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.
The overall objective of the Hexavalent Chrome Free Coatings for Electronics Applications project is to evaluate and test pretreatments not containing hexavalent chrome in avionics and electronics housing applications. This objective will be accomplished by testing strong performing coating systems from prior NASA and DoD testing or new coating systems as determined by the stakeholders.
The Montreal Protocol (MP) controls the production and consumption of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4 or CTC) and other ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) for emissive uses. CCl4 is a major ODS, accounting for about 12% of the globally averaged inorganic chlorine and bromine in the stratosphere, compared to 14% for CFC-12 in 2012. In spite of the MP controls, there are large ongoing emissions of CCl4 into the atmosphere. Estimates of emissions from various techniques ought to yield similar numbers. However, the recent WMO/UNEP Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion estimated a 2007-2012 CCl4 bottom-up emission of 1-4 Gg/year (1-4 kilotonnes/year), based on country-by-country reports to UNEP, and a global top-down emissions estimate of 57 Gg/ year, based on atmospheric measurements. This 54 Gg/year difference has not been explained. In order to assess the current knowledge on global CCl4 sources and sinks, stakeholders from industrial, governmental, and the scientific communities came together at the “Solving the Mystery of Carbon Tetrachloride” workshop, which was held from 4-6 October 2015 at Empa in Dübendorf, Switzerland. During this workshop, several new findings were brought forward by the participants on CCl4 emissions and related science.
Modern Systems Engineering activities for robotic science missions face increased complexity due to evolving measurement requirements, increased collaboration amongst stakeholders and increased collaboration between human and robotic systems. While NASA has employed standard process frameworks for project management and systems engineering for years, it has not yet established an architecture framework (AF) by which its mission systems are described. While an architecture framework is not a necessary component of an organization's operations, the value of a specified AF greatly enhances an organization's ability to define systems consistently and aid in communication across project and organizational boundaries. The current effort identifies an approach to establishing a Space Mission Architecture Framework (SMAF), an AF with roots in ISO 42010 (Systems and Software Engineering-Architecture Description), NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5 (NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements) and 7123.1B (NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements). The heart of the AF lies in its viewpoints and work products, artifacts that represent a set of information from the viewpoint of a particular stakeholder. This effort articulates the needs, goals and objectives that the SMAF addresses, as well as the approach to creating the framework and establishing the various work products. A full set of work products, sufficient to satisfy the Mission System reporting requirements of NPR 7120/7123 at Key Decision Point (KDP) A is identified in this paper.
This chapter describes methods developed by the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) to implement a transdisciplinary, systems-based approach for regional-scale (local to national) integrated assessment of agricultural systems under future climate, biophysical, and socio-economic conditions. These methods were used by the AgMIP regional research teams in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia to implement the analyses reported in their respective chapters of this book. Additional technical details are provided in Appendix 1.The principal goal that motivates AgMIP's regional integrated assessment (RIA) methodology is to provide scientifically rigorous information needed to support improved decision-making by various stakeholders, ranging from local to national and international non-governmental and governmental organizations.
Food systems connect a diverse network of stakeholders around the world, with complex dynamics governing production, processing, transportation, trade and consumption of food products. Extreme conditions can disrupt multiple components of the food system, with systemic connections providing structure that can both buffer and exacerbate risks. Climate change is shifting current practices in agricultural production and the broader food system, encouraging shifts toward more diverse value chains capable of drawing from multiple food producing regions to reduce the chance that an entire value chain be subject to simultaneous impacts. The IPCC Working Group I report assessed that heat waves, fires, floods and severe storms are becoming more pronounced and widespread with each degree of global warming, increasing food system risk. Food system disruptions can also come from outside the climate system, including from viral outbreaks, geopolitical conflict and socioeconomic changes. This presentation will highlight how the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) develops modeling approaches that connect climate, biophysical and socioeconomic models in order to capture complex responses of the food system and potential interventions by diverse stakeholders in the public and private sectors. Models are applied on a range of scales that match decision contexts. These include households in specific agricultural production regions (e.g., within a country), national-level policymakers considering policies, sustainability and development priorities for a country’s agricultural sector, and global food market models that balance production and consumption around the world with competition for land, water, energy and sustainability priorities. Models are capable of capturing many important responses, but further development is needed to represent key systemic risks and the possibility for additional interventions beyond the farm gate. Improved food system models will provide important insights into our society’s ability to cope with climate change, as well as our ability to identify agricultural adaptation and mitigation opportunities to reduce overall risk.
Scientists and engineers are continually developing innovative methods to capitalize on recent developments in computational power. Virtual worlds and virtual exploration present a new toolset for project design, implementation, and resolution. Replication of the physical world in the virtual domain provides stimulating displays to augment current data analysis techniques and to encourage public participation. In addition, the virtual domain provides stakeholders with a low cost, low risk design and test environment. The following document defines a virtual world and virtual exploration, categorizes the chief motivations for virtual exploration, elaborates upon specific objectives, identifies roadblocks and enablers for realizing the benefits, and highlights the more immediate areas of implementation (i.e. the action items). While the document attempts a comprehensive evaluation of virtual worlds and virtual exploration, the innovative nature of the opportunities presented precludes completeness. The authors strongly encourage readers to derive additional means of utilizing the virtual exploration toolset.
As technological innovations produce new capabilities, complexities, and interdependencies, our susceptibility to the societal impacts of space weather increase. There is real concern in the scientific community that our infrastructure would be at significant risk if a major geomagnetic storm should occur. To discuss the societal impacts of space weather, we brought together an interdisciplinary group of subject matter experts and societal stakeholders to participate in a workshop entitled Space Weather Risks and Society. The workshop was held at Ames Research Center (ARC) on 15-16 October 2011. The workshop was co-sponsored by NASA Ames Research Center (ARC), the Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center (LMATC), the Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL, part of the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council STFC). The workshop is part of a series of informal weekend workshops hosted by Center Director Pete Worden.
A fast-tracked multifaceted approach that integrated NASA, industry, and academia was successfully executed to advance the novel concept of radiation pressure by means of a thin diffractive film. This pioneering new approach to light sailing was found to offer advantages over reflective sails - especially for missions that include close orbits or a close fly-by of the sun.The research effort included experiments, numerical modeling, and an "incubator meeting" that brought together over 35 researchers and stakeholders to uncover some of the most feasible means of advancing both the TRL and mission capabilities of diffractive sailcraft. One of the outcomes of the incubator meeting was to focus this Phase I research on a solar polar orbiter mission for heliophysics experiments. NASA decadal surveys and other reports have repeatedly pointed out that scientists have only a paucity of information about the sun beyond the ecliptic plane. The TRL has been advanced from 1 to 3 during this Phase I research with the help of experiments that have verified the predicted force and mechanical control afforded by diffractive sails. Knowledge gained from the experiments and numerical models was not only disseminated in peer reviewed publications and conferences, but it also resulted in a patent disclosure.
The recent decline in perennial sea ice cover in Arctic Ocean is a topic of enormous scientific interest and has relevance to a broad variety of scientific disciplines and human endeavors including biological and physical oceanography, atmospheric circulation, high latitude ecology, the sustainability of indigenous communities, commerce, and resource exploration. A credible seasonal prediction of sea ice extent would be of substantial use to many of the stakeholders in these fields and may also reveal details on the physical processes that result in the current trends in the ice cover. Forecasts are challenging due in part to limitations in the polar observing network, the large variability in the climate system, and an incomplete knowledge of the significant processes. Nevertheless it is a useful to understand the current capabilities of high latitude seasonal forecasting and identify areas where such forecasts may be improved. Since 2008 the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States (ARCUS) has conducted a seasonal forecasting contest in which the average Arctic sea ice extent for the month of September (the month of the annual extent minimum) is predicted from available forecasts in early June, July, and August. The competition is known as the Sea Ice Outlook (SIO) but recently came under the auspices of the Sea Ice Prediction Network (SIPN), and multi-agency funded project to evaluate the SIO. The forecasts are submitted based on modeling, statistical, and heuristic methods. Forecasts of Arctic sea ice extent from the GMAO are derived from seasonal prediction system of the NASA Goddard Earth Observing System model, version 5 (GEOS 5) coupled atmosphere and ocean general circulation model (AOGCM). The projections are made in order to understand the relative skill of the forecasting system and to determine the effects of future improvements to the system. This years prediction is for a September average Arctic ice extent of 5.030.41 million km2.
The objectives were to (1) provide a top-level review of the Integrated Technology Plan (ITP) and current civil space technology plans, including planning processes and technologies; (2) discuss and assess technology transfer (TT) experiences across a wide range of participants; (3) identify alternate categories/strategies for TT and define the objectives of transfer processes in each case; (4) identify the roles of various government 'stakeholders', aerospace industry, industries at large, and universities in civil space technology research, development, demonstration, and transfer; (5) identify potential barriers and/or opportunities to successful civil space TT; (6) identify specific needs for innovations in policy, programs, and/or procedures to facilitate TT; and (7) develop a plan of attack for the development of a workshop report. Papers from the workshop are presented.
The Marshall Application Realignment System (MARS) Architecture project was established to meet the certification requirements of the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) V2.0 Federal Enterprise Architecture Certification (FEAC) Institute program and to provide added value to the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Application Portfolio Management process. The MARS Architecture aims to: (1) address the NASA MSFC Chief Information Officer (CIO) strategic initiative to improve Application Portfolio Management (APM) by optimizing investments and improving portfolio performance, and (2) develop a decision-aiding capability by which applications registered within the MSFC application portfolio can be analyzed and considered for retirement or decommission. The MARS Architecture describes a to-be target capability that supports application portfolio analysis against scoring measures (based on value) and overall portfolio performance objectives (based on enterprise needs and policies). This scoring and decision-aiding capability supports the process by which MSFC application investments are realigned or retired from the application portfolio. The MARS Architecture is a multi-phase effort to: (1) conduct strategic architecture planning and knowledge development based on the DoDAF V2.0 six-step methodology, (2) describe one architecture through multiple viewpoints, (3) conduct portfolio analyses based on a defined operational concept, and (4) enable a new capability to support the MSFC enterprise IT management mission, vision, and goals. This report documents Phase 1 (Strategy and Design), which includes discovery, planning, and development of initial architecture viewpoints. Phase 2 will move forward the process of building the architecture, widening the scope to include application realignment (in addition to application retirement), and validating the underlying architecture logic before moving into Phase 3. The MARS Architecture key stakeholders are most interested in Phase 3 because this is where the data analysis, scoring, and recommendation capability is realized. Stakeholders want to see the benefits derived from reducing the steady-state application base and identify opportunities for portfolio performance improvement and application realignment.
For this project, particulates and solvents used during the depainting process of steel structures were the identified hazardous material (HazMat) targeted for elimination or reduction. This Potential Alternatives Report (PAR) provides technical analyses of identified alternatives to the current coating removal processes, criteria used to select alternatives for further analysis, and a list of those alternatives recommended for testing. The initial coating removal alternatives list was compiled using literature searches and center participant recommendations. The involved project participants initially considered fifteen (15) alternatives. In late 2004, stakeholders down-selected the list and identified specific processes as potential alternatives to the current depainting methods. The selected alternatives were: 1. Plastic Blast Media 2. Hard Abrasive Media 3. Sponge Blast Media 4. Mechanical Removal with Vacuum Attachment 5. Liquid Nitrogen 6. Laser Coating Removal Available information about these processes was used to analyze the technical merits and the potential environmental, safety, and occupational health (ESOH) impacts of these methods. A preliminary cost benefit analysis will be performed to determine if implementation of alternative technologies is economically justified. NASA AP2
Phased-approach for implementation of risk management is necessary. Risk management system will be simple, accessible and promote communication of information to all relevant stakeholders for optimal resource allocation and risk mitigation. Risk management should be used by all team members to manage risks--risk office personnel. Each group is assigned Risk Integrators who are facilitators for effective risk management. Risks will be managed at the lowest-level feasible, elevate only those risks that require coordination or management from above. Risk reporting and communication is an essential element of risk management and will combine both qualitative and quantitative elements.. Risk informed decision making should be introduced to all levels of management. Provide necessary checks and balances to insure that risks are caught/identified and dealt with in a timely manner, Many supporting tools, processes & training must be deployed for effective risk management implementation. Process improvement must be included in the risk processes.
Leadership is key to success. Phased-approach for implementation of risk management is necessary. Risk management system will be simple, accessible and promote communication of information to all relevant stakeholders for optimal resource allocation and risk mitigation. Risk management should be used by all team members to manage risks -- risk office personnel. Each group is assigned Risk Integrators who are facilitators for effective risk management. Risks will be managed at the lowest-level feasible, elevate only those risks that require coordination or management from above. Risk reporting and communication is an essential element of risk management and will combine both qualitative and quantitative elements. Risk informed decision making should be introduced to all levels of management. Provide necessary checks and balances to insure that risks are caught/identified and dealt with in a timely manner. Many supporting tools, processes & training must be deployed for effective risk management implementation. Process improvement must be included in the risk processes.
INTRODUCTION: Extravehicular Activity (EVA)suit-related injuries to crew during training and inflight operations are not uncommon. Systematic tracking of these issues has waxed and waned throughout NASA’s history. Given two new EVA suits in development and an increase in EVA training, the need for dutiful recording of this data is critical. The Suited User Incident Tracking System (SUITS) was developed in the last decade to track all suited exposures, recording exposure details and any related issues, pains, or injuries that arise. METHODS: SUITS data collected from 2017 to 2022 was analyzed for issue frequency and severity for each body location and plotted to visualize where issues were occurring. Clustering techniques using a k-modes approach were also applied to the data set to generate profiles of populations that experienced issues in the suit, and populations that did not. RESULTS:A key finding from SUITS is that discomfort and pain observed in the new planetary spacesuits are occurring in new body locations than those experienced in the microgravity space suit (Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU)).To date, the lower body and torso regions account for most pain reports in planetary spacesuits whereas most reports in EMU were shoulders and hands. DISCUSSION:SUITS will continue to be used to capture exposures for all suit types. As training suit availability improves and training cadence increases in preparation for planetary missions, it is critical to capture and assess all suit incidences. Further, a Suited Anomaly Assessment Team (SAAT) consisting of a broad range of EVA stakeholders was formed to share and act on SUITS data with the goal of developing robust solutions to issues/injuries as they arise. Understanding the types and locations of injuries that occur during suited operations will help inform future work related to EVA fitness training requirements, suit design, and modeling efforts to avoid injury. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: 1. Systematic tracking of suited exposures and issues is critical for understanding the complex interaction between the human and the EVA spacesuit. 2. As EVA suit issues/injuries arise it is important to share that data with a broad group to ensure robust strategies are developed.
The presentation will discuss Kennedy Space Center’s (KSC) long term monitoring of seagrass and manatees in the Banana River (BR) prior to 2010, the remarkable decline in seagrass habitat that occurred thereafter, and the notable shift in manatee distribution. For Banana River, from 2010 to 2015, seagrass declined while manatee presence increased, with an average of 525 manatees per flight in 2015. After 2016, both seagrasses and manatee presence declined. Concurrently, increasing manatee numbers were reported for Mosquito Lagoon (ML), where historical manatee occurrence was relatively low. In 2016, aerial surveys were expanded to include the southern half of ML to document this significant distribution shift. By 2022, ML had become the hub of manatee occurrence on KSC, with an average of 946 manatees per flight and only 48 per flight in BR. These data enhance information for IRL stakeholders regarding seagrass habitat and manatee protection in the northern IRL.
The presentation will discuss Kennedy Space Center’s (KSC) long term monitoring of seagrass and manatees in the Banana River (BR) prior to 2010, the remarkable decline in seagrass habitat that occurred thereafter, and the notable shift in manatee distribution. For Banana River, from 2010 to 2015, seagrass declined while manatee presence increased, with an average of 525 manatees per flight in 2015. After 2016, both seagrasses and manatee presence declined. Concurrently, increasing manatee numbers were reported for Mosquito Lagoon (ML), where historical manatee occurrence was relatively low. In 2016, aerial surveys were expanded to include the southern half of ML to document this significant distribution shift. By 2022, ML had become the hub of manatee occurrence on KSC, with an average of 946 manatees per flight and only 48 per flight in BR. These data enhance information for IRL stakeholders regarding seagrass habitat and manatee protection in the northern IRL.
Since 2006 there have been 6 reported cases of altered visual acuity and intracranial pressure (ICP) in long duration astronauts. In order to document this risk and develop an integrated approach to its mitigation, the NASA Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD) and Human Research Program (HRP) have chosen to use the Human System Risk Board (HSRB) and the risk management analysis tool (RMAT). The HSRB is the venue in which the stakeholders and customers discuss and vet the evidence and the RMAT is the tool that facilitates documentation and comparison of the evidence across mission profiles as well as identification of risk factors, and documentation of mitigation strategies. This process allows for information to be brought forward and dispositioned so that it may be properly incorporated into the RMAT and contribute to the design of the research and mitigation plans. The evidence thus far has resulted in the identification of a visual impairment/intracranial pressure (VIIP) project team, updating of both short and long duration medical requirements designed to assess visual acuity, and a research plan to characterize this issue further. In order to understand this issue more completely, a plan to develop an Accelerated Research Collaboration (ARC) has been approved by the HSRB. The ARC is a novel research model pioneered by the Myelin Repair Foundation. It is a patient centered research model that brings together researchers and clinicians, under the guidance of a scientific advisory panel, to collaborate and produce results much quickly than accomplished through traditional research models. The data and evidence from the updated medical requirements and the VIIP ARC will be reviewed at the HSRB on a regular basis. Each review package presented to the HSRB will include an assessment and recommendation with respect to continuation of research, countermeasure development, occupational surveillance modalities, selection criteria, etc. This process will determine the course of the VIIP project and ultimately how SLSD and HRP mitigate this emerging human health and performance risk.