Results for “external validity” — Page 52

DOE OSTI2020

Subtask 1.3 – Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage for North Dakota Ethanol Production

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with Red Trail Energy, LLC (RTE), a North Dakota ethanol producer; the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) Renewable Energy Program (REP); and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), conducted a feasibility and implementation study for a commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) effort. This subtask provided technical support and developed recommended practices of how small-scale industrial CO2 emitters (<1,000,000 tonnes of CO2 emitted annually) may economically deploy CCS. The 64-million-gallon dry mill RTE ethanol facility, emitting an average 180,000 tonnes of CO2 annually, was the subject of the case study. The positive outcome of this research, which shows technical and economic potential for ethanol–CCS in North Dakota, has resulted in RTE acquiring an approved Permit to Drill on December 2, 2019, for a stratigraphic test well in early 2020, a necessary step toward a North Dakota CO2 Storage Facility Permit (SFP) for the RTE CCS effort. Outcomes include 1) validating the Broom Creek Formation as a regional target for CCS, 2) determining the full carbon life cycle of an industrial fuel production facility with CCS, 3) developing a field implementation plan (FIP) for small-scale CCS, and 4) determining the validity and pathway for using CCS to meet low-carbon fuel (LCF) standards. The technical team included the EERC, RTE, Trimeric Corporation, Schlumberger Carbon Services, and Computer Modelling Group (CMG). Findings from activities conducted November 2016 – May 2020 are summarized as follows. Several key steps have been accomplished toward validating the Broom Creek Formation as a CO2 injection and storage target at the RTE CCS site, including verification of the presence and structure of sandstone layers that may comprise the potential CO2 storage reservoir and the several thousand feet of overlying confining zone. Work included site characterization using existing data, interpretation of seismic data within the study area, and geologic modeling simulation of CO2 injection. Interpreted results estimate 3000 feet of confining zone between the Broom Creek Formation (storage target) and the lowermost underground source of drinking water (e.g., the Fox Hills Formation). The thickness of the Broom Creek injection target varies 230–420 ft within the survey area. Results were used to inform the location of a stratigraphic test well and associated characterization test program. No impediments were identified within the targeted CO2 storage complex that would prevent the project from moving forward. A stratigraphic test well is the next step to validate these results and to acquire remaining data necessary to develop a North Dakota CO2 SFP application. The EERC generated full carbon life cycle estimates for CCS integration with the RTE ethanol facility. Results indicated that an average 40% reduction in CO2 emissions is possible through CCS implementation. Approximately half of the carbon in the overall life cycle for a dry mill ethanol plant is generated through the fermentation process and emitted to the atmosphere; this is the CO2 stream targeted for CCS. The remaining carbon is attributed to corn feedstock farming (diesel, fertilizer), energy for fuel processing (natural gas, electricity), and transportation (diesel) of the fuel product. Life cycle carbon estimates are also affected by the anticipated energy consumption of a potential capture facility, which depend on the type of CO2 product generated. For example, a 30%–40% net CO2 emission reduction is estimated if a liquefied CO2 facility were incorporated compared to a 40%–50% net CO2 reduction if a supercritical “injection-grade” CO2 product is generated; i.e., more energy is required to further refine the CO2 stream, affecting the full carbon life cycle estimates. A CCS FIP was developed and initiated at the RTE CCS site, resulting in the development of several guidance documents: a CO2 Capture Process Design Package, a North Dakota CO2 geologic Storage Permits Template, and a Public Outreach Package for CCS in North Dakota. General FIP components include CO2 capture system, pipeline and well designs; monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) plans; geologic characterization and testing programs; and permitting and outreach plans. Vendor bids were also acquired for the CO2 liquefaction facility. Near-surface characterization (groundwater and soil gas sampling) and geologic characterization (seismic survey) were initiated to inform development of a UIC Class VI-compliant MVA plan compliant with a North Dakota CO2 SFP. Designs (well and geologic testing) were completed for a stratigraphic test well compliant with a North Dakota CO2 SFP. In addition, the outreach plan was executed, including community open houses, meetings with city/county/state officials, and development of public materials. Although other entities continued to mature incentive programs in 2019–2020, California and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) currently provide the most advanced economic opportunities for CCS integrated with fuel production. The California Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) adopted a CCS Protocol in January 2019, allowing submittal of a design-based pathway (DBP) application for an approved temporary (not certified) carbon intensity value for a fully engineered facility. An ethanol–CCS DBP application to the California LCFS Program (officially approved February 28, 2020) was developed to show that the RTE CCS effort meets LCFS requirements. The approved DBP provides confidence to advance the project and supports potential investments. Other entities continue to mature incentive programs. The IRS issued guidance in February 2020 that addresses the definition of beginning of construction and revenue procedure on partnerships for the Enhancement of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Credit (a.k.a. Section 45Q) CCS tax credit program; the IRS anticipates issuing further guidance on issues such as secure geologic storage, utilization qualifications, and recapture of claimed credits. Maturing incentive programs coupled with workable permitting regulations provide confidence to advance CCS projects in North Dakota and support financial investment to proceed with designing, constructing, and implementing CCS projects at small-scale fuel production facilities. The largest hurdles for CCS implementation at small-scale industrial systems are often business/economic-related (i.e., not technical). Market uncertainty already exists for agriculture-based alternative fuels such as corn ethanol, for which production has increased by ~33%, and prices have correspondingly lowered since 2015. Passing the Section 45Q tax credit program improves economic feasibility for CCS but may require external investors for a small business to achieve maximum benefits. Public–private partnerships with NDIC and DOE have resulted in foundational technical and regulatory knowledge, growing stakeholder confidence, and a pathway to implementation that enables similar industrial CCS projects in the region to advance. This subtask was funded through the EERC–DOE Joint Program on Research and Development for Fossil Energy-Related Resources Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FE0024233. Nonfederal funding was provided by NDIC and RTE. The authors would also like to thank CMG, ESRI, IHS, Neuralog, and Schlumberger for allowing the use of their software packages in support of this work.

42 ENGINEERING↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis of Launch Vehicle Liftoff Debris: Historical Perspective from Space Shuttle and Application to Artemis I

Human exploration-class launch vehicles are inherently prone to debris due to the extreme environments generated during pre-launch operations, liftoff, and flight. The use of cryogenic propellants often requires thermal protection system (TPS) coatings, typically foam, to maintain the propellant conditions in the tank and prevent an accumulation ice on the external surface of the vehicle. Some ice growth is to be expected at umbilical interfaces, vents, flanges, or brackets where it is difficult to apply TPS. This ice may come loose at any time due to wind on the launch pad, structural vibration and acoustics after rocket ignition, or aerodynamic forces during flight. This phenomena is especially apparent on vehicles with no TPS, such as the Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo Program, see Figure 1. During propellant tanking, the thermal contraction of the underlying substrate may generate cracks in the TPS (Figure 1). Chunks of TPS can release due to the expansion of ingested gas from cryopumping or from aerodynamic forces if the crack creates an offset surface. Most foams will also have a certain amount of “popcorning” where small pieces of foam will pop off during flight because of the differential between the static surface pressure and the pressure of the gas trapped in the foam cell structure. There are a number of other coating or closeout materials that may be shed from the vehicle and become debris. During pre-launch operations and liftoff, the vehicle may also be exposed to debris originating from the launch pad or ground support equipment. This debris is separate from foreign object debris, or FOD, which is not intended to be present and is strictly controlled through operations and maintenance procedures. In this case, debris is generated from hardware and materials that are necessary for launch and are subject to the intense vibration, acoustics, and direct plume impingement of the launch environment. Examples include ice from umbilicals, tape and tie wraps that protect cables, and rust or corrosion from the launch platform. While NASA has historically been aware of debris as a potential issue that could cause a failure resulting in loss of mission, loss of vehicle, or loss of crew, the likelihood and severity of that risk was not always well understood or given sufficient weight in program and flight decisions. After the Space Shuttle Columbia accident (STS-107), the investigation found that foam TPS debris shed from the external tank was the proximate cause of the damage to the orbiter wing. Six previous observations of debris released from the foam ramp that covered the bipod connecting the forward end of the orbiter to the external tank resulted in minor changes or were determined to be accepted flight risks. Two occurrences of bipod ramp foam loss were not identified until the STS-107 investigation. Despite the damage inflicted by these debris strikes, the Shuttle Program Requirements Control Board deemed the vehicle safe to fly. During the Return to Flight effort following the Columbia disaster, NASA Engineering developed a process for the assessment of debris transport, impact, and damage tolerance to support independent assessments of risk by NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA). Under this system, each element (vehicle or ground system) defines a catalog of all expected debris based on launch history, component testing, or analysis. Debris transport analysis (DTA) is conducted using the debris catalog characteristics and potential flow transport mechanisms (e.g., vehicle aerodynamics, gravity, wind, plume-driven). The predicted debris impact locations and velocities are provided to the hardware owners, who use available test data and analysis to determine whether each component can withstand the impacts. In cases where the element hardware may be severely damaged or fail, the options are to mitigate the debris source through some change in design or operation, or to work with S&MA to try to characterize the probability of the impact and damage for program risk acceptance. Because of the differences in debris characteristics and transport, the DTA has been divided between the Liftoff and Ascent regimes. The development and application of Liftoff DTA methodology from the Shuttle Program to the current Artemis Program is the subject of this paper. Liftoff DTA covers the time from the start of pre-launch operations at the launch pad, up until the vehicle clears the launch tower and there is no longer any interaction with ground systems. Debris transport during this period is broadly classified as either gravity, wind, and plume-entrained (GWPE) or plume driven (PD). GWPE debris is generally lower speed, travelling in a forward-to-aft direction. PD transport includes flow features from the rocket ignition transient, as well as plume impingement and recirculation that occur as the vehicle lifts off the launch platform. In these cases, the debris typically moves in an aft-to-forward direction at higher speeds. The applicable transport mechanisms must be considered for each piece of debris depending on the material, and release location and time. For example, rust or metallic debris from the tower could fall (GWPE) and impact the vehicle before landing on the launch platform deck where it could be also be transported by plume impingement (PD). However, falling ice (GWPE) from an umbilical is unlikely to survive impact with the vehicle or launch platform and be available for PD transport. Modeling of debris transport is accomplished using a set of DTA tools which simulate debris trajectories subject to a reference frame acceleration (i.e., gravity) and aerodynamic drag. Where the trajectory encounters a solid surface, the debris is allowed to rebound with a specified coefficient of restitution. The drag is calculated by interpolating the fluid state at each point in the debris trajectory from high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of the launch vehicle and pad. The CFD data may either be static (steady state or time averaged), typically for GWPE transport, or dynamic (time-accurate) for PD flow features like the ignition transient. Examples of the CFD flow field solutions for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and launch pad are shown in Figure 2. Typical SLS debris trajectory predictions from DTA are illustrated in Figure 3. The final version of this paper will include a more detailed examination of the Liftoff DTA process developed during the Shuttle Program, and how it has been augmented and applied to the SLS rocket under the Artemis Program. Comparisons with debris observations from the Artemis I launch will demonstrate validation of the tools and methodology.

Debris↗

DOE OSTI2019

Cryogenic Carbon Capture Development (Final Report)

This project extends and leverages the work completed under funding from ARPA-E and other sources by exploring aspects of the Cryogenic Carbon Capture™ (CCC) process and issues discovered during those projects, but that were not within the scope or budget of previous projects or that became apparent during field tests. Our successful completion of the tasks outlined in this project has increased the reliability, efficiency, and scalability of the CCC process and we are better prepared for pilot-scale testing. The first phase of this project improved key areas of the process through iterative design and experiment, culminating with recommendations for improvements to the existing skid-scale system developed under non-federal funding. The second phase of this project implemented the improved unit operations into the Cryogenic Carbon Capture External Cooling Loop (CCC ECL™) skid and field tests the improved system at a coal-fired power plant. The specific areas of work in this project are: Budget Period 1: 1) Selection of the most energy-efficient drying system for ambient-pressure flue gas. Sustainable Energy Solutions, LLC (SES) has successfully demonstrated a dryer that removes bulk water using a low-temperature brine to remove about 99% of the water followed by a mol sieve 3A desiccant dryer to remove the remaining 1% water; 2) Selection and demonstration of efficient solution to fouling due to dissolved CO 2 . SES has tested several commercial heat exchangers that purport to be able to handle fouling issues similar to those experienced in the contact liquid chiller. Replicated tests using the CCC ECL™ skid and dimpled brazed plate heat exchangers demonstrate that quick throttling of refrigerant combined with a burst of clean gas mitigate the fouling caused by CO 2 solubility in contact liquid with only minor increases in parasitic load. SES models indicate that parasitic load would increase by approximately 0.0125 GJ/tonne, an order of magnitude less than what was determined to be the maximum allowable additional parasitic load caused by this system; 3) Selection and demonstration of efficient and scalable solid–liquid separation system. The screw press technology met or exceeded the 70% solids loading benchmark during several test runs exceeding 24 hours on the CCC ECL™ skid. The average solids loading during the entire 50-hour run was 67%. The energy demand for this system is less than 0.1 GJ e /tonne of CO 2 processed; 4) Optimize design and demonstration of patented desublimating heat exchangers. We designed and built a hybrid spray tower that was tested over many hundreds of hours and a 50-hour continuous test run was completed capturing over 0.5 tonne CO 2 /day at >90% capture; (5) Plan for safe dilution of oxygen-depleted, cleaned flue-gas stream. The AERSCREEN simulator developed by the EPA modeled the dispersion of oxygen-depleted flue gas from the CCC process at a commercial plant. The results indicate that this plan effectively mitigates the flue gas hazards; (6) Simulation of and experimental work related to multi-pollutant capture. SES programmed an upgrade to its solid/vapor/liquid equilibrium (SVLE) algorithm. This enables simultaneous modeling of multiple pollutants (i.e., CO 2 , SO x , NO x , Hg, HCl). Budget Period 2; (7) Modify the CCC ECL™ skid for field testing and complete shakedown testing. The plans for modifying the CCC ECL™ skid were finalized and put into place. Shakedown testing of the updated CCC ECL™ skid occurred at SES using closed-loop mode (i.e., using a synthetic flue gas consisting of only N 2 and CO 2 ) and at the Hunter Power Plant using flue gas from the coal-fired boiler. Shakedown testing took longer than expected due to delays in receiving equipment and unexpected equipment performance in the field; (8) Operate the CCC ECL™ skid in the field. Longer testing of the CCC ECL™ skid occurred at the Hunter Power Plant. Multiple tests exceeding 35 hours were completed, with a total of over 600 hours of CO 2 capture completed using flue gas at the Hunter Power Plant with an average CO 2 capture rate of over 91% during those hours. Extensive notes and documentation were acquired informing improved methods for controls, startup, operation, and shut down; (9) Determine figures of merit and quantify process improvement. SES defined figures of merit for unit operation performance and overall CCC ECL™ process performance. All figures of merit were achieved or surpassed, except for 500 continuous hours of demonstration at the Hunter Power Plant; (10) Complete an Environmental Health and Safety Risk assessment by a third party. Tri-State completed an Environmental Health and Safety Risk assessment; (11) Update techno-economic analysis with third-party validation. The techno-economic analysis has been completed. It confirms the potential large reduction in energy and cost of the CCC process compared with leading alternatives and that the estimates and estimation techniques are reliable.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of a Ground Multi-Mission Low-Cost Optical Terminal (LCOT) for Free-Space Optical Communications

Once confined to the realm of laboratory experiments and theoretical papers, space-based laser communications (lasercomm) are on the verge of achieving mainstream status. Organizations from Facebook to NASA, and missions from cubesats to Orion are employing lasercomm to achieve gigabit communication speeds at mass and power requirements lower than that of traditional radio frequency (RF) methods. Since first demonstrating free-space optical communications services with Lunar Laser Communications Demonstration (LLCD) in 2013, NASA has invested in developing optical communications technologies and capabilities to enhancing its space communications networks. Along with evolving optical space terminals, NASA is also developing lasercomm grounds stations capable of meeting the rapidly increasing data volume demands of upcoming missions, from low-earth to lunar orbits and beyond and integrating these advanced capabilities into its Near-Space and Deep Space Networks. To meet this emerging need, the Low-Cost Optical Terminal (LCOT) project at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is designing, building and validating a prototype for a flexible, multi-mission, and economical optical ground terminal that could be used as a blueprint for a global network of optical ground stations, capable of supporting a wide variety of missions. To date a major impediment to widespread adoption of laser communication has been the lack of an existing ground network infrastructure. A mission that wishes to take advantage of laser communication not only needs to invest in an optical space terminal, but it must also finance the creation of ground terminals to receive the downlink signal. This adds significant additional cost. Missions that do decide to incur the cost of financing a network of ground terminals end up building highly specialized optical receivers that are operable as receivers for that specific mission only. Significant Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) cost is invested to build highly specialized one-of-a-kind ground terminals that go into storage after that particular mission is over. This is not an economical approach and does nothing to grow the number of optical ground stations available to future missions. In essence each mission that wants to take advantage of the benefits of lasercom has to start from scratch to provide a ground terminal network to support it. As long as this is the case, the cost for using laser communications will be too high for most missions to consider. LCOT intends to close this gap in technology by designing and developing a standard optical ground terminal design that is flexible enough to serve as a receiver for a wide range of future missions – a ground terminal that can be quickly reconfigured to receive downlinks at different wavelengths using different signal formats. Not only does LCOT have the industry-building objectives of utilizing commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components to the maximum extent possible, but also spurs the commercial development of other necessary lasercomm components not currently offered by industry. Finally, LCOT will give NASA scientists and engineers a facility where they can gain real-world experience with optical communications. It will give engineers a cost-effective way to try out new concepts and processes by providing the infrastructure for such testing. In this way it is hoped LCOT will serve as a stimulus for innovation in optical communications and speed its widespread adoption by future missions. The LCOT is comprised of five subsystems: Free-Space Optical, Transceiver, Amplifier, Monitor and Control, and Observatory Infrastructure. In August 2021, the LCOT team installed a 70 cm telescope, developed by Planewave Instruments that was optimized for optical communications. Free-Space Optical subsystem comprises of the telescope and its associated hardware, including a transmitter optical assembly, wide field cameras, two optical benches, and an adaptive optics subsystem. The transmit optical assembly, a unique concept design, is a cluster of four functionally independent transmit subassemblies located on the receive telescope. In addition to receiving optical signals and directing the expanded beam with high precision to the space terminal, it also performs tracking functions. The transmit optical assembly will support operations from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) through lunar and will be used as a template for industry manufacturing. The Optical Infrastructure subsystem is responsible for providing environmentally controlled shelters for LCOT equipment and various other systems. To maintain the safety and proper functionality of the telescope, a 16 ft Astrohaven clamshell dome procured which provides all-sky coverage without the need to rotate the dome. Additionally, Atmospheric Monitoring Assembly (AMA) will be part of optical infrastructure subsystem to ensure accurate performance of the LCOT. Like existing optical ground stations, LCOT will measure standard weather station parameters, infrared all sky image of cloud cover, and cloud height. LCOT, however, adds requirements for measuring night time seeing and, in the future, daytime seeing. Unlike other optical ground terminals, the LCOT is transceiver agnostic; user transceivers may be duplex transceivers, standalone receivers, or standalone transmitters with or without acquisition beacon functionality. As such, the LCOT project accommodates testing with external customer transceivers in a flexible manor, further complimenting its intended multi-mission goals. Another unique component of LCOT is the use of a new amplifier technology – the Very Large Mode Area (VLMA) amplifiers. This new technology allows LCOT to avoid the issues faced by previous laser communications ground terminals, gives users more flexibility and modular capability, and is capable of reaching an order of magnitude higher peak power than traditional High Power Optical Amplifiers (HPOA). One drawback of the VLMA HPOA approach is that the amplified light is output into free-space. The solution developed by LCOT is an optics train that couples the output of the VLMA amplifier into a short fiber for transport to the transmit telescopes with high efficiency. Like many of the LCOT components, a set of detailed manufacturing drawings have been created for the optics train to allow any machine shop with a multi-axis Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machine to fabricate the piece parts from commonly available materials. In line with the goals of LCOT, the monitor and control functions are developed as a modular and flexible system with the ability to support future hardware or algorithm changes, minimizing disruptions. A main priority of development in the Monitor and Control Subsystem (MCS) is the safety monitor system.

laser communication↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of a Ground Multi-mission Low Cost Optical Terminal(LCOT) for Free-Space Optical Communication

Once confined to the realm of laboratory experiments and theoretical papers, space-based laser communications (lasercomm) are on the verge of achieving mainstream status. Organizations from Facebook to NASA, and missions from cubesats to Orion are employing lasercomm to achieve gigabit communication speeds at mass and power requirements lower than that of traditional radio frequency (RF) methods. Since first demonstrating free-space optical communications services with Lunar Laser Communications Demonstration (LLCD) in 2013, NASA has invested in developing optical communications technologies and capabilities to enhancing its space communications networks. Along with evolving optical space terminals, NASA is also developing lasercomm grounds stations capable of meeting the rapidly increasing data volume demands of upcoming missions, from low-earth to lunar orbits and beyond and integrating these advanced capabilities into its Near-Space and Deep Space Networks. To meet this emerging need, the Low-Cost Optical Terminal (LCOT) project at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is designing, building and validating a prototype for a flexible, multi-mission, and economical optical ground terminal that could be used as a blueprint for a global network of optical ground stations, capable of supporting a wide variety of missions. To date a major impediment to widespread adoption of laser communication has been the lack of an existing ground network infrastructure. A mission that wishes to take advantage of laser communication not only needs to invest in an optical space terminal, but it must also finance the creation of ground terminals to receive the downlink signal. This adds significant additional cost. Missions that do decide to incur the cost of financing a network of ground terminals end up building highly specialized optical receivers that are operable as receivers for that specific mission only. Significant Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) cost is invested to build highly specialized one-of-a-kind ground terminals that go into storage after that particular mission is over. This is not an economical approach and does nothing to grow the number of optical ground stations available to future missions. In essence each mission that wants to take advantage of the benefits of lasercom has to start from scratch to provide a ground terminal network to support it. As long as this is the case, the cost for using laser communications will be too high for most missions to consider. LCOT intends to close this gap in technology by designing and developing a standard optical ground terminal design that is flexible enough to serve as a receiver for a wide range of future missions – a ground terminal that can be quickly reconfigured to receive downlinks at different wavelengths using different signal formats. Not only does LCOT have the industry-building objectives of utilizing commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components to the maximum extent possible, but also spurs the commercial development of other necessary lasercomm components not currently offered by industry. Finally, LCOT will give NASA scientists and engineers a facility where they can gain real-world experience with optical communications. It will give engineers a cost-effective way to try out new concepts and processes by providing the infrastructure for such testing. In this way it is hoped LCOT will serve as a stimulus for innovation in optical communications and speed its widespread adoption by future missions. The LCOT is comprised of five subsystems: Free-Space Optical, Transceiver, Amplifier, Monitor and Control, and Observatory Infrastructure. In August 2021, the LCOT team installed a 70 cm telescope, developed by Planewave Instruments that was optimized for optical communications. Free-Space Optical subsystem comprises of the telescope and its associated hardware, including a transmitter optical assembly, wide field cameras, two optical benches, and an adaptive optics subsystem. The transmit optical assembly, a unique concept design, is a cluster of four functionally independent transmit subassemblies located on the receive telescope. In addition to receiving optical signals and directing the expanded beam with high precision to the space terminal, it also performs tracking functions. The transmit optical assembly will support operations from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) through lunar and will be used as a template for industry manufacturing. The Optical Infrastructure subsystem is responsible for providing environmentally controlled shelters for LCOT equipment and various other systems. To maintain the safety and proper functionality of the telescope, a 16 ft Astrohaven clamshell dome procured which provides all-sky coverage without the need to rotate the dome. Additionally, Atmospheric Monitoring Assembly (AMA) will be part of optical infrastructure subsystem to ensure accurate performance of the LCOT. Like existing optical ground stations, LCOT will measure standard weather station parameters, infrared all sky image of cloud cover, and cloud height. LCOT, however, adds requirements for measuring night time seeing and, in the future, daytime seeing. Unlike other optical ground terminals, the LCOT is transceiver agnostic; user transceivers may be duplex transceivers, standalone receivers, or standalone transmitters with or without acquisition beacon functionality. As such, the LCOT project accommodates testing with external customer transceivers in a flexible manor, further complimenting its intended multi-mission goals. Another unique component of LCOT is the use of a new amplifier technology – the Very Large Mode Area (VLMA) amplifiers. This new technology allows LCOT to avoid the issues faced by previous laser communications ground terminals, gives users more flexibility and modular capability, and is capable of reaching an order of magnitude higher peak power than traditional High Power Optical Amplifiers (HPOA). One drawback of the VLMA HPOA approach is that the amplified light is output into free-space. The solution developed by LCOT is an optics train that couples the output of the VLMA amplifier into a short fiber for transport to the transmit telescopes with high efficiency. Like many of the LCOT components, a set of detailed manufacturing drawings have been created for the optics train to allow any machine shop with a multi-axis Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machine to fabricate the piece parts from commonly available materials. In line with the goals of LCOT, the monitor and control functions are developed as a modular and flexible system with the ability to support future hardware or algorithm changes, minimizing disruptions. A main priority of development in the Monitor and Control Subsystem (MCS) is the safety monitor system.

Haleh Safavi↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TRIDENT Drill Validation at Mars and Lunar Analog Field Sites

Drilling on Earth is typically a human-intensive activity. Drilling on other planets is further complicated by the lack of prior local field surveys of their target area, hence blindly drilling into uncertain target rocks. Field conditions on the Moon or Mars are also different than for shallow drilling on Earth: lower temperatures and pressures, less power available, low masses (hence less weight-on-bit). Given the cost of transport from Earth, no drilling muds or working fluids are likely to be available to carry away cuttings. And impact-gardened regolith and dust vary mechanically and texturally from most terrestrial soils. The Regolith and Ice Drill for Exploration of New Terrains (TRIDENT) is a rotary-percussive 1m-class drill from Honeybee Robotics. It is low-power (rotary and percussive actuators are 200 W each) and lightweight (<20 kg) with the maximum weight on bit limited to 200 N. TRIDENT has been manifested for the Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) and PRIME-1 lunar south pole missions in 2024, has previously been field tested at a hot, dry analog site in the Atacama Desert, and in lunar conditions in thermal vacuum chamber tests. TRIDENT was also part of the 2019 Icebreaker Mars Discovery proposal, as well as in the Mars Life Explorer concept. During ARADS tests, drill control and fault recovery automation software enabled hands-off operations of a rover-mounted TRIDENT drill. TRIDENT Drill Analog Site Validation: Past TRIDENT tests in thermal vacuum (TVAC) chambers targeted containers of manufactured lunar simulants with added volatiles. 2022 TRIDENT ambient testing at NASA Ames drilled into cemented lunar simulant materials. Low cuttings-permeability led to cuttings buildup, and drill choking and binding was observed. The Atacama analog site in ARADS had desiccated unconsolidated sediments that did not challenge the TRIDENT design. However, lunar polar regolith is expected to be diverse and heterogeneous with varying clast sizes, with abundant impactites and perhaps subsurface ice deposits. Neither the simulants nor Atacama testing had completely covered the TRIDENT-targeted field characteristics, motivating further analog tests prior to the planned lunar missions. To gain more insight into the behavior of the TRIDENT hardware in diverse impactites and subsurface ice, and to verify the software automation in that environment, in August 2023 TRIDENT was brought to Haughton Crater, a field analog site in the Canadian Arctic. In September 2023 the same drill was brought to the Bishop Tuff in southern California to verify whether drilling binding behaviors previously seen in lunar simulant testing would be observed in naturally occurring fine-grained massive layers. The ~22 Ma Haughton Crater impact structure is located at 75 ̊22’ N, 89 ̊41’ W, on northwestern Devon Island, Nunavut, Canada. Numerous deposits of pale-grey crater-fill polymictic impact-melt breccia are found within the crater with a typical thickness reaching ~125 m or greater and covering ~60 km -2 . An approximately 600m-thick permafrost layer is also present with ice typically found within 0.5-0.6m of the surface. The volcanic tableland north of Bishop, CA exposes densely welded tuff laid down during the eruption that created the Long Valley Caldera at approximately 0.76 Ma. Extensional faults and the Owens River gorge expose cross-sections across the plateau. The area is viewed as an analog site for Mars features believed to be of pyroclastic origin. Results: Haughton Crater.Drilling tests were conducted 8-13 August 2023 at a previously undisturbed area separated 5-10 m from past years’ Drill Hill test sites (75.4208, -089.7613). In six days, TRIDENT drilled 8 holes to nearly 1 m depth each, totaling 7.80 m. The active layer/ice boundary was at ~67 cm depth, with a total of approximately 2.4 m drilled into ice or ice-cemented impact breccia. During drilling, five drill fault states were observed and successfully recovered. Holes 23-1, 4 and 7 were drilled under manual control, using Honeybee’s Thorax user interface. Holes 23-5, 6, and 8 were drilled with the Ames IBexec automated drilling control software. TRIDENT was observed to have little difficulty in the thawed uncemented impact breccia above the active layer boundary, but required percussion to make slower headway in the ice-cemented breccia. In Hole 23-7 (Fig.1), drilling slowed down in a massive unit just above the active-layer boundary (perhaps a large rock extending into the ice-cementation?), with only 7cm progress made in 27 minutes of high auger torque and constant percussion, leading to a choking fault and then a binding fault. A similar pattern had been observed in TRIDENT Rio Tinto test data from 2017 [6] as well as in the 2022laboratory tests.Bishop Tuff.A team from NASA Ames and the US Geological Survey deployed the same TRIDENT drill to Bishop Sites 1B and 1C (37.4203, -118.4289; 37.4265, -118.4215) on 13-16 September 2023, on the Bishop Tuff plateau. A third drill site was used 17-18 September 2023(37.4598, -118.3667) in an abandoned pumice mine. Four holes (totaling 2.5m depth) were drilled into the fine-grained, meters-thick tuff units at Sites 1B and 1C, and a further two boreholes (totaling 1.98m depth) were made at the pumice site. Drill behavior in the tuff below 10 cm depth was similar to that seen at 65-74 cm depth in Haughton Hole 23-7 (Fig. 1) and that seen in the 2022 lab simulant drilling. Drill safety torque limits were exceeded multiple times resulting in drill stops downhole. These freezes then required external added torques (with a pipe wrench) to resume rotation, to unstick the drill for withdrawal. To prevent this choking and binding behavior we found that more-frequent cuttings removal was necessary, e.g., reducing the “drill bite” size from the nominal 10 cm to 2 cm per bite --bringing the auger up to the surface more frequently, as seen in Bishop Site 1C Hole 2 (Fig.2). This permitted slow progress without drill binding and without external interventions. Conversely, TRIDENT drilling in the more porous pumice target material showed no cuttings buildup issue, and single bites as large as 40 cm were demonstrated. Discussion: We observed that TRIDENT easily penetrated unconsolidated heterogeneous soils (both above the active layer boundary at Haughton and previously in the Atacama). Cemented or consolidated targets that were cuttings-permeable (icy impact breccia, pumice) required more energy applied and percussion. However, in non-cuttings-permeable targets (welded microporous tuff, cemented simulants, boulder) TRIDENT was observed to be prone to excessive cuttings accumulation leading to choking/binding faults and stalling. The wedge cutting bit, used by TRIDENT in field tests and in its flight versions, pulverizes the target rock and creates fine cuttings that ideally are transported up the auger spirals for removal. In porous, fractured or vesicular target materials (such as at the Bishop pumice site) a significant portion of the cuttings are pushed aside, but for non-fractured, microporous targets the cuttings remain in the borehole and accumulate. Rock powder is relatively incompressible as a working fluid at only 100-200N downward force (TRIDENT limits) and hence eventual drilling progress slows or stops. Our recommended strategy for improving TRIDENT cuttings removal in massive target units with low cuttings-permeability is to reduce TRIDENT bite sizes when encountering these units, from 10cm to as little as 1-2cm, to effectively bail the accumulating cuttings. This approach was demonstrated to reduce choking and allowed slow progress to continue in cuttings-impermeable microporous target units (viz. the Bishop tuff in our September 2023 tests or cemented simulants in 2022 ambient tests).

robotic drilling↗

NASA NTRS2021

LOFTID Heat Flux Gauge Calibration: What is Truth?

The Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) is a demonstration of Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) technology, which may enable the delivery of heavy payloads to Mars, Venus, and Titan, as well as return to Earth. Unlike rigid aeroshells that are constrained by the size of the rocket’s shroud, inflatable aeroshells can be deployed to a much larger scale, thus allowing a spacecraft to begin its deceleration earlier and experience less heating. On LOFTID, there will be 4 total heat flux gauges (HFG) with a range of 70 W/cm2 and 1 radiometer with a range of 3 W/cm2, arranged as shown in Fig. 1. Both the radiometer and total HFGs are Schmidt-Boelter gauges purchased from an external vendor. Radiative calibrations were performed in-house at NASA Ames’ Sensors and TPS Advanced Research Laboratories (STAR Labs) before and after environmental testing to investigate how the testing affected the sensors' response. Additional rounds of radiative calibration at STAR Labs were also performed in order to investigate the large uncertainties associated with these tests. For example, a survey of multiple calibration facilities concluded that the uncertainty within a given facility was +/-3% [1]. An additional NIST study that calibrated heat flux gauges at 7 different facilities also found the variation in calibration coefficients to be up to ~3% within a given facility, but up to 15% between facilities, suggesting systematic differences between test setups [2]. Finally, the response of heat flux gauges to radiative versus convective heat flux has shown to differ by up to 20% [3],[4]. Because the heat flux gauges on LOFTID will predominantly experience convective heat flux during flight, a convective calibration study was performed at Boeing's Large-Core Arc Tunnel (LCAT) facility. Radiative Calibration Procedure The calibrations performed at STAR Labs utilize a quartz lamp bank (QLB) that provides a maximum heat flux of 50 W/cm2, which bounds the expected LOFTID flight environment. The calibration involves exposing a water-cooled Gardon gauge (reference) and then the unit-under-test (UUT) to 5 different heat fluxes multiple times for 10 seconds each, and then calculating a linear fit. The test setup is shown in Fig. 2. The total HFGs were calibrated at STAR Labs 3 times, denoted as STAR 1 (before environmental testing), STAR 2 (after protoflight vibration and thermal-vacuum testing), and STAR 3 (no change from previous test). All 8 flight-lot total HFGs showed a decrease in full-scale output from STAR 1 to STAR 2 by between 0.5% and 10. The first portion of this investigation was to determine whether the change could be due to differences in temperature between the two calibration runs. A typical linear fit to the calibration data was performed using Eq. 1 where q’ is the heat flux in W/cm2, c is the calibration coefficient, and mV is the sensor output. To account for temperature, the data were fit to a nonlinear function that included both the sensor output (mV) and the temperature from the thermocouple embedded inside the HFG near the surface (T): q'=mV/(c1* T + c0}. The residuals between the fits and the actual data points were calculated for every point, and proven to be much smaller for the temperature-compensated fits than for the linear fits for all sensors. An example is shown in Fig. 3. When the temperature-compensated fits from STAR 1 were applied to the STAR 2 data, the residuals did not improve, suggesting that the change in sensitivity between these two calibration runs was not due to temperature. A third round of calibration (STAR 3) was conducted to further address the temperature dependence of the total HFGs, and the resulting sensitivities matched closely to STAR 2 (within 2%). Temperature-compensated calibration curves were once again fit to the data. In this case, when the temperature-compensated fits from STAR 3 were applied to STAR 2 data, the residuals between the fits and STAR 2 data were much lower than the residuals due to the linear fits. This suggests that the changes seen between STAR 1 and STAR 2 were likely due to actual changes in the sensors caused by the environmental testing between the two calibrations. A modification of the original calibration process, in which the UUT was exposed to each heat flux for just 3 seconds (instead of 10) to reduce the temperature increase during the test, was additionally performed on several of the HFGs. In general, the sensitivities were 1-1.5% lower than from the 10-second tests, but the temperatures were also significantly lower. When the temperature-compensated fits from the 10-second tests were applied to the 3-second test data, the residuals were greatly improved than when just using the linear fits, further suggesting that the temperature-compensated fits may lead to better accuracy than the linear fits in flight. Convective Calibration The second portion of this study was to create a mapping between the radiative and convective calibration coefficients. The majority of the heating during flight will be convective, so it is important to understand how the HFG response differs under these conditions. However, there are no standardized methods for convective calibration [5]. Because the TPS aerothermal response models were validated at LCAT, the same facility was chosen for convective calibration of two of the total HFGs (Fig. 4). Preliminary results showed that the full-scale output was 3% and 8% higher in convective heat flux as compared to radiative heat flux. However, tunnel variation may have contributed to noise and uncertainty in the measurements, and more testing and analysis remains to be done. Scope of Presentation The presentation will include an overview of the changes seen in HFG calibration before and after environmental testing, differences between radiative and convective calibrations, the modeling work done to aid in understanding the sensor response to varying environments, and recommended future work.

H S Alpert↗

NASA NTRS2017

Development of a Numerical Model of Hypervelocity Impact into a Pressurized Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel

As the outlook for space exploration becomes more ambitious and spacecraft travel deeper into space than ever before, it is increasingly important that propulsion systems perform reliably within the space environment. The increased reliability compels designers to increase design margin at the expense of system mass, which contrasts with the need to limit vehicle mass to maximize payload. Such are the factors that motivate the integration of high specific strength composite materials in the construction of pressure vessels commonly referred to as composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPV). The COPV consists of a metallic liner for the inner shell of the COPV that is stiff, negates fluid permeation and serves as the anchor for composite laminates or filaments, but the liner itself cannot contain the stresses from the pressurant it contains. The compo-site-fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) is wound around the liner using a combination of hoop (circumferential) and helical orientations. Careful consideration of wrap orientation allows the composite to evenly bear structural loading and creates the COPV's characteristic high strength to weight ratio. As the CFRP overwrap carries most of the stresses induced by pressurization, damage to the overwrap can affect mission duration, mission success and potentially cause loss-of-vehicle/loss-of-crew. For this reason, it is critical to establish a fundamental understanding of the mechanisms involved in the failure of a stressed composite such as that of the COPV. One of the greatest external threats to the integrity of a spacecraft's COPV is an impact from the meteoroid and orbital debris environments (MMOD). These impacts, even from submillimeter particles, generate extremely high stress states in the CFRP that can damage numerous fibers. As a result of this possibility, initial assumptions in survivability analysis for some human-rated NASA space-craft have assumed that any alteration of the vessel due to impact is considered a catastrophic failure. This assumption is conservative and made due to lack of knowledge on the level of allow-able damage to the composite overwrap that can be sustained and still allow successful completion of the mission. To quantify the allowable damage level to the composite overwrap involves assessing stress redistribution following damage as well as evaluating possible time-dependent mechanisms involved in the COPV response to an impact event. Limited published work in this subject has shown that COPV can withstand at least some level of damage due to high energy impacts. These observations have been confirmed and expanded upon in recent experimental research performed by NASA. This research has demonstrated that there is not only robustness in a COPV to compensate for CFRP damage, but has also identified two significant failure modes for pressurized COPV. The lowest threshold failure mode involves the perforation of the vessel, and the highest threshold failure mode is the catastrophic rupture. While both of these failure modes mean a loss of the COPV, system robustness affords some tolerance to the venting as opposed to the more catastrophic rupture. As a consequence, it is necessary to understand the conditions that result in the transition between these failure modes. The aforementioned experimental research has been performed in both the unpressurized and pressurized condition to identify the damage level that triggered the failure thresh-old. This COPV test program was sponsored by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), and tests were performed at NASA White Sands Test Facility (WSTF). Planning and coordination were provided by NASA JSC Hypervelocity Impact Technology (HVIT) group, and the COPVs were provided by the ISS Program. Unpressurized testing has been conducted at the pressure of the vacuum test chamber, while, the pressurized testing has been conducted at 290 +/- 10 bar (4,200  100 psi) using nitrogen as the pressurizing gas, which corresponds to the design pressure for the target COPV. In this research, spherical aluminum projectiles with varying diameter has been chosen as the impactor. For the unpressurized COPV, the dependence of penetration up to the dependence of hole size in the liner has been obtained as a function of impact conditions. For the pressurized research, the dependence of penetration up to rupture has been obtained as a function of im-pact conditions. Two representative post-test photographs of the failed COPV's from a nor-mal impact into the COPV surface are shown in Fig. 1. These images display the dramatic difference between failure modes, venting (Fig. 1a) and rupture (Fig. 1b). For venting, liner perforation, severed composite fibers/tows and ply delamination are commonly observed damage characteristics of this COPV failure mode. In the case of rupture, the COPV typically experienced a separation of its domed regions and severe break-up of the cylindrical region. Fully understanding the transition from venting to rupture experimentally is costly and potentially unachievable for conditions that cannot be generated in the laboratory. These shortcomings have motivated the performance of three-dimensional numerical simulations to expand the existing experimental database. These simulations have been carried out with the nonlinear-structural-dynamics, analysis-tool, CTH. A typical pressure contour plot from an impact simulation of an entire COPV is shown in Fig. 2. To generate the COPV stress state without initiating a shock wave, the pressure in the simulated COPV is ramped up to the final pressure over a millisecond prior to impact of the projectile with nitrogen gas. Figure 2a shows the system in this initial condition. After one millisecond, a projectile is initiated into the simulation and impacts the COPV. Figure 2b shows the system after this impact. In the figure, the onset of venting is represented as the change in pressure (μbar), red to green, at the perforation site. Also seen in the figure is the eroded projectile that had passed into the COPV vessel with the generated shock wave in the pressurant propagating just ahead of the material. In this paper, pertinent experimental details and the development of the material constitutive models necessary for this work along with the efforts to validate their use are dis-cussed. The simulation results are presented and compared with the NASA experimental observations. While work is on-going from this effort, early observations pertinent to the failure threshold are presented.

Garcia, M. A.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Introduction to Flight Test Engineering [Introduction Aux Techniques Des Essais En Vol]

Flight test is at the core of what organizations must do in order to validate the operation and systems on an aircraft. While the AGARDograph series 300 and 160 series deal with aspects of this testing, this volume pulls it all together as an introduction to the process required to do effective flight test engineering. This volume was originally published in 1995. Its utility has been proven in that many flight test organizations and universities have requested copies for their engineers and students. It was felt that re-issuing it in a new format designed for electronic publication would be valuable to the community. This second printing changes none of the text, but rather reformats it. All the original references to AGARD (instead of RTO) are left in place so that none of the flavor of the original publication is lost. This is the Introductory Volume to the Flight Test Techniques Series. It is a general introduction to the various activities and aspects of Flight Test Engineering that must be considered when planning, conducting, and reporting a flight test program. Its main intent is to provide a broad overview to the novice engineer or to other people who have a need to interface with specialists within the flight test community. The first two Sections provide some insight into the question of why flight test and give a short history of flight test engineering. Sections 3 through 10 deal with the preparation for flight testing. They provide guidance on the preliminary factors that must be considered; the composition of the test team; the logistic support requirements; the instrumentation and data processing requirements; the flight test plan; the associated preliminary ground tests; and last, but by no means least, discuss safety aspects. Sections 11 through 27 describe the various types of flight tests that are usually conducted during the development and certification of a new or modified aircraft type. Each Section offers a brief introduction to the topic under consideration, and the nature and the objectives of the tests to be conducted. It lists the test instrumentation (and, where appropriate, other test equipment and facilities) required, describes the test maneuvers to be executed, and indicates the way in which the test data is selected, analyzed, and presented. The various activities that should take place between test flights are presented next. Items that are covered are: who to debrief; what type of reports to send where: types of data analysis required for next flight; review of test data to make a comparison to predicted data and some courses of action if there is not good agreement; and comments on selecting the next test flight. The activities that must take place upon completion of the test program are presented. The types of reports and briefings that should take place and a discussion of some of the uses of the flight test data are covered. A brief forecast is presented of where present trends may be leading.

Test facilities↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Monitoring Airspace Complexity and Determining Contributing Factors

The national airspace has evolved over many years to accommodate increased traffic demand [1] while simultaneously maintaining one of the safest forms of transportation [2], [3]. One of the reasons for this success is the ability of the system and the operators to adapt and accommodate to situations that routinely disrupt optimal operations. These situations may include: adverse weather, delays, early arrivals, equipment outages, and other factors that are outside the operators ability to control. These factors can lead to states where automation is unable to properly handle these issues and therefore air traffic controllers and pilots have to intervene, ultimately increasing communication between operators resulting in higher workload. As controller workload increases to handle sub-optimal operating conditions this can be viewed as an increase in complexity. The reasoning for this is because humans are now required to make tactical decisions in response to external factors, resulting in a departure from the strategic plan where operations would be more efficiently managed. Human operators control airspace complexity under rigid regulations that are constantly changing. The airspace is divided into sectors and the number of aircraft assigned to each controller is limited for safe handling. There has been past work that devised airspace complexity metrics in commercial aviation and related these metrics to controller workload (e.g., [4],[5]). The upper bounds on the system load are pre-determined. Such bounds on complexity make for a safe system, but the system cannot scale and adapt to autonomous, dense, and heterogeneous traffic, including the many types of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) envisioned to be added to the operations. We hypothesize that, as traffic density and heterogeneity grow, and other key metrics change, there will be phase transitions at which the way traffic should be managed changes significantly [6]. We offer a method for in-time detection of contributing factors that lead to phase transitions, characterized by increased complexity. To the best of our knowledge, there is no tool similar to our proposed effort that identifies such contributing factors or precursor patterns. To define the scope we are proposing to measure complexity from the viewpoint of the Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON) controller’s perspective. In particular we are analyzing arrivals into KSFO. With safety as the top concern for airspace operators, it is important to recognize that as density and heterogeneity grow, the focus of the system will change. Times of the day when the airspace has low density and heterogeneity, the flights will follow more efficient paths where the aircraft move on established routes that are more or less directly to the destination. However, when density and heterogeneity increases, the system will begin changing focus to avoiding conflicts and collisions and route the flights in a more flexible way. Higher flexibility requires more communication and coordination between controllers and pilots which the current automation is unable to handle. This paper proposes a novel approach that monitors airspace complexity at multiple scales, uses a Machine Learning-based tool that predicts when operations will transition to a regime of greater complexity, and identifies actions that can reduce the complexity while still maintaining efficient and safe operations. We demonstrate our proposed approach using data from multiple complementary sources. This includes, but is not limited to: historical aircraft surveillance data from NASA’s Sherlock Data Warehouse [7], METAR weather data, and airport configuration data from Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM). The surveillance data flight paths are sampled at a variable sample rate — increasing as the aircraft approaches the airport. This is due to how Sherlock manages flight track stitching between different radar facilities which have different sampling rates. The weather and performance data are logged at defined intervals throughout the day at a courser refresh rate. In addition to the logged data and metrics, we leverage pre-defined Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) procedures to characterize the path of each flight. Each flight files for one of these routes in the flight plan well before entering the terminal airspace, and approximately follows the route until it leaves the STAR, typically on the final fix of a runway transition. However, most flights do not always fly the full STAR procedure to completion [8], but the majority do adhere to the fixes within the common route of the procedure. Our approach leverages fixes in the common route of each of the STARs to build a reference path to the airport. This allows us to characterize the flight paths in what we are defining as the “maneuvering area” (the airspace between the STAR and before the flight is lined up on the runway’s final approach) to determine how off nominal the flights are to calculate its complexity score. Determining airspace complexity is a concept that does not have a concrete answer. In designing this metric, we consider what increases the workload for the air traffic controllers. Consequently more specialized vectoring maneuvers results in higher workload. Accordingly, we start with a theory: each flight has a direct path it takes from the STAR’s common route to the final approach’s outer marker fix for the flight’s landing runway. It is important to note that the direct path is only used as a reference. If the majority of the flights have a large consistent offset as compared to other routes it does not necessarily mean that those flights have higher complexity. We are merely building a distribution based on this direct path for that particular STAR and runway pair to determine the normal mode of operations for that route. Flights that are in the upper tail of these distributions will result in higher complexity scores and flights that fly in the median will represent the normal mode of operations and therefore will have lower complexity scores. Since flights following each STAR route take different paths to the airport, we have a different distribution for each STAR route and therefore can model these distributions to compute a complexity score from their respective normalized distributions. To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed airspace complexity metric we will compare against an established approach based on trajectory clustering [9]. This unsupervised learning technique consists of the following steps: (1) identify the general maneuvering areas (waypoints) by performing $\kappa$-means or DBSCAN clustering on locations where aircraft frequently turn based on the surveillance radar track data, (2) map flight trajectories onto sequences of waypoints, and (3) cluster the sequences based on their common subsequences. From a high-level perspective, this baseline model learns nominal operations in the airspace through the sequence of waypoints that are representative of where aircraft change direction and defines deviations from the nominal operations as “complex.” Therefore, more deviations from the nominal operations correspond to higher complexity values. For our validation, we re-implemented this technique and tune model hyper-parameters to correctly detect waypoints for the arrival traffic into the San Francisco bay area. We will compute the complexity measure over a one-year period using our proposed technique as well as the baseline. Our validation will be based on each technique’s ability to detect a set of undesirable outcomes (e.g., go-arounds, holding patterns, average time in the airspace, etc.). Since our current complexity metric is derived from the offset from the direct reference path, it’s important to understand what causes these offsets. In many of the flights with high offset distance, flights performing holding patterns and S turns can be observed. These maneuvering tactics are utilized to add distance between the aircraft and the destination runway to prevent multiple flights from having conflicting arrival times. In order to predict a rise in complexity (or the precursor to complexity), it’s necessary to be able to identify these potential conflicts (which in turn, result in higher offsets). To do this, we define a “representative flight” for each STAR route and runway pair. This flight is approximately the path the flight would take if there was a clear path with no other flights in the airspace — including the time remaining to the airport. We first identify the flights for a given STAR runway pair using the offset to the reference path distributions that fall between the 44-55 percentiles. This yields the flights that conform to the most normal mode of operation. Each of these flights is partitioned based on the percent complete from the entry point into the maneuvering areas from 0\% – 100\% complete. Then for each percent “bin”, we take the median value of the flight’s latitude/longitude coordinates, airspeed, and (non causal) time remaining to the airport to construct a lookup table for each percent complete bin on a given route. As a flight enters the maneuvering area, we can find the estimated arrival time of a flight to the airport by finding the closest point to the representative path’s percent complete bin (relative to the flight’s current position at any snapshot in the airspace) and therefore retrieve the corresponding remaining time left on the “representative path”. We assume that the flight will follow the representative path to completion when deriving these estimates. We can then compare these estimated arrival times against other flights for the same snapshot in time to identify potential conflicts. If more flights are estimated to arrive within a tolerance window than there are runways available, then we have a potential conflict. We can use this derived measure along with other factors expected to add disruption to the operation such as weather and runway configuration changes as an input to machine learning tools to detect precursors that increases in our complexity measure. This novel method will assist in uncovering insights into the contributing factors that lead to increased complexity that may allow for in-time responses to avoid reaching a high complexity state in the airspace.

complexity↗