SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Consensus”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 145 records · Page 8

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2011

A Contemporary Analysis of the O'Neill-Glaser Model for Space-Based Solar Power and Habitat Construction

In 1975 Gerard O Neill published in the journal Science a model for the construction of solar power satellites. He found that the solar power satellites suggested by Peter Glaser would be too massive to launch economically from Earth, but could be financially viable if the workforce was permanently located in free space habitats and if lunar and asteroid materials were used for construction. All new worldwide electrical generating capacity could be then achieved by solar power satellites. The project would financially break even in about 20 years after which it would generate substantial income selling power below fossil fuel prices. Two NASA / Stanford University led studies at Ames Research center during the summers of 1974 and 1976 found the concept technically sound and developed a detailed financial parametric model. Although the project was not undertaken when suggested in the 1970s, several contemporary issues make pursuing the O Neill -- Glaser concept more compelling today. First, our analysis suggests that if in the first ten years of construction that small habitats (compared to the large vista habitats envisioned by O Neill) supporting approximately 300 people were utilized, development costs of the program and the time for financial break even could be substantially improved. Second, the contemporary consensus is developing that carbon free energy is required to mitigate global climate change. It is estimated that 300 GW of new carbon free energy would be necessary per year to stabilize global atmospheric carbon. This is about 4 times greater energy demand than was considered by the O Neill Glaser model. Our analysis suggests that after the initial investments in lunar mining and space manufacturing and transportation, that the profit margin for producing space solar power is very high (even when selling power below fossil fuel prices). We have investigated the financial scaling of ground launched versus space derived space solar power satellites. We find that for the carbon mitigation case even modernized ground launched space solar power satellites are not financially viable. For space derived solar power satellites, however, the increased demand makes them break even substantially sooner and yield much higher profit. Third, current awareness is increasing about the dangers of humanity remaining a single planet species. Our technological power has been increasing relative to the size of the planet Earth. Since the middle of the 20th century our technological power has grown large relative to our planet's size. This presents a very real potential for human self-extinction. We argue that the potential for human self-extinction is increasing with time in proportion to the exponential growth of our technological power making self-extinction likely within this century if humanity remains a single planet species. The O Neill model of multiple independent free space habitats, it is argued, can protect humanity from extinction in the same way that portfolio diversification protects ones assets from total loss. We show that about 1 million people for the electricity only case, and about 1 billion people for the carbon mitigation case, can be provided with permanent space habitats and transportation from Earth in 30 years and can be funded by the space derived solar power satellite program. 1.2 Scope of this Chapter The goal of this chapter is to illustrate the power and importance of the O'Neill-Glaser concept in the context of human survival and maintaining a healthy planet Earth. We argue that at this point in human history our technological power is too dangerous to our selves and our home planet for us not to expand into space. We show by the models presented in the chapter that the imminent dangers of global warming and human self-extinction mandate that humanity move aggressively into the solar system in this generation. We show that the production of solar power satellites using space resources and with a work foe living in space provides a viable financial model to mitigate CO2 preventing the worst global warming scenarios, and safeguards humanity against self-extinction by providing hundreds of habitats and a billion people living in space within about 35 years. To accomplish this goal we need only consider the classic O'Neill-Glaser model which was parameterized for 1970's technological projections. Only habitat size optimization for the first ten years of production is added. This is a conservative approach since the innovations of the last 30 years will make the financial projections more favorable. However, the classic O'Neill-Glaser model represented a broad technological consensus. The model is well documented in the references and our calculations can be easily reproduced In this chapter the economics of the O Neill - Glaser model is compared with models that rely exclusively on Earth launched materials. Although many studies of Earth launched Solar Power Satellites have been made, we found that the NASA "Fresh Look Study" was the most comprehensive and well documented. It also provided one of the most optimistic Earth launch financial projections. We thus chose it for comparison purposes.

Curreri, Peter A.↗

NASA NTRS2014

ECLSS Reliability for Long Duration Missions Beyond Lower Earth Orbit

Reliability has been highlighted by NASA as critical to future human space exploration particularly in the area of environmental controls and life support systems. The Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) projects have been encouraged to pursue higher reliability components and systems as part of technology development plans. However there is no consensus on what is meant by improving on reliability; nor on how to assess reliability within the AES projects. This became apparent when trying to assess reliability as one of several figures of merit for a regenerable water architecture trade study. In the spring of 2013, the AES Water Recovery Project (WRP) hosted a series of events at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) with the intended goal of establishing a common language and understanding of our reliability goals, and equipping the projects with acceptable means of assessing our respective systems. This campaign included an educational series in which experts from across the agency and academia provided information on terminology, tools and techniques associated with evalauating and designing for system reliability. The campaign culminated in a workshop at JSC with members of the ECLSS and AES communities with the goal of developing a consensus on what reliability means to AES and identifying methods for assessing our low to mid-technology readiness level (TRL) technologies for reliability. This paper details the results of the workshop.

Sargusingh, Miriam J.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Environmental Control and Life Support System Reliability for Long-Duration Missions Beyond Lower Earth Orbit

NASA has highlighted reliability as critical to future human space exploration, particularly in the area of environmental controls and life support systems. The Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) projects have been encouraged to pursue higher reliability components and systems as part of technology development plans. However, no consensus has been reached on what is meant by improving on reliability, or on how to assess reliability within the AES projects. This became apparent when trying to assess reliability as one of several figures of merit for a regenerable water architecture trade study. In the spring of 2013, the AES Water Recovery Project hosted a series of events at Johnson Space Center with the intended goal of establishing a common language and understanding of NASA's reliability goals, and equipping the projects with acceptable means of assessing the respective systems. This campaign included an educational series in which experts from across the agency and academia provided information on terminology, tools, and techniques associated with evaluating and designing for system reliability. The campaign culminated in a workshop that included members of the Environmental Control and Life Support System and AES communities. The goal of this workshop was to develop a consensus on what reliability means to AES and identify methods for assessing low- to mid-technology readiness level technologies for reliability. This paper details the results of that workshop.

Sargusingh, Miriam J.↗

NASA NTRS2014

ECLSS Reliability for Long Duration Missions Beyond Lower Earth Orbit

Reliability has been highlighted by NASA as critical to future human space exploration particularly in the area of environmental controls and life support systems. The Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) projects have been encouraged to pursue higher reliability components and systems as part of technology development plans. However, there is no consensus on what is meant by improving on reliability; nor on how to assess reliability within the AES projects. This became apparent when trying to assess reliability as one of several figures of merit for a regenerable water architecture trade study. In the Spring of 2013, the AES Water Recovery Project (WRP) hosted a series of events at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) with the intended goal of establishing a common language and understanding of our reliability goals and equipping the projects with acceptable means of assessing our respective systems. This campaign included an educational series in which experts from across the agency and academia provided information on terminology, tools and techniques associated with evaluating and designing for system reliability. The campaign culminated in a workshop at JSC with members of the ECLSS and AES communities with the goal of developing a consensus on what reliability means to AES and identifying methods for assessing our low to mid-technology readiness level (TRL) technologies for reliability. This paper details the results of the workshop.

Sargusingh, Miriam J.↗

NASA NTRS2015

A Vision for an International Multi-Sensor Snow Observing Mission

Discussions within the international snow remote sensing community over the past two years have led to encouraging consensus regarding the broad outlines of a dedicated snow observing mission. The primary consensus - that since no single sensor type is satisfactory across all snow types and across all confounding factors, a multi-sensor approach is required - naturally leads to questions about the exact mix of sensors, required accuracies, and so on. In short, the natural next step is to collect such multi-sensor snow observations (with detailed ground truth) to enable trade studies of various possible mission concepts. Such trade studies must assess the strengths and limitations of heritage as well as newer measurement techniques with an eye toward natural sensitivity to desired parameters such as snow depth and/or snow water equivalent (SWE) in spite of confounding factors like clouds, lack of solar illumination, forest cover, and topography, measurement accuracy, temporal and spatial coverage, technological maturity, and cost.

snow↗

NASA NTRS2016

Human Mars Landing Site and Impacts on Mars Surface Operations

This paper describes NASA's initial steps for identifying and evaluating candidate Exploration Zones (EZs) and Regions of Interests (ROIs) for the first human crews that will explore the surface of Mars. NASA's current effort to define the exploration of this planet by human crews, known as the Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC), provides the context in which these EZs and ROIs are being considered. The EMC spans all aspects of a human Mars mission including launch from Earth, transit to and from Mars, and operations on the surface of Mars. An EZ is a collection of ROIs located within approximately 100 kilometers of a centralized landing site. ROIs are areas relevant for scientific investigation and/or development/maturation of capabilities and resources necessary for a sustainable human presence. The EZ also contains one or more landing sites and a habitation site that will be used by multiple human crews during missions to explore and utilize the ROIs within the EZ. With the EMC as a conceptual basis, the EZ model has been refined to a point where specific site selection criteria for scientific exploration and in situ resource utilization can be defined. In 2015 these criteria were distributed to the planetary sciences community and the in situ resource utilization and civil engineering communities as part of a call for EZ proposals. The resulting "First Landing Site/Exploration Zone Workshop for Human Missions to the Surface of Mars" was held in October 2015 during which 47 proposals for EZs and ROIs were presented and discussed. Proposed locations spanned all longitudes and all allowable latitudes (+/- 50 degrees). Proposed justification for selecting one of these EZs also spanned a significant portion of the scientific and resource criteria provided to the community. Several important findings resulted from this Workshop including: (a) a strong consensus that, at a scale of 100 km (radius), multiple places on Mars exist that have both sufficient scientific interest to sustain multiple crews of exploring astronauts, AND potential resource deposits for ISRU indicating the current EZ definition is viable and should be retained for now, (b) new data types (needed for more definitive analysis of EZs) argued strongly for a new orbiter mission, and possibly one or more surface missions, to obtain these data, (c) a general consensus that this Workshop was an excellent start to identifying a place where future human missions to Mars can productively explore this planet and learn to live and work there for the long term. Building on these findings, HEOMD and SMD are: (a) refining the EZ selection criteria and overall selection process to improve on lessons learned from the first EZ workshop, (b) using these proposed locations to develop "reference EZs" for assessment purposes (primarily engineering assessments), (c) gathering data and conducting analyses to better understanding the different potential sources for water, including the ease of extraction and purification, and (d) assessing trends in additional data that are needed to better characterize EZs proposed at the workshop and how these data needs impact the design and operation of future robotic Mars missions.

Hoffman, Stephen J.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Techniques for Estimating Emissions Factors from Forest Burning: ARCTAS and SEAC4RS Airborne Measurements Indicate Which Fires Produce Ozone

Previous studies of emission factors from biomass burning are prone to large errors since they ignore the interplay of mixing and varying pre-fire background CO2 levels. Such complications severely affected our studies of 446 forest fire plume samples measured in the Western US by the science teams of NASA's SEAC4RS and ARCTAS airborne missions. Consequently we propose a Mixed Effects Regression Emission Technique (MERET) to check techniques like the Normalized Emission Ratio Method (NERM), where use of sequential observations cannot disentangle emissions and mixing. We also evaluate a simpler "consensus" technique. All techniques relate emissions to fuel burned using C(sub burn) = delta C(sub tot) added to the fire plume, where C(sub tot) approximately equals (CO2 + CO). Mixed-effects regression can estimate pre-fire background values of Ctot (indexed by observation j) simultaneously with emissions factors indexed by individual species i, delta epsilon lambda tau alpha−x(sub i)/(C(sub burn))i,j., MERET and "consensus" require more than two emissions indicators. Our studies excluded samples where exogenous CO or CH4 might have been fed into a fire plume, mimicking emission. We sought to let the data on 13 gases and particulate properties suggest clusters of variables and plume types, using non-negative matrix factorization (NMF). While samples were mixtures, the NMF unmixing suggested purer burn types. Particulate properties (bscat, babs, SSA, AAE) and gas-phase emissions were interrelated. Finally, we sought a simple categorization useful for modeling ozone production in plumes. Two kinds of fires produced high ozone: those with large fuel nitrogen as evidenced by remnant CH3CN in the plumes, and also those from very intense large burns. Fire types with optimal ratios of delta-NOy/delta- HCHO associate with the highest additional ozone per unit Cburn, Perhaps these plumes exhibit limited NOx binding to reactive organics. Perhaps these plumes exhibit limited NOx binding to reactive organics.

fires↗

NASA NTRS2015

Improving Climate Projections Using "Intelligent" Ensembles

Recent changes in the climate system have led to growing concern, especially in communities which are highly vulnerable to resource shortages and weather extremes. There is an urgent need for better climate information to develop solutions and strategies for adapting to a changing climate. Climate models provide excellent tools for studying the current state of climate and making future projections. However, these models are subject to biases created by structural uncertainties. Performance metrics-or the systematic determination of model biases-succinctly quantify aspects of climate model behavior. Efforts to standardize climate model experiments and collect simulation data-such as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP)-provide the means to directly compare and assess model performance. Performance metrics have been used to show that some models reproduce present-day climate better than others. Simulation data from multiple models are often used to add value to projections by creating a consensus projection from the model ensemble, in which each model is given an equal weight. It has been shown that the ensemble mean generally outperforms any single model. It is possible to use unequal weights to produce ensemble means, in which models are weighted based on performance (called "intelligent" ensembles). Can performance metrics be used to improve climate projections? Previous work introduced a framework for comparing the utility of model performance metrics, showing that the best metrics are related to the variance of top-of-atmosphere outgoing longwave radiation. These metrics improve present-day climate simulations of Earth's energy budget using the "intelligent" ensemble method. The current project identifies several approaches for testing whether performance metrics can be applied to future simulations to create "intelligent" ensemble-mean climate projections. It is shown that certain performance metrics test key climate processes in the models, and that these metrics can be used to evaluate model quality in both current and future climate states. This information will be used to produce new consensus projections and provide communities with improved climate projections for urgent decision-making.

Baker, Noel C.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Improving Climate Projections Using "Intelligent" Ensembles

Baker, Noel C.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Techniques for Estimating Emissions Factors from Forest Burning: ARCTAS and SEAC4RS Airborne Measurements Indicate which Fires Produce Ozone

Previous studies of emission factors from biomass burning are prone to large errors since they ignore the interplay of mixing and varying pre-fire background CO2 levels. Such complications severely affected our studies of 446 forest fire plume samples measured in the Western US by the science teams of NASA's SEAC4RS and ARCTAS airborne missions. Consequently we propose a Mixed Effects Regression Emission Technique (MERET) to check techniques like the Normalized Emission Ratio Method (NERM), where use of sequential observations cannot disentangle emissions and mixing. We also evaluate a simpler "consensus" technique. All techniques relate emissions to fuel burned using C(burn) = delta C(tot) added to the fire plume, where C(tot) approximately equals (CO2 = CO). Mixed-effects regression can estimate pre-fire background values of C(tot) (indexed by observation j) simultaneously with emissions factors indexed by individual species i, delta, epsilon lambda tau alpha-x(sub I)/C(sub burn))I,j. MERET and "consensus" require more than emissions indicators. Our studies excluded samples where exogenous CO or CH4 might have been fed into a fire plume, mimicking emission. We sought to let the data on 13 gases and particulate properties suggest clusters of variables and plume types, using non-negative matrix factorization (NMF). While samples were mixtures, the NMF unmixing suggested purer burn types. Particulate properties (b scant, b abs, SSA, AAE) and gas-phase emissions were interrelated. Finally, we sought a simple categorization useful for modeling ozone production in plumes. Two kinds of fires produced high ozone: those with large fuel nitrogen as evidenced by remnant CH3CN in the plumes, and also those from very intense large burns. Fire types with optimal ratios of delta-NOy/delta- HCHO associate with the highest additional ozone per unit Cburn, Perhaps these plumes exhibit limited NOx binding to reactive organics. Perhaps these plumes exhibit limited NOx binding to reactive organics

ozone↗

NASA NTRS2015

Second Annual Transformative Vertical Flight Concepts Workshop: Enabling New Flight Concepts Through Novel Propulsion and Energy Architectures

On August 3rd and 4th, 2015, a workshop was held at the NASA Ames Research Center, located at the Moffett Federal Airfield in California to explore the aviation communities interest in Transformative Vertical Flight (TVF) Concepts. The Workshop was sponsored by the AHS International (AHS), the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and hosted by the NASA Aeronautics Research Institute (NARI). This second annual workshop built on the success and enthusiasm generated by the first TVF Workshop held in Washington, DC in August of 2014. The previous Workshop identified the existence of a multi-disciplinary community interested in this topic and established a consensus among the participants that opportunities to establish further collaborations in this area are warranted. The desire to conduct a series of annual workshops augmented by online virtual technical seminars to strengthen the TVF community and continue planning for advocacy and collaboration was a direct outcome of the first Workshop. The second Workshop organizers focused on four desired action-oriented outcomes. The first was to establish and document common stakeholder needs and areas of potential collaborations. This includes advocacy strategies to encourage the future success of unconventional vertiport capable flight concept solutions that are enabled by emerging technologies. The second was to assemble a community that can collaborate on new conceptual design and analysis tools to permit novel configuration paths with far greater multi-disciplinary coupling (i.e., aero-propulsive-control) to be investigated. The third was to establish a community to develop and deploy regulatory guidelines. This community would have the potential to initiate formation of an American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F44 Committee Subgroup for the development of consensus-based certification standards for General Aviation scale vertiport capable flight systems. These standards need to accommodate novel fixed wing concepts that do not fit within the existing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rotorcraft certification framework (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 27). The fourth desired outcome was to launch an information campaign to ensure key U.S. Government agencies understand the potential benefits and industry interest in establishing new vertiport capable flight markets. This record of the Workshop proceedings documents Workshop activities and products including summaries of the video recorded technical presentations, overviews of three breakout sessions (Missions Operational Concepts, Prioritized Technical Challenges, Regulatory Roadmap), and a preliminary draft roadmap framework for TVF.

V/STOL↗

NASA NTRS2016

Supply Warehouse#3, SWMU 088 Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Report Kennedy Space Center, Florida

This document presents the findings, observations, and results associated with Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring (OM&M) activities of Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI) activities conducted at Supply Warehouse #3 (SW3) located at John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida from October 8, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and performance monitoring results for semi-annual sampling events conducted in March and September 2016. The primary objective of SW3 CMI is to actively decrease concentrations of trichloroethene (TCE) and vinyl chloride (VC) to less than Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Natural Attenuation Default Concentrations (NADCs), and the secondary objective is to reduce TCE, cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cDCE), trans-1,2-dichloroethene (tDCE), 1,1-dichloroethene (11DCE), and VC concentrations to less than FDEP Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTLs). The SW3 facility has been designated Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) 088 under KSC's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Program. Based on the results to date, the SW3 air sparging (AS) system is operating at or below the performance criteria as presented in the 2008 SW3 Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI) Work Plan and 2009 and 2012 CMI Work Plan Addenda. Since the start of AS system operations on December 19, 2012, through the September 2016 groundwater sampling event, TCE concentrations have decreased to less than the GCTL in all wells within the Active Remediation Zone (ARZ), and VC results remain less than NADC but greater than GCTL. Based on these results, team consensus was reached at the October 2016 KSC Remediation Team (KSCRT) meeting to continue AS system operations and semi-annual performance monitoring of volatile organic compounds in March 2017 at ten monitoring wells at select locations, and in September 2017 at four monitoring wells at select locations to reduce VC concentrations to below GCTL. Additionally, surface water samples will be collected at locations SW0001, SW0002, and SW0003 during both the March and September 2017 events. Team consensus was also reached at the October 2017 KSCRT meeting to continue with operation and maintenance (O&M) of the AS system at SW3.

REPORT↗

NASA NTRS2017

Relevance of the American Statistical Society's Warning on P-Values for Conjunction Assessment

On March 7, 2016, the American Statistical Association (ASA) issued an online editorial paper on the "context, process, and purpose of p-values." According to the paper, "the statement articulates in non-technical terms a few select principles that could improve the conductor interpretation of quantitative science, according to widespread consensus in the statistical community." This "consensus" statement was accompanied by 21 "commentaries" expressing a diversity of opinions among the panel of experts ASA convened. In the present work, we express our view that the ASA p-value warning has relevance to the space object Conjunction Assessment (CA) community.

p-values↗

NASA NTRS2017

Emissions Relationships Among Western Forest Fire Plumes: I. Emission Factors Free from Mixing Errors

Previous studies of emission factors from biomass burning are prone to largeerrors since they ignore the interplay of mixing and varying pre-fire backgroundCO2 levels. Such complications severely affected our studies of 446 forest fireplume samples measured in the Western US by the science teams of NASAsSEAC4RS and ARCTAS airborne missions. Consequently we propose a MixedEffects Regression Emission Technique (MERET) to check techniques like theNormalized Emission Ratio Method (NERM), where use of sequentialobservations cannot disentangle emissions and mixing. We also evaluate asimpler consensus technique. All techniques relate emissions to fuel burnedusing C burn = Δ Ctot added to the fire plume, where ≈ Ctot (CO2 + CO). Mixed-effectsregression can estimate pre-fire background values of Ctot (indexed byobservation j) simultaneously with emissions factors indexed by individual species i, δέλτα-xi (Cburn )i,j., MERET and consensus require more than twoemissions indicators. Our studies excluded samples where exogenous CO orCH4 might have been fed into a fire plume, mimicking emission.We sought to let the data on 13 gases and particulate properties suggest clustersof variables and plume types, using non-negative matrix factorization (NMF).While samples were mixtures, the NMF unmixing suggested purer burn types.Particulate properties (bscat, babs, SSA, AÅE) and gas-phase emissions were interrelated.Finally, we sought a simple categorization useful for modeling ozone productionin plumes. Two kinds of fires produced high ozone: those with large fuel nitrogenas evidenced by remnant CH3CN in the plumes, and also those from veryintense large burns. Fire types with optimal ratios of delta-NOydelta-HCHO associate with the highest additional ozone per unit Cburn, Perhaps theseplumes exhibit limited NOx binding to reactive organics. Perhaps these plumesexhibit limited NOx binding to reactive organics.

plumes↗

NASA NTRS2016

Emissions Relationships Among Western Forest Fire Plumes: II. Plume Typing for Sources of Ozone and Aerosol Absorption

Previous studies of emission factors from biomass burning are prone to largeerrors since they ignore the interplay of mixing and varying pre-fire backgroundCO2 levels. Such complications severely affected our studies of 446 forest fireplume samples measured in the Western US by the science teams of NASAs SEAC4RS and ARCTAS airborne missions. Consequently we propose a MixedEffects Regression Emission Technique (MERET) to check techniques like theNormalized Emission Ratio Method (NERM), where use of sequentialobservations cannot disentangle emissions and mixing. We also evaluate asimpler consensus technique. All techniques relate emissions to fuel burnedusing Cburn Ctot added to the fire plume, where Ctot (CO2 + CO). Mixed-effectsregression can estimate pre-fire background values of Ctot (indexed byobservation j) simultaneously with emissions factors indexed by individualspecies i, xi (Cburn )i,j., MERET and consensus require more than twoemissions indicators. Our studies excluded samples where exogenous CO orCH4 might have been fed into a fire plume, mimicking emission.We sought to let the data on 13 gases and particulate properties suggest clustersof variables and plume types, using non-negative matrix factorization (NMF).While samples were mixtures, the NMF unmixing suggested purer burn types.Particulate properties (bscat, babs, SSA, AE) and gas-phase emissions were interrelated.Finally, we sought a simple categorization useful for modeling ozone productionin plumes. Two kinds of fires produced high ozone: those with large fuel nitrogenas evidenced by remnant CH3CN in the plumes, and also those from veryintense large burns. Fire types with optimal ratios of delta-NOydelta-HCHO associate with the highest additional ozone per unit Cburn, Perhaps theseplumes exhibit limited NOx binding to reactive organics. Perhaps these plumesexhibit limited NOx binding to reactive organics.

ozone↗

NASA NTRS2018

Remote Sensing of Evapotranspiration over the Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District, USA

Knowledge of baseline water use for irrigated crops in the U.S. Southwest is important for understanding how much water is consumed under normal farm management and to help manage scarce resources. Remote sensing of evapotranspiration (ET) is an effective way to gain that knowledge: multispectral data can provide synoptic and time-repetitive estimates of crop-specific water use, and could be especially useful for this arid region because of dominantly clear skies and minimal precipitation. Although multiple remote sensing ET approaches have been developed and tested, there is not consensus on which of them should be preferred because there are still few intercomparison studies within this environment. To help build the experience needed to gain consensus, a remote sensing study using three ET models was conducted over the Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District (CAIDD). Aggregated ET was assessed for 137 wheat plots (winter/spring crop), 183 cotton plots (summer crop), and 225 alfalfa plots (year-round). The employed models were the Satellite-Based Energy Balance for Mapping Evapotranspiration with Internalized Calibration (METRIC), the Two Source Energy Balance (TSEB), and Vegetation Index ET for the US Southwest (VISW). Remote sensing data were principally Landsat 5, supplemented by Landsat 7, MODIS Terra, MODIS Aqua, and ASTER. Using district-wide model averages, seasonal use (excluding surface evaporation) was 742 mm (millimeters) for wheat, 983 mm for cotton, and 1427 mm for alfalfa. All three models produced similar daily ET for wheat, with 6-8 mm per day mid-season. Model estimates diverged for cotton and alfalfa sites. Considering ET over cotton, TSEB estimates were 9.5 mm per day, METRIC 6 mm per day, and VISW 8 mm per day. For alfalfa, the ET values from TSEB were 8.0 mm per day, METRIC 5 mm per day, and VISW 6 mm per day. Lack of local validation information unfortunately made it impossible to rank model performance. However, by averaging results from all of them, ET model outliers could be identified. They ranged from minus 10 percent to plus 18 percent, values that represent expected ET modeling discrepancies. Relative to the model average, standardized ET-estimators - potential ET (ET (sub 0)), FAO-56 ET, and USDA-SW gravimetric-ET - showed still greater deviations, up to 35 percent of annual crop water use for summer and year-round crops, suggesting that remote sensing of actual ET could lead to significantly improved estimates of crop water use. Results from this study highlight the need for conducting multi-model experiments during summer-months over sites with independent ground validation.

Alfalfa↗

NASA NTRS2021

Defining and Reasoning about Model-based Safety Analysis: A Review

Model-based safety analysis (MBSA) has been around for over two decades. The benefits of MBSA have been well-documented in the literature, such as tackling complexity, introducing Formal Methods to eliminate the ambiguity in the traditional safety analysis, using automation to replace the error-prone manual safety modeling process, and ensuring consistency between the design model and the safety model. However, there is still a lack of consensus on what MBSA even is. This paper provides an approach towards developing such a consensus

model-based↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Planetary Protection Program to Assure Mission Safety and Success

NASA’s planetary protection program seeks to understand and control harmful contamination of solar systems targets of exploration by terrestrial contamination and prevent harmful biological contamination of the Earth-Moon system by extraterrestrial life, should it exist. To accomplish these objective’s NASA has developed a balanced safety and mission assurance strategy that leverages COSPAR Policy guidelines, workshops, scientiﬁc consensus, partnerships and international working groups to develop policy and implementation guidelines. Upcoming crewed missions to the Moon and Mars, as well as robotic missions to small solar system bodies, Europa, Titan and Mars are some of the driving activities of astrobiological interest that continue to emphasize the importance of planetary protection throughout the project life cycle. Development of a responsive and updated agency planetary protection policy has been a focus area in supporting upcoming mission opportunities for exploration to include Mars sample return and crewed mission concepts. An extensive update of this policy is underway which encompasses crewed and robotic procedural polices, a general technical requirements standard, and an implementation handbook. During this timeframe NASA has been working with the international community to develop scientiﬁc consensus, and to identify and ﬁll in knowledge gaps for developing balanced policy guidelines, incorporation of risk informed decision making and quantitative technical standards. NASA has developed a planetary protection roadmap as a technology management strategy to track and monitor the development of each knowledge gaps. The Committee of Space Research (COSPAR) Policy on Planetary Protection and the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee of Planetary Protection are used to inform updates to the planetary protection polices and guidelines. This integrated strategy for planetary protection seeks to provide a transparent, structured approach for enabling missions, providing guidance for NASA and NASA partnered missions, and being responsive to the increased interest and activities in space exploration whilst maintaining an understanding and control of harmful contamination.

James Benardini↗