulation technique. Such an instrument would probe the extreme processes in cosmic collision of compact objects and facilitate multi-messenger time-domain astronomy to explore the end of stellar life cycles and black hole formations.

gamma-ray Cubesat↗

NASA NTRS2010

Introduction of the Space Shuttle Columbia Accident, Investigation Details, Findings and Crew Survival Investigation Report

As the Space Shuttle Program comes to an end, it is important that the lessons learned from the Columbia accident be captured and understood by those who will be developing future aerospace programs and supporting current programs. Aeromedical lessons learned from the Accident were presented at AsMA in 2005. This Panel will update that information, closeout the lessons learned, provide additional information on the accident and provide suggestions for the future. To set the stage, an overview of the accident is required. The Space Shuttle Columbia was returning to Earth with a crew of seven astronauts on 1Feb, 2003. It disintegrated along a track extending from California to Louisiana and observers along part of the track filmed the breakup of Columbia. Debris was recovered from Littlefield, Texas to Fort Polk, Louisiana, along a 567 statute mile track; the largest ever recorded debris field. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) concluded its investigation in August 2003, and released their findings in a report published in February 2004. NASA recognized the importance of capturing the lessons learned from the loss of Columbia and her crew and the Space Shuttle Program managers commissioned the Spacecraft Crew Survival Integrated Investigation Team (SCSIIT) to accomplish this. Their task was to perform a comprehensive analysis of the accident, focusing on factors and events affecting crew survival, and to develop recommendations for improving crew survival, including the design features, equipment, training and procedures intended to protect the crew. NASA released the Columbia Crew Survival Investigation Report in December 2008. Key personnel have been assembled to give you an overview of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident, the medical response, the medico-legal issues, the SCSIIT findings and recommendations and future NASA flight surgeon spacecraft accident response training. Educational Objectives: Set the stage for the Panel to address the investigation, medico-legal issues, the Spacecraft Crew Survival Integrated Investigation Team report and training for accident response.

Chandler, Michael↗

NASA NTRS2003

Space/Time Statistics of Polar Ice Motion

Ice motions have been computed from passive microwave imagery (SMMR and SSM/I) on a daily basis for both Polar Regions. In the Arctic these daily motions have been merged with daily motions from AVHRR imagery and the Arctic buoy program. In the Antarctic motion only from the AVHRR were available for merging with the passive microwave vectors. Long-term means, monthly means and weekly means have all been computed from the resulting 22-year time series of polar ice motion. Papers are in preparation that present the long term (22 year) means, their variability and show animations of the monthly means over this time period for both Polar Regions. These papers will have links to "enhanced objects" that allow the reader to view the animations as part of the paper. The first paper presents the ice motion results from each of the Polar Regions. The second paper looks only at ice motion in the Arctic in order to develop a time series of ice age in the Arctic. Starting with the first full SMMR year in 1979 we keep track of each individual "ice element" (resolution of the sensor) and track it in the subsequent monthly time series. After a year we "age" each "particle" and we thus can keep track of the age of the ice starting in 1979. We keep track of ice age classes between one and five years and thus we can see the evolution of the ice as it ages after the initial 5-year period. This calculation shows how we are losing the older ice through Fram Strait at a rather alarming rate particularly in the past 15 years. This loss of older ice has resulted in an overall decrease in the thickest, oldest ice, which is now limited to a region just north of the Canadian Archipelago with tongues extending out across the pole towards the Siberian Shelf. This loss of old ice is consistent with the effects of global warming which provides the heat needed to melt, move and disperse this oldest ice through Fram Strait. This is the first step in a progression that may eventually open the Arctic ice pack and lead to an ice-free Arctic Ocean.

Emery, William J.↗