Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “roads and infrastructure”

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.

60 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1996

Flying Cars

Flying cars have nearly mythical appeal to nonpilots, a group that includes almost the whole human race. The appeal resides in the perceived utility of flying cars, vehicles that offer portal-to-portal transportation, yet break the bonds of road and traffic and travel freely through the sky at the drivers will. Part of the appeal is an assumption that flying cars can be as easy to fly as to drive. Flying cars have been part of the dream of aviation since the dawn of powered flight. Glenn Curtiss built, displayed, and maybe even flew a flying car in 1917, the Curtiss Autoplane. Many roadable airplanes were built in the 1930's, like the Waterman Arrowbile and the Fulton Airphibian. Two flying cars came close to production in the early 1950's. Ted Hall built a series of flying cars culminating in the Convaircar, sponsored by Consolidated Vultee, General Motors, and Hertz. Molt Taylor built and certified his Aerocar, and Ford came close to producing them. Three Aerocars are still flyable, two in museums in Seattle and Oshkosh, and the third owned and flown by Ed Sweeny. Flying cars do have problems, which so far have prevented commercial success. An obvious problem is complexity of the vehicle, the infrastructure, or both. Another is the difficulty of matching low power for normal driving with high power in flight. An automobile uses only about 20 hp at traffic speeds, while a personal airplane needs about 160 hp at speeds typical of flight. Many automobile engines can deliver 160 hp, but not for very long. A more subtle issue involves the drag of automobiles and airplanes. A good personal airplane can fly 30 miles per gallon of fuel at 200 mph. A good sports car would need 660 hp at the same speed and would travel only 3 miles per gallon. The difference is drag area, about 4.5 sq ft for the automobile and 1.4 sq ft for the airplane. A flying car better have the drag area of the airplane, not the car!

Crow, Steven↗
NASA NTRS2019

Exploration of Near-Term Potential Routes and Procedures for Urban Air Mobility

Urban air mobility is gaining interest as the need for On Demand Mobility in today's congested traffic is becoming high in metropolitan areas. Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is envisioned as a concept to transport passengers and cargo safely and efficiently using innovative aircraft in the urban areas. It is expected to improve mobility for the general public, decongest road traffic, reduce transport time and reduce the strain on existing public transport networks. There exist several challenges to Urban Air Mobility (UAM) such as integration of procedures with airspace and the airport, noise levels that are acceptable to the general public, public safety, public acceptance, vehicle certification, and more. Most of the research in the United States and European skies (DLR - German Aerospace Center) related to urban areas has focused on small UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) flights (NASA's UTM (UAS Traffic Management) research) and their integration with the airspace and building safe operations in densely populated areas. Previous studies on UAM have focused on fast time simulations of the routes that are separated via a separation service and network of routes. Similarly, research in Europe has focused on the approach profile for these innovative aircraft, vertiports and battery life among others. UAM as a part of the On-Demand Mobility effort has provided some guidelines for operations as shown below: Does not require additional ATC (Air Traffic Control) infrastructure; Does not impose additional workload on ATC; Does not restrict operations of traditional airspace users; Will meet appropriate safety thresholds and requirements; Will prioritize operational scalability; Will allow flexibility where possible and structure where necessary. This paper explores potential routes and procedures in a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) experiment that could be applied in the near-term to allow integration of UAM flights into the airspace as well as a large airport. The airspace that was explored was Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) airspace managed by the DFW East Tower in South Flow only. In addition, Dallas Love Field (DAL) and Addison (ADS) airspace were also part of the testbed. The initial set of routes investigated in this study were published helicopter routes in the DFW area. Figure 1 shows class B airspace in DFW area and the origin/destination city pairs where UAM flights flew along with helicopter routes shown in blue. The research focused on exploring procedures for integrating UAM flights into Class Bravo and Class Delta airspace. Three different communication procedures, evaluated with three different levels of UAM traffic, are shown in Table 1. The current day routes were evaluated with current day communication procedures were explored as the first condition. The current day routes were also evaluated in the second condition with reduced communications, which was assumed due to the presence of a Letter Of Agreement (LOA). The purpose of the LOA was to reduce the verbiage associated with pilots getting clearance to Class B airspace from the controllers, pre-assigning beacons codes to the UAM flights, separate routes by assigning altitudes and speeds to flights going in any one direction. Flights were expected to automatically change frequency when exiting Class B airspace, thus transition points for entry and exit points were also specified in the LOA.

Urban Air Mobility↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Establishing an Urban Heat Exposure Severity Index for Infrastructure Prioritization in Tempe, Arizona, Using NASA Earth Observations and LiDAR

Located on the banks of the Salt River in the Sonoran Desert, Tempe, Arizona, features a semi-arid climate with summer daily maximum temperatures regularly exceeding 37.8°C. Tempe is also subject to the southwestern monsoon season from July-September and the humidity exacerbates the high temperatures. Furthermore, the rapid urbanization experienced in Tempe has resulted in an intensification of the urban heat island. The summer of 2020 shattered the previous record of days exceeding 43.4°C, leading to higher energy and water costs, lower comfort, and increased risk of heat stroke for residents. Recognizing the impacts of extreme heat, the City of Tempe partnered with the Healthy Urban Environments initiative and NASA DEVELOP to identify census tracts that experience a higher mean land surface temperature than the city average. The NASA DEVELOP team used remotely sensed land surface temperature (LST), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), normalized difference built-up index (NDBI), normalized difference water index (NDWI), and albedo data calculated from Aqua Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) and Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS) instruments from 2015 to 2020 to create heat hazard and exposure maps. LiDAR point cloud data, provided by the United States Geological Survey through Arizona State University’s Map and Geospatial Hub, were used to derive 3D buildings, building footprints, and tree point data for a shading analysis of walking paths, roads, and buildings at the census tract level. In situ meteorological measurements including air temperature and humidity were used to compare the macro-scale temperature measurements. The team worked with the City of Tempe to develop a methodology to process available data and identify areas of highest concern for urban heat effects within the city. With these insights, Tempe, Arizona can better address these issues with data-driven information to make decisions regarding heat mitigation and adaptation efforts.

John Dialesandro↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Corridor Design and Analysis for UAM Operations

The Urban Air Mobility (UAM) concept is a part of Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), a joint initiative between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), NASA, and industry to develop an air transportation system that uses new electric (i.e., green) air vehicles in geographical areas previously underserved by traditional aviation. Market forecast studies predict that there will be demand for alternate modes of air transportation using electric Vertical Take-off and Landing aircraft. UAM expands transportation networks by introducing short flights to move people and goods around metropolitan areas​. UAM is expected to improve mobility for the public, decongest road traffic, reduce trip time, and decrease strain on existing public transportation networks. Various challenges exist to make the introduction of UAM operations successful in the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS). These include but are not limited to integration with existing airports and airspace, provision of air traffic services (e.g., separation), vehicle design and certification, and community acceptance. The focus of this paper is on integration of UAM operations into the NAS via introduction of new airspace structures. UAM will operate within a regulatory, operational, and technical environment that is incorporated into the NAS​. As per the UAM Concept of Operations (ConOps), the FAA retains regulatory authority and is responsible for establishing operational parameters and maintaining oversight. The FAA’s UAM ConOps describes flights at low altitudes (below 5,000 ft) with minimal disruption to established conventional aircraft traffic and limited voice interactions with the Air Traffic Control (ATC). Early stages of UAM may use existing procedures to safely integrate UAM with conventional flights. This would involve flying under Part 91 Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and using voice for communications. The initial UAM ecosystem will utilize the current infrastructure such as routes, helipads, and ATC services, where practicable. ​A NASA study explored the use of existing helicopter routes in Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) airspace for initial UAM operations with a Letter of Agreement (LOA) that included procedures to request a Class B (controlled airspace) clearance. The research showed that the chosen approach was feasible for near-term, low-demand UAM traffic, but was not scalable. The growth of operations in today’s aviation system has resulted in airspace reorganization and procedures to ensure safety and efficiency as traffic rates increase. One proposed operating innovation that can help with the scalability of UAM is establishing routes and corridors. This may look similar to the Area Navigation (RNAV) procedures used today to streamline operations into busy airports. However, instead of FAA automation systems and ATC managing the flow of traffic, some UAM concepts envision a third-party service provider performing this role as part of the Provider of Services for UAM (PSU) network. The FAA’s UAM ConOps posits that new airspace structures such as UAM corridors include the following design criteria: 1) Minimal impact on existing NAS operations, 2) no or minimal additional ATC services, 3) public interest considerations such as noise, safety, and security, and 4) customer needs. The airspace available in urban environments is limited by the height of buildings, the effect of weather including wind gusts, privacy needs, and a clearance envelope. The new airspace structure would need to be designed around large airports and urban areas where the initial market demand is likely to exist. NASA has started evaluating airspace in the Dallas Fort Worth area to design new airspace structures, keeping the first two design criteria in mind. It is assumed that there will be an on-board pilot-in-command, and the flights will operate under VFR in Visual Meteorological Conditions. Corridors will be required in controlled airspace, whereas UAM operations can fly in uncontrolled Class G and E airspace using current day rules. Keeler et. al identified factors and heuristics for development of routes for UAM operations for integration with airspace close to large airports such as Dallas Fort Worth and Dallas Love Field. This paper describes the heuristics applied to define the corridors, analyzes them with respect to legacy traffic and presents key results.

Urban Air Mobility↗
NASA NTRS2017

CARACaS multi-agent maritime autonomy for unmanned surface vehicles in the Swarm II harbor patrol demonstration

This paper describes new autonomy technology that enabled a team of unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) to execute cooperative behaviors in the USV Swarm II harbor patrol demonstration and provides a description of autonomy performance in the event. The new developments extend the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s CARACaS (Control Architecture for Robotic Agent Command and Sensing) autonomy architecture, which pro- vides foundational software infrastructure, core executive functions, and several default robotic technology mod- ules. In Swarm II, CARACaS demonstrated higher levels of autonomy and more complex cooperation than previous on-water exercises, using full-sized vehicles and real-world sensing and communication. The core au- tonomous behaviors to support the harbor patrol scenario included Patrol, Track, Inspect, and Trail, providing the capability of finding all vessels entering the patrol area, keeping track of them, inspecting them to infer intent, and trailing suspect vessels. Significantly, CARACaS assumed responsibility for not only executing tasks safely and efficiently but also recognizing what tasks needed to be accomplished, given the current state of the world. Since the heterogeneous USV teams shared world model that evolved, such as due to (dis)appearance of vessels in the area or a change in health or availability of a USV, CARACaS replanned to generate and reallocate the new task list. Thus, human intervention was never required in the loop to task USVs during mission execution, though a supervisory role was supported in the autonomy system for mission monitoring and exception handling. Finally, CARACaS also ensured the USVs avoided hazards and obeyed the applicable rules of the road, using its local motion planning modules.

Sandoval, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2007

The Ares I-1 Flight Test--Paving the Road for the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle

In accordance with the U.S. Vision for Space Exploration and the nation's desire to again send humans to explore beyond Earth orbit, NASA has been tasked to send human beings to the moon, Mars, and beyond. It has been 30 years since the United States last designed and built a human-rated launch vehicle. NASA is now building the Ares I crew launch vehicle, which will loft the Orion crew exploration vehicle into orbit, and the Ares V cargo launch vehicle, which will launch the Lunar Surface Access Module and Earth departure stage to rendezvous Orion for missions to the moon. NASA has marshaled unique resources from the government and private sectors to perform the technically and programmatically complex work of delivering astronauts to orbit early next decade, followed by heavy cargo late next decade. Our experiences with Saturn and the Shuttle have taught us the value of adhering to sound systems engineering, such as the "test as you fly" principle, while applying aerospace best practices and lessons learned. If we are to fly humans safely aboard a launch vehicle, we must employ a variety of methodologies to reduce the technical, schedule, and cost risks inherent in the complex business of space transportation. During the Saturn development effort, NASA conducted multiple demonstration and verification flight tests to prove technology in its operating environment before relying upon it for human spaceflight. Less testing on the integrated Shuttle system did not reduce cost or schedule. NASA plans a progressive series of demonstration (ascent), verification (orbital), and mission flight tests to supplement ground research and high-altitude subsystem testing with real-world data, factoring the results of each test into the next one. In this way, sophisticated analytical models and tools, many of which were not available during Saturn and Shuttle, will be calibrated and we will gain confidence in their predictions, as we gain hands-on experience in operating the first of two new launch vehicle systems. The Ares I-1 flight test vehicle (FTV) will incorporate a mix of flight and mockup hardware, reflecting a configuration similar in mass, weight, and shape (outer mold line or OML) to the operational vehicle. It will be powered by a four-segment reusable solid rocket booster (RSRB), which is currently in Shuttle inventory, and will be modified to include a fifth, inert segment that makes it approximately the same size and weight as the five segment RSRB, which will be available for the second flight test in 2012. The Ares I-1 vehicle configuration is shown. Each test flight has specific objectives appropriate to the design analysis cycle in progress. The Ares I-1 demonstration test, slated for April 2009, gives NASA its first opportunity to gather critical data about the flight dynamics of the integrated launch vehicle stack, understand how to control its roll during flight, and other characterize the severe stage separation environment that the upper stage will experience during future operational flights. NASA also will begin the process of modifying the launch infrastructure and fine-tuning ground and mission operational scenarios, as NASA transitions from the Shuttle to the Ares/Orion system.

Davis, Stephan R.↗