CO2 Measurement from Space : Lessons Learned from the Collaboration Between the ACOS/OCO-2 and GOSAT Teams
No abstract available
Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT)↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “collaborative teams”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Using OpenMDAO as a Collaboration Platform for a Large Design Team
No abstract available
Hendricks, Eric S.↗
Data management and scientific integration within the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program
The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program has been developed by the U.S. Department of Energy with the goal to improve the predictive capabilities of General Circulation Models (GCM's) in their treatment of clouds and radiative transfer effects. To achieve this goal, three experimental testbeds were designed for the deployment of instruments that will collect atmospheric data used to drive the GCM's. Each site, known as a Cloud and Radiation Testbed (CART), consists of a highly available, redundant data system for the collection of data from a variety of instrumentation. The first CART site was deployed in April 1992 in the Southern Great Plains (SGP), Lamont, Oklahoma, with the other two sites to follow in September 1995 in the Tropical Western Pacific and in 1997 on the North Slope of Alaska. Approximately 400 MB of data are transferred per day via the Internet from the SGP site to the ARM Experiment Center at Pacific Northwest Laboratory in Richland, Washington. The Experiment Center is central to the ARM data path and provides for the collection, processing, analysis, and delivery of ARM data. Data are received from the CART sites from a variety of instrumentation, observational systems, amd external data sources. The Experiment Center processes these data streams on a continuous basis to provide derived data products to the ARM Science Team in near real-time while providing a three-month running archive of data. A primary requirement of the ARM Program is to preserve and protect all data produced or acquired. This function is performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory where leading edge technology is employed for the long-term storage of ARM data. The ARM Archive provides access to data for participation outside of the ARM Program. The ARM Program involves a collaborative effort by teams from various DOE National Laboratories, providing multi-disciplinary areas of expertise. This paper will discuss the collaborative methods in which the ARM teams translate the scientific goals of the Program into data products. By combining atmospheric scientists, systems engineers, and software engineers, the ARM Program has successfully designed and developed an environment where advances in understanding the parameterizations of GCM's can be made.
Gracio, Deborah K.↗
An Approach for Performance Based Glove Mobility Requirements
The Space Suit Assembly (SSA) Development Team at NASA Johnson Space Center has invested heavily in the advancement of rear‐entry planetary exploration suit design but largely deferred development of extravehicular activity (EVA) glove designs, and accepted the risk of using the current flight gloves, Phase VI, for exploration missions. However, as design reference missions mature, the risks of using heritage hardware have highlighted the need for developing robust new glove technologies. To address the technology gap, the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate's Game‐Changing Development Program provided start‐up funding for the High Performance EVA Glove (HPEG) Element as part of the Next Generation Life Support (NGLS) Project in the fall of 2013. The overarching goal of the HPEG Element is to develop a robust glove design that increases human performance during EVA and creates pathway for implementation of emergent technologies, with specific aims of increasing pressurized mobility to 60% of barehanded capability, increasing the durability in on‐pristine environments, and decreasing the potential of gloves to cause injury during use. The HPEG Element focused initial efforts on developing quantifiable and repeatable methodologies for assessing glove performance with respect to mobility, injury potential, thermal conductivity, and abrasion resistance. The team used these methodologies to establish requirements against which emerging technologies and glove designs can be assessed at both the component and assembly levels. The mobility performance testing methodology was an early focus for the HPEG team as it stems from collaborations between the SSA Development team and the JSC Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) that began investigating new methods for suited mobility and fit early in the Constellation Program. The combined HPEG and ABF team used lessons learned from the previous efforts as well as additional reviews of methodologies in physical and occupational therapy arenas to develop a protocol that assesses gloved range of motion, strength, dexterity, tactility, and fit in comparative quantitative terms and also provides qualitative insight to direct hardware design iterations. The protocol was evaluated using five experienced test subjects wearing the EMU pressurized to 4.3psid with three different glove configurations. The results of the testing are presented to illustrate where the protocol is and is not valid for benchmark comparisons. The process for requirements development based upon the results is also presented along with suggested performance values for the High Performance EVA Gloves to be procured in fiscal year 2015.
Aitchison, Lindsay↗
An Approach for Performance Based Glove Mobility Requirements
The Space Suit Assembly (SSA) Development Team at NASA Johnson Space Center has invested heavily in the advancement of rear-entry planetary exploration suit design but largely deferred development of extravehicular activity (EVA) glove designs, and accepted the risk of using the current flight gloves, Phase VI, for exploration missions. However, as design reference missions mature, the risks of using heritage hardware have highlighted the need for developing robust new glove technologies. To address the technology gap, the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate's Game-Changing Development Program provided start-up funding for the High Performance EVA Glove (HPEG) Element as part of the Next Generation Life Support (NGLS) Project in the fall of 2013. The overarching goal of the HPEG Element is to develop a robust glove design that increases human performance during EVA and creates pathway for implementation of emergent technologies, with specific aims of increasing pressurized mobility to 60% of barehanded capability, increasing the durability in on-pristine environments, and decreasing the potential of gloves to cause injury during use. The HPEG Element focused initial efforts on developing quantifiable and repeatable methodologies for assessing glove performance with respect to mobility, injury potential, thermal conductivity, and abrasion resistance. The team used these methodologies to establish requirements against which emerging technologies and glove designs can be assessed at both the component and assembly levels. The mobility performance testing methodology was an early focus for the HPEG team as it stems from collaborations between the SSA Development team and the JSC Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) that began investigating new methods for suited mobility and fit early in the Constellation Program. The combined HPEG and ABF team used lessons learned from the previous efforts as well as additional reviews of methodologies in physical and occupational therapy arenas to develop a protocol that assesses gloved range of motion, strength, dexterity, tactility, and fit in comparative quantitative terms and also provides qualitative insight to direct hardware design iterations. The protocol was evaluated using five experienced test subjects wearing the EMU pressurized to 4.3psid with three different glove configurations. The results of the testing are presented to illustrate where the protocol is and is not valid for benchmark comparisons. The process for requirements development based upon the results is also presented along with suggested performance values for the High Performance EVA Gloves currently in development.
Aitchison, Lindsay↗
Exploring Mission Concepts with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team
The JPL Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts called the A-Team. The A-Team combines innovative collaborative methods with subject matter expertise and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an A-Team study. Methods are grouped by Concept Maturity Level (CML), from 1 through 3, including idea generation and capture (CML 1), initial feasibility assessment (CML 2), and trade space exploration (CML 3). Methods used for each CML are presented, and the key team roles are described from two points of view: innovative methods and technical expertise. A-Team roles for providing innovative methods include the facilitator, study lead, and assistant study lead. A-Team roles for providing technical expertise include the architect, lead systems engineer, and integration engineer. In addition to these key roles, each A-Team study is uniquely staffed to match the study topic and scope including subject matter experts, scientists, technologists, flight and instrument systems engineers, and program managers as needed. Advanced analysis and collaborative engineering tools (e.g. cost, science traceability, mission design, knowledge capture, study and analysis support infrastructure) are also under development for use in A-Team studies and will be discussed briefly. The A-Team facilities provide a constructive environment for innovative ideas from all aspects of mission formulation to eliminate isolated studies and come together early in the development cycle when they can provide the biggest impact. This paper provides an overview of the A-Team, its study processes, roles, methods, tools and facilities.
Team Eureka↗
Electronic Configurational Transformation of Network Modifiers in Aluminate Glass above Megabar Pressures
Electronic responses of glasses under extreme pressures differ from those of crystalline analogs. Their distinct electronic environments are found in network formers with well-defined, covalent-bonded coordination environments (e.g., [4] Si and [4] Al) and in network modifiers with more disordered, ionic-bonded configurations (e.g., [5,6,7] Ca). Deciphering the evolution of the bonding environment of network modifier cations upon compression provides atomic insights into the pressure-driven hardening and transport properties of glasses. Despite the importance, in contrast to extensive efforts to uncover how network formers behave under pressure, considerable structural disorder around network modifiers makes it challenging to probe their electronic bonding environments under compression. Our understanding of the evolution of network modifiers above megabars is currently absent. Here, we report a discovery of highly densified electronic configurations of network modifier Ca in aluminate glass under extreme compression via the first inelastic X-ray scattering at the Ca L-edge up to 140 GPa. As evidenced by the prominent pressure-driven increases in electronic dispersion and delocalization, densified calcium environments are characterized by a decreased average Ca–O distance, the formation of highly coordinated calcium, a broader distribution of topological variables, and a greater distortion of Ca polyhedra above megabars. The spectral features for the Ca environments reveal significant electronic and bonding modifications, including pressure-driven increases in the ligand field interaction, the covalence characteristic of the Ca–O bond, and the electron–hole Coulomb interaction. These densification paths identify the electronic adaptation of network modifiers above megabars, shedding light on the origins of enhanced electron transport and the electron-storing capacity of glasses under pressure.
amorphous materials↗
Compression behavior of lithium fluoride up to 80 GPa and 2300 K
Here, the high-temperature compression behavior of lithium fluoride (LiF) has been determined to ∼80 GPa and 2300 K by means of high-resolution synchrotron-based x-ray diffraction in a laser-heated diamond-anvil cell. The room-temperature Vinet equation of state (EOS) for LiF yields an isothermal room-temperature, ambient-pressure lattice parameter a 0 = 4.028 (±0.003) Å, volume V 0 = 65.35 (±0.03) Å 3 , bulk modulus K 0 = 67.57 (±0.34) GPa, and its pressure derivative K 0 ’ = 4.64 (±0.03). This expanded experimental dataset is in good agreement with the LiF thermal equation of state by Myint et al. (2019) up to ∼2300 K and 25 GPa. At higher pressures and temperatures our data shows reduced thermal expansion compared to the prediction and may be particularly important for experiments at more extreme conditions.
High-pressure behavior↗
Proceedings of the 2006 Civil Commercial Imagery Evaluation Workshop
The Joint Agency Commercial Imagery Evaluation (JACIE) team is a collaborative interagency working group formed to leverage different government agencies' capabilities for the characterization of commercial remote sensing products. The team is composed of staff from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Each JACIE agency has a vested interest in the purchase and use of commercial imagery to support government research and operational applications. The intent of the 2006 workshop is to exchange information regarding the characterization and application of commercial imagery used by the government. The main focus of previous workshops has been on high-resolution satellite imagery from systems; such as, IKONOS (Space Imaging, Inc.), QuickBird (DigitalGlobe, Inc.), and OrbView-3 (ORBIMAGE). This workshop is being expanded to cover all civil medium- and high-resolution commercial imagery used by the government.
Stanley, Thomas↗
Preparing Students to Work in Diverse Settings and Across Distance: Inter-University, Interdisciplinary Capstone Teams
NASA's Psyche Mission is engaged with a growing number of capstone teams pursuing topics relevant to the mission, including partnering with four universities to trial cross-university teaming. Creating interdisciplinary capstone teams with students from different universities provides an opportunity to prepare students to engage with a diversity of disciplines and collaborate in remote teams in the workplace. Additionally, through such capstones, universities may gain access to non-local, specialized technical mentors and to disciplines not offered at their institutions. An added benefit is providing greater fidelity to NASA space missions, which involve teams working together at a distance. We discuss early lessons learned from the first three inter-university, interdisciplinary capstone teams participating with the Psyche mission and discuss plans for improvement and future expansion.
Bowman, C. D. D.↗
Implementing the Infosec Color Wheel into an UAM Software and System Development Lifecycle
This research will provide information on the importance of collaboration between software development teams and cyber security teams. As Urban Air Mobility software services are developed, a collaborative approach between software development and software assurance teams will limit the exposed vulnerabilities and weaknesses.
Urban Air Mobility↗
Developing Capture Mechanisms and High-Fidelity Dynamic Models for the MXER Tether System
A team consisting of collaborators from Tennessee Technological University (TTU), Marshall Space Flight Center, BD Systems, and the University of Delaware (herein called the TTU team) conducted specific research and development activities in MXER tether systems during the base period of May 15, 2004 through September 30, 2006 under contract number NNM04AB13C. The team addressed two primary topics related to the MXER tether system: 1) Development of validated high-fidelity dynamic models of an elastic rotating tether and 2) development of feasible mechanisms to enable reliable rendezvous and capture. This contractor report will describe in detail the activities that were performed during the base period of this cycle-2 MXER tether activity and will summarize the results of this funded activity. The primary deliverables of this project were the quad trap, a robust capture mechanism proposed, developed, tested, and demonstrated with a high degree of feasibility and the detailed development of a validated high-fidelity elastic tether dynamic model provided through multiple formulations.
Canfield, Steven L.↗
Workshop on Observations of Recent Comets (1990)
Potential interpretations are presented for observations of four comets: Brorsen-Metcalf (1989o), Okazaki-Levy-Rudenko (1989r), Aarseth-Brewington (1989a1), and Austin (1989o1). The relationship of minor species with each other and possible parents as well as with dust are being pursued in a number of investigations. Of particular interest are the abundance ratios of CH4 to CO and NH3 to N2. The need for closer collaboration betwen observing teams and modelers is examined. The need for dust size distribution as a function of cometocentric distance to be analyzed in closer collaboration between observers and modelers is discussed.
Huebner, Walter F.↗
Exploring the Science Trade Space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team
The JPL Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts with a group called the Architecture Team (A-Team). The A-Team combines innovative collaborative methods and facilitated sessions with subject matter experts and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an ATeam study. In these studies, Concept Maturity Levels (CML) are used to group methods. These levels include idea generation and capture (CML 1), initial feasibility assessment (CML 2), and trade space exploration (CML 3). Methods used for exploring the science objectives, feasibility, and scope will be described including use of a new technique for understanding the most compelling science, called a Science Return Diagram (SRD). In the process of developing the SRD, gradients in the science trade space are uncovered along with their implications for implementation and mission architecture. Special attention is paid towards developing complete investigations, establishing a series of logical claims that lead to the natural selection of a measurement approach. Over 20 science-focused A-Team studies have used these techniques to help science teams refine their mission objectives, make implementation decisions and reveal the mission concept’s most compelling science. This paper will describe the A-Team process for exploring the mission concept's science trade space and the Science Return Diagram technique.In June of 2011 a new collaborative engineering approach forearly concept formulation began in the JPL InnovationFoundry [1], six months later becoming the “A-Team” [2].Responding to a need for exploring mission architecturelevel trades [3], the A-Team precedes Team X [4,5] in asequence of concurrent engineering teams at JPL that can beused to mature a concept from a “cocktail napkin” level ideato a complete mission point design. The A-Team efficientlyexplores the science, implementation, and programmatictrade space in early concept formulation. Small, facilitatedgroups of experts generate innovative ideas, quantitativelyassess feasibility, and discover key sensitivities in the tradespace through collaborative analysis and use of advancedmethods and tools. The A-Team process builds off theexperience within JPL and other recent approaches to earlyconcept formulation [6] including best practices of the JPLInnovation Foundry, Project Systems Engineering &Formulation Section, Team Eureka and the Rapid MissionArchitecture Team[7].The A-Team is a focal point for innovative formulationapproaches and people within JPL. It relies on a largebackground of study resources, creative thinkers and “greybeard” scrutinizers, advanced tools, and subject matterexperts with both breadth and depth in experience andexpertise that are all available at JPL. The A-Team isdesigned to be a rapid and efficient process takingapproximately 6 weeks (the entire process can be as short asjust a few days or as long as up to three months) and costingthe equivalent of a work-month of a full-time employee orless. Studies begin with detailed planning and client reviewfollowed by study sessions, analysis work, and reporting.The staffing on each study is customized to the study goalsand objectives, and it is addressed early in the A-Teamprocess. Sessions are generally half-day or whole-day eventsand conducted over a series of days with focused agendas thatare moderated by a trained facilitator. Preliminary results andknowledge capture are available within hours of each session,and a final report is generally available two weeks later.One of the biggest challenges facing early conceptdevelopment is understanding the gradient in science returnversus various available mission scenarios and payload options. Often times, major areas of scientific inquiry havealready been prioritized by science groups, including throughthe National Research Council’s Decadal Studies inAstronomy, Planetary, and Earth Science. Yet science teamscontinue to struggle, especially in competitive missionsolicitations, to capture the right amount of scope that’sachievable within the cost constraints of the opportunity.Often the desire to completely and comprehensively study ascience area in just one mission (after all, true missionopportunities are rare) drives teams to take on too much,providing requirements that are unachievable within theresources of the opportunity without inducing unacceptableimplementation risk. Alternatively, science teams can seekto reduce risk by using an established instrument, but havenot thought through the traceability and key aspects of thescience question to justify its use. Both scenarios lead to badassumptions at the beginning of the concept development thatcan then ripple through implementation option choices,potentially preventing what would have been a good scienceinvestigation from being selected.The purpose of this paper is first to provide some additionalbackground and summary of the A-Team process, tools,people, and facilities. We then focus on the A-Teammethodology for overcoming the barriers of defining thescience scope well at the early concept development stage.This includes understanding the science story andtraceability, and then examining the gradient in science returnversus key characteristics of observables, developing theright payload and mission requirement specification throughexamining the science and implementation trade space.
Ziemer, John K.↗
Exploring the Science Trade Space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts with a group called the Architecture Team. The Architecture Team combines innovative collaborative methods and facilitated sessions with subject matter experts and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an A-Team study. In these studies, Concept Maturity Levels are used to group methods. These levels include idea generation and capture (Concept Maturity Level 1), initial feasibility assessment (Concept Maturity Level 2), and trade space exploration (Concept Maturity Level 3). Methods used for exploring the science objectives, feasibility, and scope will be described including the use of a new technique for understanding the most compelling science, called a Science Return Diagram. In the process of developing the Science Return Diagram, gradients in the science trade space are uncovered along with their implications for implementation and mission architecture. Special attention is paid toward developing complete investigations, establishing a series of logical claims that lead to the natural selection of a measurement approach. Over 20 science-focused A-Team studies have used these techniques to help science teams refine their mission objectives, make implementation decisions, and reveal the mission concept's most compelling science. This article will describe the A-Team process for exploring the mission concept's science trade space and the Science Return Diagram technique.
science↗
Making Sense of Rocket Science - Building NASA's Knowledge Management Program
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has launched a range of KM activities-from deploying intelligent "know-bots" across millions of electronic sources to ensuring tacit knowledge is transferred across generations. The strategy and implementation focuses on managing NASA's wealth of explicit knowledge, enabling remote collaboration for international teams, and enhancing capture of the key knowledge of the workforce. An in-depth view of the work being done at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) shows the integration of academic studies and practical applications to architect, develop, and deploy KM systems in the areas of document management, electronic archives, information lifecycles, authoring environments, enterprise information portals, search engines, experts directories, collaborative tools, and in-process decision capture. These systems, together, comprise JPL's architecture to capture, organize, store, and distribute key learnings for the U.S. exploration of space.
knowledge management organizational learning NASA ↗
Strength, deformation, and the fcc–hcp phase transition in condensed Kr and Xe to the 100 GPa pressure range
The rare gas solids exhibit systematic differences in crystal structure, phase transition conditions, bond strength, and other physical properties. The physical properties of heavy rare gas solids krypton and xenon are modified by the martensitic phase transition from face-centered cubic to hexagonal close packed structure over a broad pressure range. Crystal structure, strength, and plastic deformation of krypton and xenon have been investigated at 300 K using compression in the diamond-anvil cell with synchrotron angle-dispersive x-ray diffraction and complementary ruby fluorescence spectroscopy for Xe. Stacking faults indicative of the fcc–hcp phase transition are observed at pressures at and above 1.23 ± 0.05 and 1.9 ± 0.6 GPa in Kr and Xe, respectively. The transition remains incomplete in both solids to pressures greater than 100 GPa. Strength determined from stress measurements in Pt and ruby standards at pressures up to 111 GPa and complemented by observations of strain and texture measurements obtained by x-ray diffraction in the radial geometry to 100 GPa indicates similar or higher strength than Ar at all conditions, with significant stiffening at 15–20 GPa. Radial diffraction data reveal the persistence of broad highly textured fcc diffraction lines to 101 GPa in Xe, suggesting that the axial measurements may underestimate the metastable persistence of the fcc phase due to biased sampling of hcp crystallites resulting from preferred crystallite orientation. Kr and Xe are compared with He, Ne, and Ar for a systematic understanding of physical properties and phase equilibria of rare gas solids.
Compressive stress↗