SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “AWARE campaign”

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.

76 records · Page 5

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2015

Atmospheric Research 2014 Technical Highlights

Atmospheric research in the Earth Sciences Division (610) consists of research and technology development programs dedicated to advancing knowledge and understanding of the atmosphere and its interaction with the climate of Earth. The Division's goals are to improve understanding of the dynamics and physical properties of precipitation, clouds, and aerosols; atmospheric chemistry, including the role of natural and anthropogenic trace species on the ozone balance in the stratosphere and the troposphere; and radiative properties of Earth's atmosphere and the influence of solar variability on the Earth's climate. Major research activities are carried out in the Mesoscale Atmospheric Processes Laboratory, the Climate and Radiation Laboratory, the Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Laboratory, and the Wallops Field Support Office. The overall scope of the research covers an end-to-end process, starting with the identification of scientific problems, leading to observation requirements for remote-sensing platforms, technology and retrieval algorithm development; followed by flight projects and satellite missions; and eventually, resulting in data processing, analyses of measurements, and dissemination from flight projects and missions. Instrument scientists conceive, design, develop, and implement ultraviolet, infrared, optical, radar, laser, and lidar technology to remotely sense the atmosphere. Members of the various Laboratories conduct field measurements for satellite sensor calibration and data validation, and carry out numerous modeling activities. These modeling activities include climate model simulations, modeling the chemistry and transport of trace species on regional-to-global scales, cloud resolving models, and developing the next-generation Earth system models. Satellite missions, field campaigns, peer-reviewed publications, and successful proposals are essential at every stage of the research process to meeting our goals and maintaining leadership of the Earth Sciences Division in atmospheric science research. Figure 1.1 shows the 20-year record of peer-reviewed publications and proposals among the various Laboratories. This data shows that the scientific work being conducted in the Laboratories is competitive with the work being done elsewhere in universities and other government agencies. The office of Deputy Director for Atmospheric Research will strive to maintain this record by rigorously monitoring and promoting quality while emphasizing coordination and integration among atmospheric disciplines. Also, an appropriate balance will be maintained between the scientists' responsibility for large collaborative projects and missions and their need to carry out active science research as a principal investigator. This balance allows members of the Laboratories to improve their scientific credentials, and develop leadership potentials. Interdisciplinary research is carried out in collaboration with other laboratories and research groups within the Earth Sciences Division, across the Sciences and Exploration Directorate, and with partners in universities and other government agencies. Members of the Laboratories interact with the general public to support a wide range of interests in the atmospheric sciences. Among other activities, the Laboratories raise the public's awareness of atmospheric science by presenting public lectures and demonstrations, by making scientific data available to wide audiences, by teaching, and by mentoring students and teachers. The Atmosphere Laboratories make substantial efforts to attract and recruit new scientists to the various areas of atmospheric research. We strongly encourage the establishment of partnerships with Federal and state agencies that have operational responsibilities to promote the societal application of our science products. This report describes our role in NASA's mission, provides highlights of our research scope and activities, and summarizes our scientists' major accomplishments during calendar year 2014. The composition of the organization is shown in Figure 1.2 for each code. This report is published in a printed version with an electronic version on our atmospheres Web site, http://atmospheres.gsfc.nasa.gov/.

Technical↗

NASA NTRS2019

TCL3 UTM (UAS Traffic Management) Flight Tests, Airspace Operations Laboratory (AOL) Report

The Technology Capability Level-3 (TCL3) flight tests were conducted at six different test sites located across the USA from March to May of 2018. The campaign resulted in over 830 data collection flights using 28 different aircraft and involving 20 flight crews. Flights not only varied in duration, but also in the environments and terrains over which they flew. The TCL3 tests highlighted four different types of tests: three tests focused on Communication, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS); six tests focused on Sense and Avoid (SAA) technologies; six tests focused on USS Data and Information Exchange (DAT); and five tests focused on exploring fundamental Concepts of the project (CON). This document presents data collected during the TCL3 tests that informed the operator’s experiences—the quality of the unmanned aerial system (UAS) Service Supplier (USS) information that the operator was provided with, the usefulness of this information, and the usability of the automation, both while airborne and on the ground. It is intended to complement the reports written by the test sites and the quantitative reports and presentations of the UAS Traffic Management (UTM) project. With the goal of instructing what the minimum information requirements and/or best practices might be in TCL3 operations, the driving enquiry was: How do you get the information you need, when you need it, to successfully fly a UAS in UTM airspace? This enquiry touches on two requirements for displays, which are to provide adequate situation awareness (SA) and to share information through a USS. The six test sites participating in the TCL3 tests flew a subset of the 20 tests (outlined above), with most sites working on a subset of each of the four types: Communications, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS); DAT; CON; and Sense and Avoid (SAA). The, mainly qualitative, data addressed in this report was collected by the AOL (Airspace Operations Laboratory) both on-site and remotely for each test. The data consists of the contents of end-of-day debriefs, end-of-day surveys, observer notes, and flight test information, all submitted as part of the Data Management Plan (DMP).

Martin, Lynne↗

DOE OSTI2024

Impacts of Synoptic-Scale Dynamics on Clouds and Radiation in High Southern Latitudes

High-latitudinal mixed-phase clouds significantly affect Earth's radiative balance. Observations of cloud and radiative properties from two field campaigns in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica were compared with two global climate model simulations. A cyclone compositing method was used to quantify “dynamics-cloud-radiation” relationships relative to the extratropical cyclone centers. Observations show larger asymmetry in cloud and radiative properties between western and eastern sectors at McMurdo compared with Macquarie Island. Most observed quantities at McMurdo are higher in the western (i.e., post-frontal) than the eastern (frontal) sector, including cloud fraction, liquid water path (LWP), net surface shortwave and longwave radiation (SW and LW), except for ice water path (IWP) being higher in the eastern sector. Here, the two models were found to overestimate cloud fraction and LWP at Macquarie Island but underestimate them at McMurdo Station. IWP is consistently underestimated at both locations, both sectors, and in all seasons. Biases of cloud fraction, LWP, and IWP are negatively correlated with SW biases and positively correlated with LW biases. The persistent negative IWP biases may have become one of the leading causes of radiative biases over the high southern latitudes, after correcting the underestimation of supercooled liquid water in the older model versions. By examining multi-scale factors from cloud microphysics to synoptic dynamics, this work will help increase the fidelity of climate simulations in this remote region.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗