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.
During the course of this project we have made a great deal of progress developing and using a new plasma modeling technique which we now refer to as the Generalized Semikinetic (GSK) model. It has been used to study the development of plasma flows in the plasmasphere, the polar cap and auroral zones, and the transition region. Below we describe some of the major accomplishments of this grant.
Most people take the constant presence of gravitys pull for granted. However, the Earth's gravitational strength actually varies from location to location. This variation occurs because mass, which influences an object's gravitational pull, is not evenly distributed within the planet. Changes in topography, such as glacial movement, an earthquake, or a rise in the ocean level, can subtly affect the gravity field. An accurate measurement of the Earth's gravity field helps us understand the distribution of mass beneath the surface. This insight can assist us in locating petroleum, mineral deposits, ground water, and other valuable substances. Gravity mapping can also help notice or verify changes in sea surface height and other ocean characteristics. Such changes may indicate climate change from polar ice melting and other phenomena. In addition, gravity mapping can indicate how land moves under the surface after earthquakes and other plate tectonic processes. Finally, changes in the Earth's gravity field might indicate a shift in water distribution that could affect agriculture, water supplies for population centers, and long-term weather prediction. Scientists can map out the Earth's gravity field by watching satellite orbits. When a satellite shifts in vertical position, it might be passing over an area where gravity changes in strength. Gravity is only one factor that may shape a satellite's orbital path. To derive a gravity measurement from satellite movement, scientists must remove other factors that might affect a satellite's position: 1. Drag from atmospheric friction. 2. Pressure from solar radiation as it heads toward Earth and. as it is reflected off the surface of the Earth 3. Gravitational pull from the Sun, the Moon, and other planets in the Solar System. 4. The effect of tides. 5. Relativistic effects. Scientists must also correct for the satellite tracking process. For example, the tracking signal must be corrected for refraction through the atmosphere of the Earth. Supercomputers can calculate the effect of gravity for specific locations in space following a mathematical process known as spherical harmonics, which quantifies the gravity field of a planetary body. The process is based on Laplace's fundamental differential equation of gravity. The accuracy of a spherical harmonic solution is rated by its degree and order. Minute variations in gravity are measured against the geoid, a surface of constant gravity acceleration at mean sea level. The geoid reference gravity model strength includes the central body gravitational attraction (9.8 m/sq s) and a geopotential variation in latitude partially caused by the rotation of the Earth. The rotational effect modifies the shape of the geoid to be more like an ellipsoid, rather than a perfect, circle. Variations of gravity strength from the ellipsoidal reference model are measured in units called milli-Galileos (mGals). One mGal equals 10(exp -5) m/sq s. Research projects have also measured the gravity fields of other planetary bodies, as noted in the user profile that follows. From this information, we may make inferences about our own planet's internal structure and evolution. Moreover, mapping the gravity fields of other planets can help scientists plot the most fuel-efficient course for spacecraft expeditions to those planets.
The Data Service Provider Cost Estimation Tool (CET) and Comparables Database (CDB) package provides to NASA s Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) the ability to estimate the full range of year-by-year lifecycle cost estimates for the implementation and operation of data service providers required by ESE to support its science and applications programs. The CET can make estimates dealing with staffing costs, supplies, facility costs, network services, hardware and maintenance, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software licenses, software development and sustaining engineering, and the changes in costs that result from changes in workload. Data Service Providers may be stand-alone or embedded in flight projects, field campaigns, research or applications projects, or other activities. The CET and CDB package employs a cost-estimation-by-analogy approach. It is based on a new, general data service provider reference model that provides a framework for construction of a database by describing existing data service providers that are analogs (or comparables) to planned, new ESE data service providers. The CET implements the staff effort and cost estimation algorithms that access the CDB and generates the lifecycle cost estimate for a new data services provider. This data creates a common basis for an ESE proposal evaluator for considering projected data service provider costs.
Software Quality Assurance (SQA) is an important component of the software development process. SQA processes provide assurance that the software products and processes in the project life cycle conform to their specified requirements by planning, enacting, and performing a set of activities to provide adequate confidence that quality is being built into the software. Typical techniques include: (1) Testing (2) Simulation (3) Model checking (4) Symbolic execution (5) Management reviews (6) Technical reviews (7) Inspections (8) Walk-throughs (9) Audits (10) Analysis (complexity analysis, control flow analysis, algorithmic analysis) (11) Formal method Our work over the last few years has resulted in substantial knowledge about SQA techniques, especially the areas of technical reviews and inspections. But can we apply the same QA techniques to the system development process? If yes, what kind of tailoring do we need before applying them in the system engineering context? If not, what types of QA techniques are actually used at system level? And, is there any room for improvement.) After a brief examination of the system engineering literature (especially focused on NASA and DoD guidance) we found that: (1) System and software development process interact with each other at different phases through development life cycle (2) Reviews are emphasized in both system and software development. (Figl.3). For some reviews (e.g. SRR, PDR, CDR), there are both system versions and software versions. (3) Analysis techniques are emphasized (e.g. Fault Tree Analysis, Preliminary Hazard Analysis) and some details are given about how to apply them. (4) Reviews are expected to use the outputs of the analysis techniques. In other words, these particular analyses are usually conducted in preparation for (before) reviews. The goal of our work is to explore the interaction between the Quality Assurance (QA) techniques at the system level and the software level.
The Venus Global Reference Atmospheric Model (Venus-GRAM) was originally developed in 2004 under funding from NASA's In Space Propulsion (ISP) Aerocapture Project to support mission studies at the planet. Many proposals, including NASA New Frontiers and Discovery, as well as other studies have used Venus-GRAM to design missions and assess system robustness. After Venus-GRAM's release in 2005, several missions to Venus have generated a wealth of additional atmospheric data, yet few model updates have been made to Venus-GRAM. This paper serves to address three areas: (1) to present the current status of Venus-GRAM, (2) to identify new sources of data and other upgrades that need to be incorporated to maintain Venus-GRAM credibility and (3) to identify additional Venus-GRAM options and features that could be included to increase its capability. This effort will de-pend on understanding the needs of the user community, obtaining new modeling data and establishing a dedicated funding source to support continual up-grades. This paper is intended to initiate discussion that can result in an upgraded and validated Venus-GRAM being available to future studies and NASA proposals.
The Venus Global Reference Atmospheric Model (Venus-GRAM) was originally developed in 2004 under funding from NASA's In Space Propulsion (ISP) Aerocapture Project to support mission studies at the planet. Many proposals, including NASA New Frontiers and Discovery, as well as other studies have used Venus-GRAM to design missions and assess system robustness. After Venus-GRAM's release in 2005, several missions to Venus have generated a wealth of additional atmospheric data, yet few model updates have been made to Venus-GRAM. This paper serves to address three areas: (1) to present the current status of Venus-GRAM, (2) to identify new sources of data and other upgrades that need to be incorporated to maintain Venus-GRAM credibility and (3) to identify additional Venus-GRAM options and features that could be included to increase its capability. This effort will de-pend on understanding the needs of the user community, obtaining new modeling data and establishing a dedicated funding source to support continual up-grades. This paper is intended to initiate discussion that can result in an upgraded and validated Venus-GRAM being available to future studies and NASA proposals.
At the request of NASA, the National Research Council's (NRC's) Committee for Evaluation of Space Radiation Cancer Risk Model1 reviewed a number of changes that NASA proposes to make to its model for estimating the risk of radiation-induced cancer in astronauts. The NASA model in current use was last updated in 2005, and the proposed model would incorporate recent research directed at improving the quantification and understanding of the health risks posed by the space radiation environment. NASA's proposed model is defined by the 2011 NASA report Space Radiation Cancer Risk Projections and Uncertainties--2010 . The committee's evaluation is based primarily on this source, which is referred to hereafter as the 2011 NASA report, with mention of specific sections or tables. The overall process for estimating cancer risks due to low linear energy transfer (LET) radiation exposure has been fully described in reports by a number of organizations. The approaches described in the reports from all of these expert groups are quite similar. NASA's proposed space radiation cancer risk assessment model calculates, as its main output, age- and gender-specific risk of exposure-induced death (REID) for use in the estimation of mission and astronaut-specific cancer risk. The model also calculates the associated uncertainties in REID. The general approach for estimating risk and uncertainty in the proposed model is broadly similar to that used for the current (2005) NASA model and is based on recommendations by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. However, NASA's proposed model has significant changes with respect to the following: the integration of new findings and methods into its components by taking into account newer epidemiological data and analyses, new radiobiological data indicating that quality factors differ for leukemia and solid cancers, an improved method for specifying quality factors in terms of radiation track structure concepts as opposed to the previous approach based on linear energy transfer, the development of a new solar particle event (SPE) model, and the updates to galactic cosmic ray (GCR) and shielding transport models. The newer epidemiological information includes updates to the cancer incidence rates from the life span study (LSS) of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, transferred to the U.S. population and converted to cancer mortality rates from U.S. population statistics. In addition, the proposed model provides an alternative analysis applicable to lifetime never-smokers (NSs). Details of the uncertainty analysis in the model have also been updated and revised. NASA's proposed model and associated uncertainties are complex in their formulation and as such require a very clear and precise set of descriptions. The committee found the 2011 NASA report challenging to review largely because of the lack of clarity in the model descriptions and derivation of the various parameters used. The committee requested some clarifications from NASA throughout its review and was able to resolve many, but not all, of the ambiguities in the written description.
The CERES project uses geostationary (GEO) imager derived broadband fluxes to estimate the diurnal flux variations between the Terra (10:30 LT) and Aqua (1:30 LT) flux obs. The GEO derived cloud properties are utilized for narrowband to broadband and angular directional model (ADM) algorithms. The GEO imager channels are first inter-calibrated to the Aqua-MODIS C6.1 calibration reference to ensure that the retrieved clouds and fluxes will be consistent. The CERES project has a 2-month latency, all GEO, MODIS and VIIRS calibration anomalies must be identified and mitigated. Convert the monthly GEO ray-matching algorithm into a daily monitoring algorithm to catch any daily calibration anomalies.
Results are given of a program concerned with the design, fabrication, and evaluation of alkali pump lamps for eventual use in a space qualified Nd:YAG laser system. The study included evaluation of 2mm through 6mm bore devices. Primary emphasis was placed upon the optimization of the 4mm bore lamp and later on the 6mm bore lamp. As part of this effort, reference was made to the Sylvania work concerned with the theoretical modeling of the Nd:YAG laser. With the knowledge gained, a projection of laser performance was made based upon realistic lamp parameters which should easily be achieved during following developmental efforts. Measurements were made on the lamp performance both in and out of the cavity configuration. One significant observation was that for a constant vapor pressure device, the spectral and fluorescent output did not vary for vacuum or argon environment. Therefore, the laser can be operated in an inert environment (eg. argon) with no degradation in output. Laser output of 3.26 watts at 430 watts input was obtained for an optimized 4mm bore lamp.
At the request of NASA, the National Research Council's (NRC's) Committee for Evaluation of Space Radiation Cancer Risk Model reviewed a number of changes that NASA proposes to make to its model for estimating the risk of radiation-induced cancer in astronauts. The NASA model in current use was last updated in 2005, and the proposed model would incorporate recent research directed at improving the quantification and understanding of the health risks posed by the space radiation environment. NASA's proposed model is defined by the 2011 NASA report Space Radiation Cancer Risk Projections and Uncertainties 2010 (Cucinotta et al., 2011). The committee's evaluation is based primarily on this source, which is referred to hereafter as the 2011 NASA report, with mention of specific sections or tables cited more formally as Cucinotta et al. (2011). The overall process for estimating cancer risks due to low linear energy transfer (LET) radiation exposure has been fully described in reports by a number of organizations. They include, more recently: (1) The "BEIR VII Phase 2" report from the NRC's Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) (NRC, 2006); (2) Studies of Radiation and Cancer from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR, 2006), (3) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), ICRP Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007); and (4) The Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA s) report EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and Projections for the U.S. Population (EPA, 2011). The approaches described in the reports from all of these expert groups are quite similar. NASA's proposed space radiation cancer risk assessment model calculates, as its main output, age- and gender-specific risk of exposure-induced death (REID) for use in the estimation of mission and astronaut-specific cancer risk. The model also calculates the associated uncertainties in REID. The general approach for estimating risk and uncertainty in the proposed model is broadly similar to that used for the current (2005) NASA model and is based on recommendations by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP, 2000, 2006). However, NASA's proposed model has significant changes with respect to the following: the integration of new findings and methods into its components by taking into account newer epidemiological data and analyses, new radiobiological data indicating that quality factors differ for leukemia and solid cancers, an improved method for specifying quality factors in terms of radiation track structure concepts as opposed to the previous approach based on linear energy transfer, the development of a new solar particle event (SPE) model, and the updates to galactic cosmic ray (GCR) and shielding transport models. The newer epidemiological information includes updates to the cancer incidence rates from the life span study (LSS) of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors (Preston et al., 2007), transferred to the U.S. population and converted to cancer mortality rates from U.S. population statistics. In addition, the proposed model provides an alternative analysis applicable to lifetime never-smokers (NSs). Details of the uncertainty analysis in the model have also been updated and revised. NASA's proposed model and associated uncertainties are complex in their formulation and as such require a very clear and precise set of descriptions. The committee found the 2011 NASA report challenging to review largely because of the lack of clarity in the model descriptions and derivation of the various parameters used. The committee requested some clarifications from NASA throughout its review and was able to resolve many, but not all, of the ambiguities in the written description.
The state-of-the-art of the technology available to make remote sensing crop production estimates is reviewed with reference to several past and present research projects. In particular, attention is given to Landsat data acquisition, registration and preprocessing, data transformation, data modeling, proportion estimation, and labeling. Development stage models and crop condition models are briefly characterized, and areas where further research is needed are identified.
The goal of this research is to develop a progressive series of mathematical models for the CELSS hydroponic crops. These models will systematize the experimental findings from the crop researchers in the CELSS Program into a form useful to investigate system-level considerations, for example, dynamic studies of the CELSS Initial Reference Configurations. The crop models will organize data from different crops into a common modeling framework. This is the fifth semiannual report for this project. The following topics are discussed: (1) use of field crop models to explore phasic control of CELSS crops for optimizing yield; (2) seminar presented at Purdue CELSS NSCORT; and (3) paper submitted on analysis of bioprocessing of inedible plant materials.
The TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) Mission carries a variety of packages to support experimental, precision and operational orbit determination. Included are a GPS transponder, laser retro-reflectors, the French-developed Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite (DORIS) Doppler tracking system and a Tracking Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) transponder. Presently, TDRSS tracking is used for operational orbit support and is processed with force and measurement modeling consistent with this purpose. However, the low noise and extensive geographical coverage of the TDRSS/TOPEX data allows an assessment of TDRSS Precision Orbit Determination (POD) capabilities by comparison to the T/P precision orbit determination. The Geodynamics (GEODYN) Orbit Determination System is used to process laser and DORIS data to produce the precision orbits for the T/P Project. GEODYN has been modified recently to support the TDRSS observations. TDRSS data analysis can now benefit from the extensive force modeling and reference frame stability needed to meet the orbit determination (OD) goals of the T/P Mission. This analysis has concentrated on the strongest of the TDRSS measurement types, its two-way average range rate. Both the TDRSS and T/P orbits have been assessed in combination with the global satellite laser ranging (SLR) data and by themselves. These results indicate that significant improvement in the TDRSS ephemerides is obtained when the T/P orbit is well determined by SLR, and the TDRSS/TOPEX Doppler link is used to position TDRSS. Meter-level TDRSS positioning uncertainty is achieved using this approach. When the TDRSS orbit location is provided by this approach, the two-way range rate from a single TDRSS (i.e. West only) can provide T/P orbits with sub-meter radial accuracies and two meter RMS total position agreement with SLR defined orbits. These preliminary results indicate improved modeling of the TDRSS measurement through the elimination of heretofore neglected effects like the motion of the T/P TDRSS antenna and improved modeling of ionospheric and atmospheric refractive effects, and the inclusion of TDRSS East in the analysis are warranted. Through these improvements, TDRSS can make a significant contribution to geopotential recovery and precision OD.
The use of remote sensing in studying, monitoring, and understanding the Chesapeake Bay was examined. References to multispectral scanning, laser techniques, infrared microwave, and radar were made. These aspects were then analyzed with multidimensional models, digital analysis, and holographic projections.
Understanding and predicting the intraseasonal variability (ISV) of the ocean and atmosphere is crucial to improving long-range environmental forecasts and the reliability of climate change projections through climate models. This updated, comprehensive and authoritative second edition has a balance of observation, theory and modeling and provides a single source of reference for all those interested in this important multi-faceted natural phenomenon and its relation to major short-term climatic variations.
Flight research has shown the effectiveness of adaptive flight controls for improving aircraft safety and performance in the presence of uncertainties. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA)'s Integrated Resilient Aircraft Control (IRAC) project designed and conducted a series of flight experiments to study the impact of variations in adaptive controller design complexity on performance and handling qualities. A novel complexity metric was devised to compare the degrees of simplicity achieved in three variations of a model reference adaptive controller (MRAC) for NASA's F-18 (McDonnell Douglas, now The Boeing Company, Chicago, Illinois) Full-Scale Advanced Systems Testbed (Gen-2A) aircraft. The complexity measures of these controllers are also compared to that of an earlier MRAC design for NASA's Intelligent Flight Control System (IFCS) project and flown on a highly modified F-15 aircraft (McDonnell Douglas, now The Boeing Company, Chicago, Illinois). Pilot comments during the IRAC research flights pointed to the importance of workload on handling qualities ratings for failure and damage scenarios. Modifications to existing pilot aggressiveness and duty cycle metrics are presented and applied to the IRAC controllers. Finally, while adaptive controllers may alleviate the effects of failures or damage on an aircraft's handling qualities, they also have the potential to introduce annoying changes to the flight dynamics or to the operation of aircraft systems. A nuisance rating scale is presented for the categorization of nuisance side-effects of adaptive controllers.
Within the IARPC Collaboration Team activities of 2016, Arctic in-situ and remote earth observations advanced topics such as :1) exploring the role for new and innovative autonomous observing technologies in the Arctic; 2) advancing catalytic national and international community based observing efforts in support of the National Strategy for the Arctic Region; and 3) enhancing the use of discovery tools for observing system collaboration such as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Arctic Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA) and the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Arctic Collaborative Environment (ACE) project geo reference visualization decision support and exploitation internet based tools. Critical to the success of these earth observations for both in-situ and remote systems is the emerging of new and innovative data collection technologies and comprehensive modeling as well as enhanced communications and cyber infrastructure capabilities which effectively assimilate and dissemination many environmental intelligence products in a timely manner. The Arctic Collaborative Environment (ACE) project is well positioned to greatly enhance user capabilities for accessing, organizing, visualizing, sharing and producing collaborative knowledge for the Arctic.
The Integrated Structural Modeling (ISM) program is being developed for the Air Force Weapons Laboratory and will be available for Air Force work. Its goal is to provide a design, analysis, and simulation tool intended primarily for directed energy weapons (DEW), kinetic energy weapons (KEW), and surveillance applications. The code is designed to run on DEC (VMS and UNIX), IRIS, Alliant, and Cray hosts. Several technical disciplines are included in ISM, namely structures, controls, optics, thermal, and dynamics. Four topics from the broad ISM goal are discussed. The first is project configuration management and includes two major areas: the software and database arrangement and the system model control. The second is interdisciplinary data transfer and refers to exchange of data between various disciplines such as structures and thermal. Third is a discussion of the integration of component models into one system model, i.e., multiple discipline model synthesis. Last is a presentation of work on a distributed processing computing environment.