Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “missing information”

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.

816 records · Page 46
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2018

Daily Temperature and Precipitation Data for 223 Former-USSR Stations (NDP-040)

The stations in this dataset are considered by RIHMI to comprise one of the best networks suitable for temperature and precipitation monitoring over the the former-USSR. Factors involved in choosing these 223 stations included length or record, amount of missing data, and achieving reasonably good geographic coverage. There are indeed many more stations with daily data over this part of the world, and hundreds more station records are available through NOAA's Global Historical Climatology Network - Daily (GHCND) database. The 223 stations comprising this database are included in GHCND, but different data processing, updating, and quality assurance methods/checks mean that the agreement between records will vary depending on the station. The relative quality and accuracy of the common station records in the two databases also cannot be easily assessed. As of this writing, most of the common stations contained in the GHCND have more recent records, but not necessarily records starting as early as the records available here. This database contains four variables: daily mean, minimum, and maximum temperature, and daily total precipitation (liquid equivalent). Temperature were taken three times a day from 1881-1935, four times a day from 1936-65, and eight times a day since 1966. Daily mean temperature is defined as the average of all observations for each calendar day. Daily maximum/minimum temperatures are derived from maximum/minimum thermometer measurements. See the measurement description file for further details. Daily precipitation totals are also available (to the nearest tenth of a millimeter) for each station. Throughout the record, daily precipitation is defined as the total amount of precipitation recorded during a 24-h period, snowfall being converted to a liquid total by melting the snow in the gauge. From 1936 on, rain gauges were checked several times each day; the cumulative total of all observations during a calendar day was presumably used as the daily total. Again, see the measurement description file for further details. For access to the data files, click this link to the CDIAC data transition website: http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ndps/ndp040.html

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Cation Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2014-2025)

This data package contains mean values for cation concentration for water samples taken from the East River Watershed in Colorado. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) has been used to measure the concentrations of elements of interest simultaneously for the East River Watershed, Colorado groundwater and surface water samples to inform insights on the biogeochemistry processes within the watershed. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. For samples collected prior to 06-16-2021, the instrumentation, Elan DRC II, PerkinElmer SCIEX, automatically switches among the three models necessary to analyze all 37 elements. These 37 elements include: (1) Lithium (Li), Beryllium (Be), Boron (B), Sodium (Na), Magnesium (Mg), Aluminium (Al), Silicon (Si), Phosphorus (P), Titanium (Ti), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Germanium (Ge), Arsenic (As), Rubidium (Rb), Strontium (Sr), Zirconium (Zr), Molybdenum (Mo), Silver (Ag), Cadmium (Cd), Tin (Sn), Antimony (Sb), Caesium (Cs), Barium (Ba), Europium (Eu), Lead (Pb), Thorium (Th), Uranium (U) using standard model, argon Ar as reaction gas, (2) Potassium (K), Calcium (Ca), Vanadium (V), Chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe) using dynamic reaction cell (DRC) model, ammonia NH3 as reaction gas, and (3) Phosphorus (P) and Selenium (Se) using DRC model, oxygen O2 as reaction gas. Note for the samples with higher concentrations of chloride (Cl-), asenic (As) concentrations were analysed with DRC model (oxygen O2 as reaction gas) to avoid the interference of chloride. For samples collected on and after 06-16-2021, an advanced Agilent 8900 triple quadrupole inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry system (Agilent 8900 QQQ ICP-MS, Agilent Technologies) has been used to measure the concentrations of interested 36 elements simultaneously for environmental samples, including (1) Lithium (Li), Beryllium (Be) and Boron (B) using standard no gas mode, (2) Sodium (Na), Magnesium (Mg), Aluminium (Al) Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K), Chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Germanium (Ge), Arsenic (As), Rubidium (Rb), Strontium (Sr), Zirconium (Zr), Molybdenum (Mo), Silver (Ag), Cadmium (Cd), Tin (Sn), Antimony (Sb), Cesium (Cs), Barium (Ba), Europium (Eu), Lead (Pb), Thorium (Th) and Uranium (U) using standard helium (He) collision mode, (3) Titanium (Ti) and Vanadium (V) using high Energy (HEHe) helium (He) collision mode, and (4) Silicon (Si), Calcium (Ca) and Selenium (Se) using standard H2 reaction mode. All samples were prepared/diluted with 2% (v/v) ultrapure nitric acid in Milli-Q water (18.2 mega ohm-cm), and analyzed under a rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) process. This data package contains (1) a zip file (cation_data_2014_2025.zip) containing a total of 5,849 files: 5.848 data files of cation data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v6_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v6_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; (4) PDF and docx files for the detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for ICP-MS PerkinElmer DRC II instrumentation (Detemination_of_Method_Detection_Limits__MDLs__for_ICP_MS__PerkinElmer_Elan_DRC_II__LBL_Bldg74_Lab214D) for samples before November 2021; (5) PDF and docx files for the determination of MDLs for ICP-MS Agilent 8900 QQQ instrumentation (ICP_MS_Analysis_detection_limits_and_QA_QC_WenmingDong_updated_2026-08-06) for samples November 2021 and onward. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 113 locations containing cation data. Update on 2021-04-11: Added Detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for ICP-MS document, which can be accessed as a PDF or with Microsoft Word. Update on 2022-06-10: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated cation data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) removed suffix and prefix on two variables (“aqberylliumion_asberyllium” and “aqlithiumion_aslithium”), (5) added -9999 for empty numerical cells, and (6) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-01-05. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-10-16. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Updated versions of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for ICP-MS data were added to this dataset for samples starting in November 2021. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available cation data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available cation data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). Updated versions, as of 2026-08-06, of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for ICP-MS data were added to this dataset for samples starting in November 2021.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

EVA Planning: Using Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) Training to Predict in-Flight Energy Expenditure

Metabolic rate (“met rate”) is the amount of energy expended over a period of time and is influenced by many factors including body composition, level of physical activity, resting metabolic rate, sex, age, and food intake. Met rate is measured during Extravehicular Activity (EVA) training at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) and during in-flight EVAs through indirect calorimetry, calculating energy expenditure from respiratory measurements of O 2 consumption and/or CO 2 production. During Extravehicular Activity (EVA) planning, metabolic cost is important to consider and is used to inform EVA duration based on spacesuit consumables associated with life support systems. Currently, NBL and previous ISS EVA met rate data for specified crewmembers are utilized to predict in-flight EVA metabolic costs based on a proposed EVA timeline. Timeline data collected during training is used to relate met rates to specific EVA activities, which are in turn assigned to more generalized EVA task categories, categorizing by both task type and restraint type. EVA task categories include EVA Setup/Cleanup, Worksite Setup/Cleanup, Cable Routing, Bolts, Fluid Connectors, Electrical Connectors, R&R Work, Miscellaneous Work, Incapacitated Crew Rescue (being rescued or performing), Assisted Crew Rescue (being assisted or performing), and Translation. Restraint types consist of Free-Float, Body Restraint Tether (BRT), Articulating Portable Foot Restraint (APFR), and Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS). From a crewmember’s historical data, individualized 10th, 50th and 90th percentile met rate estimates are generated for each task category and used to estimate the proposed EVA timeline metabolic cost. In-flight metabolic data (“As-Executed”) from recent ISS US EVAs 85-88 (totaling eight EVA crewmember met rates) was compared with their predicted metabolic cost (“As-Planned”) to evaluate the accuracy of the current met rate estimation method. Across the four EVAs, As-Executed Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost (M = 5893.78 BTU, SD = 816.60) was not significantly different compared to As-Planned Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost (M = 6106.60 BTU, SD = 826.62; t(7) = 0.751 , p = .477). Though not a significant difference, generally, As-Planned total estimates were slightly higher than As-Executed total metabolic cost. Relative Error for Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost ranged from -33% to 14.7%, depending on the crewmember and EVA. When comparing As-Planned to A-Executed EVA task categories for Bolts, Electrical Connectors, EVA Cleanup, EVA Setup, Miscellaneous Work, Translation, Worksite Cleanup, and Worksite Setup during these EVAs, no significant differences were observed, however, there was a significant difference in As-Planned (M = 783.71 BTU, SD = 408.88) compared to As-Executed (M = 608.87 BTU, SD = 425.29) metabolic cost for the task category of Repair-and-Replace (R&R) Work (t(17) = 3.21 , p = .005). Looking closer within the R&R Work task category, As-Executed R&R Work with Free-Float restraint type (M = 706.17 BTU, SD = 352.18) was significantly less than As-Planned R&R Work with Free-Float restraint type (M= 887.96 BTU, SD = 381.42; t(12) = 2.59, p < .024). As-Executed R&R Work with SSRMS Restraint type (M = 355.89 BTU, SD = 534.65) was not significantly different from As-Planned values (M = 512.69 BTU, SD = 383.34; t(4) = 1.88, p = 0.132). These findings suggest that the energy expended performing R&R Work (Free-Float) is lower in flight than predicted. Accurate predictions of the metabolic cost of EVA are essential for planning and executing successful ISS EVAs. Overall, the current met rate prediction method is similar to actual in-flight values, slightly erring on the side of overestimation. Future work includes analysis of more historical in-flight EVA data to increase the power of the analysis, evaluating the NBL-ISS met rate conversion factor between NBL and ISS tasks, as well as exploring methods of substitution when crewmembers are missing prior task category data.

Lauren Cox↗
DOE OSTI2015

Spectroscopic Needs for Imaging Dark Energy Experiments

Ongoing and near-future imaging-based dark energy experiments are critically dependent upon photometric redshifts (a.k.a. photo-z’s): i.e., estimates of the redshifts of objects based only on flux information obtained through broad filters. Higher-quality, lower-scatter photo-z’s will result in smaller random errors on cosmological parameters; while systematic errors in photometric redshift estimates, if not constrained, may dominate all other uncertainties from these experiments. The desired optimization and calibration is dependent upon spectroscopic measurements for secure redshift information; this is the key application of galaxy spectroscopy for imaging-based dark energy experiments. Hence, to achieve their full potential, imaging-based experiments will require large sets of objects with spectroscopically-determined redshifts, for two purposes: Training: Objects with known redshift are needed to map out the relationship between object color and z (or, equivalently, to determine empirically-calibrated templates describing the rest-frame spectra of the full range of galaxies, which may be used to predict the color-z relation). The ultimate goal of training is to minimize each moment of the distribution of differences between photometric redshift estimates and the true redshifts of objects, making the relationship between them as tight as possible. The larger and more complete our “training set” of spectroscopic redshifts is, the smaller the RMS photo-z errors should be, increasing the constraining power of imaging experiments; Requirements: Spectroscopic redshift measurements for ~30,000 objects over >~15 widely-separated regions, each at least ~20 arcmin in diameter, and reaching the faintest objects used in a given experiment, will likely be necessary if photometric redshifts are to be trained and calibrated with conventional techniques. Larger, more complete samples (i.e., with longer exposure times) can improve photo-z algorithms and reduce scatter further, enhancing the science return from planned experiments greatly (increasing the Dark Energy Task Force figure of merit by up to ~50%); Options: This spectroscopy will most efficiently be done by covering as much of the optical and near-infrared spectrum as possible at modestly high spectral resolution (λ/Δλ > ~3000), while maximizing the telescope collecting area, field of view on the sky, and multiplexing of simultaneous spectra. The most efficient instrument for this would likely be either the proposed GMACS/MANIFEST spectrograph for the Giant Magellan Telescope or the OPTIMOS spectrograph for the European Extremely Large Telescope, depending on actual properties when built. The PFS spectrograph at Subaru would be next best and available considerably earlier, c. 2018; the proposed ngCFHT and SSST telescopes would have similar capabilities but start later. Other key options, in order of increasing total time required, are the WFOS spectrograph at TMT, MOONS at the VLT, and DESI at the Mayall 4 m telescope (or the similar 4MOST and WEAVE projects); of these, only DESI, MOONS, and PFS are expected to be available before 2020. Table 2-3 of this white paper summarizes the observation time required at each facility for strawman training samples. To attain secure redshift measurements for a high fraction of targeted objects and cover the full redshift span of future experiments, additional near-infrared spectroscopy will also be required; this is best done from space, particularly with WFIRST-2.4 and JWST; Calibration: The first several moments of redshift distributions (the mean, RMS redshift dispersion, etc.), must be known to high accuracy for cosmological constraints not to be systematics-dominated (equivalently, the moments of the distribution of differences between photometric and true redshifts could be determined instead). The ultimate goal of calibration is to characterize these moments for every subsample used in analyses - i.e., to minimize the uncertainty in their mean redshift, RMS dispersion, etc. – rather than to make the moments themselves small. Calibration may be done with the same spectroscopic dataset used for training if that dataset is extremely high in redshift completeness (i.e., no populations of galaxies to be used in analyses are systematically missed). Accurate photo-z calibration is necessary for all imaging experiments; Requirements: If extremely low levels of systematic incompleteness (<~0.1%) are attained in training samples, the same datasets described above should be sufficient for calibration. However, existing deep spectroscopic surveys have failed to yield secure redshifts for 30–60% of targets, so that would require very large improvements over past experience. This incompleteness would be a limiting factor for training, but catastrophic for calibration. If <~0.1% incompleteness is not attainable, the best known option for calibration of photometric redshifts is to utilize cross-correlation statistics in some form. The most direct method for this uses cross-correlations between positions on the sky of bright objects of known spectroscopic redshift with the sample of objects that we wish to calibrate the redshift distribution for, measured as a function of spectroscopic z. For such a calibration, redshifts of ~100,000 objects over at least several hundred square degrees, spanning the full redshift range of the samples used for dark energy, would be necessary; and Options: The proposed BAO experiment eBOSS would provide sufficient spectroscopy for basic calibrations, particularly for ongoing and near-future imaging experiments. The planned DESI experiment would provide excellent calibration with redundant cross-checks, but will start after the conclusion of some imaging projects. An extension of DESI to the Southern hemisphere would provide the best possible calibration from cross-correlation methods for DES and LSST. We thus anticipate that our two primary needs for spectroscopy – training and calibration of photometric redshifts – will require two separate solutions. For ongoing and future projects to reach their full potential, new spectroscopic samples of faint objects will be needed for training; those new samples may be suitable for calibration, but the latter possibility is uncertain. In contrast, wide-area samples of bright objects are poorly suited for training, but can provide high-precision calibrations via cross-correlation techniques. Additional training/calibration redshifts and/or host galaxy spectroscopy would enhance the use of supernovae and galaxy clusters for cosmology. We also summarize additional work on photometric redshift techniques that will be needed to prepare for data from ongoing and future dark energy experiments.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2024

Innovating the next generation of commercial smart building software

Nearly 30% of commercial building energy use is wasted due to equipment faults and HVAC controls problems. The result is increased emissions, compromised comfort and productivity, and less reliable coordination of building power needs with a clean grid. The energy impact alone represents $17 billion in potential savings. Today’s smart building software provides a robust solution to address these operational deficiencies. Energy management and information systems (EMIS) are saving up to 9% on average, with two-year paybacks. They are being incorporated into energy management processes, commissioning services, and utility programs. As effective as they are, two barriers prevent even deeper benefits; limited personnel to fix problems once they are identified, and the expense and time to manually implement changes in control systems. In partnership with the research community, the EMIS industry is developing new capabilities to overcome these barriers. Moving beyond siloed products for either fault detection and diagnostics, or optimal control, these new capabilities empower users to not only automatically identify faults, but also to push corrective action, and control improvements to their buildings. In this paper, several areas for enhancements are documented: ‘one-time’ correction of faults such as setpoints, schedules, and economizer lockouts; short-term active testing for automated proportional integral derivative (PID) loop tuning and functional testing; and continuous supervisory control for demand flexibility and year-round efficiency. Results are presented from a pair of partner implementations out of a dozen providers integrating these enhancements into their products, including field tests from across the country, and insights into operator acceptance and integration into operations and maintenance practices.

Casillas, Armando↗