SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “SCM”

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 NTRS2021

Understanding the Impacts of Land Surface and PBL Observations on the Terrestrial and Atmospheric Legs of Land-Atmosphere Coupling

Accurately representing land-atmosphere (L-A) interactions and coupling in NWP systems remains a challenge. New observations, incorporated into models via assimilation or calibration, hold the promise of improved forecast skill, but erroneous model coupling can hinder the benefits of such activities. To better understand model representation of coupled interactions and feedbacks, this study demonstrates a novel framework for coupled calibration of the Single Column Model (SCM) capability of the NASA Unified Weather Research and Forecasting (NU-WRF) system coupled to NASA’s Land Information System (LIS). The local land-atmosphere coupling (LoCo) process chain paradigm is used to assess the processes and connections revealed by calibration experiments. Two summer case studies in the U. S. Southern Great Plains are simulated in which LSM parameters are calibrated to diurnal observations of LoCo process chain components including 2-meter temperature, 2-meter humidity, surface fluxes (Bowen ratio), and PBL height. Results show a wide range of soil moisture and hydraulic parameter solutions depending on which L-A variable (i.e. observation) is used for calibration, highlighting that improvement in either SHP or ISM when not in tandem with the other can provide undesirable results. Overall, this work demonstrates that a process chain calibration approach can be used to assess L-A connections, feedbacks, strengths, and deficiencies in coupled models, as well as quantify the potential impact of new sources of observations of land-PBL variables on coupled prediction.

Patricia Lawston-Parker↗

NASA NTRS2022

The Earth Model Column Collaboratory (EMC2) v1.1: An Open-Source Ground-Based Lidar and Radar Instrument Simulator and Subcolumn Generator for Large-Scale Models

Climate models are essential for our comprehensive understanding of Earth's atmosphere and can provide critical insights on future changes decades ahead. Because of these critical roles, today's climate models are continuously being developed and evaluated using constraining observations and measurements obtained by satellites, airborne, and ground-based instruments. Instrument simulators can provide a bridge between the measured or retrieved quantities and their sampling in models and field observations while considering instrument sensitivity limitations. Here we present the Earth Model Column Collaboratory (EMC2), an open-source ground-based lidar and radar instrument simulator and subcolumn generator, specifically designed for large-scale models, in particular climate models, but also applicable to high-resolution model output. EMC2 provides a flexible framework enabling direct comparison of model output with ground-based observations, including generation of subcolumns that may statistically represent finer model spatial resolutions. In addition, EMC2 emulates ground-based (and air- or space-borne) measurements while remaining faithful to large-scale models' physical assumptions implemented in their cloud or radiation schemes. The simulator uses either single particle or bulk particle size distribution lookup tables, depending on the selected scheme approach, to perform the forward calculations. To facilitate model evaluation, EMC2 also includes three hydrometeor classification methods, namely, radar- and sounding-based cloud and precipitation detection and classification, lidar-based phase classification, and a Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project Observational Simulator Package (COSP) lidar simulator emulator. The software is written in Python, is easy to use, and can be straightforwardly customized for different models, radars, and lidars. Following the description of the logic, functionality, features, and software structure of EMC2, we present a case study of highly supercooled mixed-phase cloud based on measurements from the U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) West Antarctic Radiation Experiment (AWARE). We compare observations with the application of EMC2 to outputs from four configurations of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) climate model (ModelE3) in single-column model (SCM) mode and from a large-eddy simulation (LES) model. We show that two of the four ModelE3 configurations can form and maintain highly supercooled precipitating cloud for several hours, consistent with observations and LES. While our focus is on one of these ModelE3 configurations, which performed slightly better in this case study, both of these configurations and the LES results post-processed with EMC2 generally provide reasonable agreement with observed lidar and radar variables. As briefly demonstrated here, EMC2 can provide a lightweight and flexible framework for comparing the results of both large-scale and high-resolution models directly with observations, with relatively little overhead and multiple options for achieving consistency with model microphysical or radiation scheme physics.

Earth Model Column Collaboratory↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Oversimplification of Systems Engineering Goals, Processes, and Criteria in NASA Space Life Support

This paper investigates the oversimplification of the inherently complex systems engineering process in space life support. The standard systems engineering process steps are described. The International Space Station (ISS) life support system is explained with its goals and performance criteria. Although it is not usually emphasized, the essential function of developing a hierarchy of systems and subsystems is to simplify the design process. The System Complexity Metric (SCM) shows how this di-vide-and-conquer approach also reduces the system complexity. The complete systems engineering process has many detailed steps. It is often simplified because of the effort required and the human limitations on working memory and decision span. Systems analysis demands slow, logical, and fo-cused thinking but is often bypassed in favor of quick, intuitive, subconscious “gut feel.” A study of 100 system designs found examples of 12 specific mental mistakes, such as ignoring stakeholder needs, and these mistakes are essentially oversimplifications of the systems engineering process. An analysis of space life support goals, options, criteria, and processes found 11 examples of oversimplifications in systems engineering, such as neglecting safety and cost. All these 11 oversimplifications could be traced to one or more of the 12 previously identified mental mistakes or other well-known ones, such as ig-noring sunk costs. Oversimplification of the systems engineering process is rarely noticed but is a common and harmful problem. A study of failures in 50 different space systems found that problems in systems engineering caused failures and often led to errors in design, development, and test that further contributed to failure. It seems that more diligent systems engineering could prevent many project problems and failures, but projects seem to be more guided by “gut feel” based on tradition, authority, and consensus than on the logical, rational systems engineering approach.

Simplified systems engineering↗

NASA NTRS2022

National Campaign (NC)-1 Strategic Conflict Management Simulation (X4) Final Report

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) enables highly automated, cooperative, passenger or cargo-carrying air transportation services in and around urban areas. UAM is a subset of the Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) concept under development by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and industry. The Strategic Conflict Management (SCM) Simulation, dubbed “X4”, was conducted between July 2021 and June 2022 by NASA with the FAA and industry to evolve the Provider of Services for UAM (PSU) that will be needed to ensure initial UAM operations can scale in the National Airspace System (NAS). The FAA UAM Concept of Operations (ConOps) v1 [1] served as an initial guiding document for the X4 airspace management system design to ensure the architecture supports testing of services provided by third-party service providers. To that end, the X4 architecture leveraged concepts and technologies developed for Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) while also developing and testing new capabilities and services needed for UAM. The architecture included an initial prototype of the FAA-Industry Exchange Protocol (FIDXP), third-party services such as the PSUs, and Discovery and Synchronization Service (DSS), and other new services such as Demand-Capacity Balancing (DCB) to facilitate UAM strategic conflict management. During X4, NASA led discussions and collaborated with seven industry airspace partners to develop initial airspace management concepts for UAM that drove what would be tested and evaluated during the simulations. The initial capabilities defined for PSU leveraged UTM UAS Service Supplier (USS) as a starting point and evolved to meet UAM requirements. These discussions were also an opportunity for NASA to collaborate with industry to develop a set of initial Community-Based Rules (CBRs). These CBRs enabled how UAM traffic would be cooperatively managed among UAM operators. The collaborative, iterative process of developing CBRs with industry during X4 provided insight into the challenges involved and identified the need for a suitable and effective forum for future CBR development. In parallel with these discussions, NASA conducted a series of seven software sprints and two collaborative simulations with the airspace partners that built up in complexity. Over the course of the year, all seven partners successfully completed all the sprints by demonstrating the required capabilities. They also participated in the two collaborative simulations to demonstrate how multiple PSUs could work together in a collaborative, more complex environment with higher traffic density. The X4 simulation accomplished NASA's objectives and helped advance the development of the seven participating PSUs. The lessons learned provided insight into key elements of the UAM Notional Architecture from the FAA ConOps v1 [1] and UTM technologies when applied to UAM: - Having a Concept of Use (ConUse) defined prior to the activity would accelerate the time and effort from concept development to testing. - While the UAM Notional Architecture provided a starting point for a federated architecture that support services provided by third-party providers, the USS and PSU differed in their capability definitions for operational intent submission and sharing, conformance monitoring, airspace authorization, strategic conflict management, airspace constraints and dynamic replanning. - While existing DSS developed for UTM provided a way for PSU and other UAM services (such as DCB) to discover relevant operations from each other, additional complexity and challenges were found during X4 testing and illuminated the need for a more suitable solution for UAM. Industry can leverage the results of this demonstration to accelerate UAM requirements, CBRs, and standards development. The FAA and other government municipalities and agencies will be able to leverage results to inform future policies and identify additional gaps that require further analysis, moving toward operationalization of UAM.

Urban Air Mobility↗