SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Date allocation”

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 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2025

Alternative mixed integer linear programming optimization for joint job scheduling and data allocation in grid computing

This paper presents a novel approach to the joint optimization of job scheduling and data allocation in grid computing environments. We formulate this joint optimization problem as a mixed integer quadratically constrained program. To tackle the nonlinearity in the constraint, we alternatively fix a subset of decision variables and optimize the remaining ones via Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP). We solve the MILP problem at each iteration via an off-the-shelf MILP solver. Our experimental results show that our method significantly outperforms existing heuristic methods, employing either independent optimization or joint optimization strategies. We have also verified the generalization ability of our method over grid environments with various sizes and its high robustness to the algorithm setting.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

NASA NTRS2015

Radio Frequency Identification for Space Habitat Inventory and Stowage Allocation Management

To date, the most extensive space-based inventory management operation has been the International Space Station (ISS). Approximately 20,000 items are tracked with the Inventory Management System (IMS) software application that requires both flight and ground crews to update the database daily. This audit process is manually intensive and laborious, requiring the crew to open cargo transfer bags (CTBs), then Ziplock bags therein, to retrieve individual items. This inventory process contributes greatly to the time allocated for general crew tasks.

Wagner, Carole Y.↗

DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Cumulative Water Rights Curves

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0 sourced from WestDAAT - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category, and files associated with this category v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description This product an updated version of the database used as input to the WBM model (Grogan et al. in review; Grogan et al. 2022), and is the result of the step creating cumulative water rights curves described in Lisk et al. (2024). This database contains 2,667 individual .csv files, three for each Water Management Area (WMA) in the 11-state region. File Naming WMA_[###]_[X]W.csv, where [###] is the unique identifier for each WMA, and [X] is either "S" for surface water rights, "G" for groundwater rights, or "U" for unspecified. Column headers in each file: Year: the priority date year CUML: the total cumulative water rights allocated up to this priority date year (ft3s-1) Irrigation: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Irrigation category up to this priority date year (%) Domestic: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Domestic category up to this priority date year (%) Livestock: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Livestock category up to this priority date year (%) Fish: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Fish category up to this priority date year (%) Industrial: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Industrial category up to this priority date year (%) Environmental: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Environmental category up to this priority date year (%) Other: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Other category up to this priority date year (%) In addition to the database files, there is a companion .csv file, called stateWMAs_ID.csv. The main purpose of this file is to provide the means of translating between the [###] unique identifier and the various other id of the WMA the file is attached to. This translation file has five columns, which are: basinNum: The official state given alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA basinName: the state provided English name of the area, where applicable state: the state name uniID: a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID ID: a unique numeric identifier we created as a requirement for the files to be used within WBM (Grogan et al. in review) For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in the study region. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the second index in this object, the data for California will also be in the second index for each accompanying list. wmasRightsPersGrd: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for groundwater. wmasRightsPersSur: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for surface water. wmasRightsPersUnsp: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for water from an unspecified source. wmasRightsTotsGrd: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for groundwater. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmasRightsTotsSur: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for surface water. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmasRightsTotsUnsp: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for water from an unspecified source. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmaIDByState: A list of data frames which contain the by state allocation by WMA matrix. There is a matrix for each state in a different data frame within the object.

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Cumulative Water Rights Curves

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. This product is the dataset used as input to the WBM model (Grogan et al., in review; Grogan et al. 2022), and is the result of the step creating cumulative water rights curves described in Lisk et al. (submission pending). This database contains 1,744 individual .csv files, two for each Water Management Area (WMA; see here) in the 11-state region. File naming convention: WMA_[###]_[X]W.csv, where [###] is the unique identifier for each WMA, and [X] is either S for surface water rights, or G for groundwater rights. Column headers in each file: Year: the priority date year CUML: the total cumulative water rights allocated up to this priority date year (ft3s-1) Irrigation: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Irrigation category up to this priority date year (%) Domestic: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Domestic category up to this priority date year (%) Livestock: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Livestock category up to this priority date year (%) Fish: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Fish category up to this priority date year (%) Industrial: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Industrial category up to this priority date year (%) Environmental: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Environmental category up to this priority date year (%) Other: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Other category up to this priority date year (%) In addition to the database files, there is a companion .csv file, called stateWMAs_ID.csv. The main purpose of this file is to provide the means of translating between the ### unique identifier and the various other id of the WMA the file is attached to. This translation file has five columns, which are: basinNum: The official state given alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA basinName: the state provided English name of the area, where applicable state: the state name uniID: a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID ID: a unique numeric identifier we created as a requirement for the files to be used within WBM (Grogan et al., in review)

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Cumulative Water Rights Curves

Economics↗

NASA NTRS1992

Guaranteeing synchronous message deadlines with the timed token medium access control protocol

We study the problem of guaranteeing synchronous message deadlines in token ring networks where the timed token medium access control protocol is employed. Synchronous capacity, defined as the maximum time for which a node can transmit its synchronous messages every time it receives the token, is a key parameter in the control of synchronous message transmission. To ensure the transmission of synchronous messages before their deadlines, synchronous capacities must be properly allocated to individual nodes. We address the issue of appropriate allocation of the synchronous capacities. Several synchronous capacity allocation schemes are analyzed in terms of their ability to satisfy deadline constraints of synchronous messages. We show that an inappropriate allocation of the synchronous capacities could cause message deadlines to be missed even if the synchronous traffic is extremely low. We propose a scheme called the normalized proportional allocation scheme which can guarantee the synchronous message deadlines for synchronous traffic of up to 33 percent of available utilization. To date, no other synchronous capacity allocation scheme has been reported to achieve such substantial performance. Another major contribution of this paper is an extension to the previous work on the bounded token rotation time. We prove that the time elapsed between any consecutive visits to a particular node is bounded by upsilon TTRT, where TTRT is the target token rotation time set up at system initialization time. The previous result by Johnson and Sevcik is a special case where upsilon = 2. We use this result in the analysis of various synchronous allocation schemes. It can also be applied in other similar studies.

Agrawal, Gopal↗

DOE OSTI2023

Towards elastic in situ analysis for high-performance computing simulations

In situ analysis and visualization have grown increasingly popular for enabling direct access to data from high-performance computing (HPC) simulations. As a simulation progresses and interesting physical phenomena emerge, however, the data produced may become increasingly complex, and users may need to dynamically change the type and scale of in situ analysis tasks being carried out and consequently adapt the amount of resources allocated to such tasks. To date, none of the production in situ analysis frameworks offer such an elasticity feature, and for good reason: the assumption that the number of processes could vary during run time would force developers to rethink software and algorithms at every level of the in situ analysis stack. In this paper we present Colza, a data staging service with elastic in situ visualization capabilities. We demonstrate the use of Colza with the Deep Water Impact and the AMR-Wind simulations, coupling them with the ParaView Catalyst and Ascent in situ libraries, and show that Colza enables dynamic rescaling of these widely-used frameworks with no interruption to the simulation or staging service. Here, we highlight the challenges of enabling such elasticity, which requires overcoming these frameworks' reliance on MPI, using distinct engineering approaches, namely dependency injection and dependency overload. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to enable elastic in situ visualization capabilities for HPC applications on top of existing production analysis tools.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2022

Estimating production cost for large-scale seaweed farms

Seaweed farming has the potential to produce feedstocks for many applications, including food, feeds, fertilizers, biostimulants, and biofuels. Seaweeds have advantages over land-based biomass in that they require no freshwater inputs and no allocation of arable land. To date, seaweed farming has not been practiced at scales relevant to meaningful biofuel production. Here we describe a techno-economic model of large-scale seaweed farms and its application to the cultivation of the cool temperate species Saccharina latissima (sugar kelp) and the tropical seaweed Eucheumatopsis isiformis. At farm scales of 1000 ha or more, our model suggests that farm gate production costs in waters up to 200 km from the onshore support base are likely to range between $\$$200 and $\$$300 per dry tonne. The model also suggests that production costs below $\$$100 per dry tonne may be achievable in some settings, which would make these seaweeds economically competitive with land-based biofuel feedstocks. While encouraging, these model results and some assumptions on which they are based require further field validation.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Update on Parallel Process Execution in the Next Generation System Analysis Model

As of the end of 2021, 88,880 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) (44,741 MTHM in dry storage; 44,139 MTHM in wet storage) of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) were stored at various reactor sites across the United States [1]. The Office of Storage and Transportation in the Department of Energy is planning for the transportation, storage, and eventual disposal of SNF and high-level radioactive waste (HLW). To aid in this effort and inform decision-makers about the backend of the spent fuel cycle, systems analysis tools capable of analyzing the various options with respect to SNF and HLW management are being used as well as continuously improved to meet the evolving needs of the program. System analysts typically use these tools to vary underlying assumptions (shipping rates, allocation priority, available facilities, start dates, etc.) and study the implications of these changes on site clearance schedules, campaign costs, transportation infrastructure acquisition, etc.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

NASA NTRS1978

Design principles of the PORT library

The design of PORT stemmed from the basic principles of portability and ease of use. The attributes and mechanisms used in the library to support this philosophy include the use of a portable subset of FORTRAN, and the use of (machine-dependent) functions to supply the necessary environment parameters. Abbreviated calling sequences are mede possible by a simplified error-handling technique, and by the use of a portable stack allocator for temporary workspace. Experiences to date with these approaches, and plans for the future are reviewed.

Fox, P.↗

DOE OSTI2023

Basin-Scale Relicensing Opportunity Product User Guide

The Basin-Scale Relicensing Opportunity products provide a platform for identifying favorable areas for basin-wide collaboration using metrics derived from anticipated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing dates. The hydropower relicensing process requires long-term resource allocation by agencies, hydropower owner/operators, non-governmental organizations, and tribal, state, and federal governments. Basin-scale hydropower relicensing has begun to receive attention as a potential solution for reducing licensing timelines, costs, and uncertainty which can provide benefits to a broad spectrum of participants in the licensing process. Two products were developed: (1) an interactive web map that allows users to browse facilities and rivers of interest and uncover locations for potential collaboration based on FERC relicensing metrics summarized along river reaches and (2) a spreadsheet that contains 1,261 facilities with associated FERC relicensing metrics and that allows users to join these data to others and develop and conduct their own analyses.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a collection of objects stored within an RDate file, stateWaterRightsHarmonized.RData. Each object either describes how one should interact with the other objects, or contains the harmonized water rights data. Here is each object described in detail: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. The column headers for each data frame are: waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. allocatedFlow - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. rightsByState_surface: A list of the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, these lists are the merging of rightsByState_ground and rightsByState_surface by state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page.

Economics↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Genesis Solar Wind – Capture, Return, Curate and Analyze: Looking Backward and Creating a Timeline

Introduction: In 1997 NASA’S Discovery Program selected the Genesis mission proposal to return solar wind samples to Earth for laboratory analyses. Principal Investigator Donald S. Burnett and the science team defined the purity of collector materials and ability to analyze solar wind composition to the precision required for planetary science. As a small mission, focused on a well-defined science goal, yet needing careful attention to engineering details, the communication among scientists and engineers, nurtured by Don Burnett, was exceptional. Genesis Mission and Curation Legacy: Genesis, as the first U. S. spacecraft to return astromaterial samples since Apollo, not only integrated the mission planning and flight teams, but also the science and sample curation teams during the mission development period. Since Genesis is a sample return mission, the Science Team was essential in certifying the collectors (sample containers for solar atoms). From inception, Genesis established mission funding for returned sample curation. JSC was lead in contamination control during mission preparation, including establishment of an ISO 4 cleanroom facility and use of ultrapure water (UPW) for cleaning flight hardware (and, as it turned out, for cleaning collectors after the mishap). Reliable, fast communication among scientists, engineers and curators at the hands-on level established deep respect among team members and efficient decision-making. JSC’s 50-years of astromaterial sample curation provided experienced sample processors onsite during recovery in Utah (a deep bench for emergency response). Post-recovery curation included iterative collaboration with science sample users to clean or verify cleanliness of samples. The science legacy from Genesis is addressed by Burnett and Jurewicz, this volume. In The Beginning: After Apollo sample return, Burnett and Marcia Neugebauer at JPL began discussing a solar wind sample return, with Neugebauer arguing that separate collection of solar wind regimes was essential science. By 1992 a solar wind sample return mission was presented at a workshop, and by 1994 a mission was proposed named Suess-Urey. The mission was re-proposed under a new name GENESIS and selected in 1997. Susan Niebur captured the Genesis mission history and stories, from high level management documents and from many interviews with participants [2]. Her account lets readers glimpse personality of participants in quotations from interviews. Need and Scope for Detailed Technical Timeline: A timeline constructed from lower level task documents has been initiated to document the resources and skills actually used, as well as task sequence or concurrency. Timelines for high level mission events are captured in two documents [1] [2] and for detailed re-entry events in [3]. A detailed technical timeline for Genesis mission and curation activities will provide data points for lower level tasks, such as ISO 4 curation facility construction time, preparation for nominal sample field recovery, mishap recovery, and UPW expansion. Changes in technology context 1990-2024: Semiconductor technologies were easily accessible in the U.S.A. (1990-1999), and the Genesis team used those resources for cleanroom design and UPW system expansion. Image documentation was changing from film to digital during cleanroom construction and payload cleaning (1997-2001). Engineering design was done using computer aided design proprietary software, making more difficult the archiving of payload configuration and materials. Email of documents, tracked delivery service and virtual meeting capability greatly improved communication efficiency. Information sources – Pre-launch mission preparation: Examples of mission science, engineering and contamination control are collector purity testing, payload design/fabrication and ISO 4 cleanroom construction. Information on timing of these activities comes from facility readiness reviews, management reviews, shipping documents, procurement documents, test reports, travel documents, laboratory logs, Quality Assurance documents, dates on images, participant notebooks and emails. Information sources – Sample return re-entry and field recovery activities: Information comes from event timelines produced by Mid-Air Recovery team, Lockheed team lead notes and from chase video, JPL Quality Assurance. Information also comes from images and logbooks from UTTR cleanroom operations and from curatorial documents. Information sources – Resulting science and sample cleaning processes: Agendas from the annual gatherings of the science team initially trace testing for collector purity/cleanliness, and after sample recovery, include collector cleaning and cleanliness assessment. Post-recovery documents include curatorial orders and procedures, sample allocation documents and LPSC abstracts. Timeline Objectives: A simple spreadsheet timeline with headers DATE, EVENT, PEOPLE, COMMENT, INFORMATION SOURCE has been initiated and currently has over 90 entries. While this is not definitive historical research, it is a quick look at the evolution of Genesis curation with pointers to documents or people with information. Engineers for future missions may find useful points of comparison for development of facilities. References:[1] Genesis Mission Reference Document, (2011) JPL D-62382.[2] Niebur S. M., edited by Brown D. W. (2023) NASA’s Discovery Program: The First 20 Years of Competitive Planetary Exploration, NASA-SP-2023-4238.[3] Genesis Mishap Investigation Board Report, Vol. 1 (July 2005).

solar wind↗

NASA NTRS2017

Characteristics of a high-power ion beam deflection system necessary to deflect the hypothetical asteroid 2017 PD

The July 2027 impact date for the hypothetical asteroid 2017 PDC, that is the subject of an emergency response exercise, leaves just over ten years to implement a deflection approach. The analyses herein allocates four years to the design, fabrication, assembly, test and launch of a notional high-power Ion Beam Deflection (IBD) vehicle to meet a launch readiness date no later than May 2021. Using this launch date along with estimates for the vehicle mass and performance characteristics of the electric propulsion system, low-thrust trajectory analyses indicate a 2.56-year flight time to rendezvous with 2017 PDC. This would leave 3.6 years to execute the actual deflection phase. A 160-kW IBD vehicle could deflect 2017 PDC by at least one Earth radius within this time provided the asteroid’s actual diameter was less than about 140 m and its density was 2 g/cm3 or less. Larger diameters and/or higher densities would require a higher power IBD vehicle, multiple IBD vehicles, or a longer deflection phase. Ion beam deflection is largely independent of the characteristics of the threat object, but its effectiveness, like all deflection approaches, is sensitive to both the asteroid mass and the time available for deflection. The characteristics of IBD, i.e., large standoff distance between the spacecraft and the asteroid surface, as well as ion beam divergence angles of a few degrees, facilitates the possible simultaneous use of multiple IBD vehicles to improve the performance and robustness of the asteroid deflection. The 65-cm diameter, 20-kW NEXIS ion thruster developed in support of the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission concept is particularly well suited for application to a high-power IBD system. It has demonstrated an ion beam divergence angle of approximately 2 degrees and operation at 20 kW for over 2,000 hours. Completion of the development and flight qualification of this technology would significantly reduce the risk and time necessary to respond to the discovery of potentially hazardous asteroid in the size range of 50- to 100-m diameter.

Reeves, David↗

DOE OSTI2021

Sex ratio of Western Bluebirds ( Sialia mexicana ) is mediated by phenology and clutch size

Mothers may produce more of one sex to maximize their fitness if there are differences in the cost of producing each sex or there are differences in their relative reproductive value. Breeding date and clutch size are known to influence offspring sex ratios in birds through sex differences in dispersal, social behaviours, differential mortality and available food resources. We tested whether breeding date, clutch size and drought conditions influenced offspring sex ratios in a sexually size-monomorphic species, the Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana, by interrogating a 21-year dataset. After controlling for differential mortality, we found that hatch dates late in the breeding season were associated with the production of more females, suggesting that the value of producing males declines as the breeding season progresses. When clutch size was taken into account, small clutches yielded significantly more females late in the breeding season than in the early and middle parts of the breeding season, which produced significantly more males. Here, large clutches early in the season tended to produce more females, although this was not significant. Drought severity was not correlated with sex ratio adjustment. We propose and discuss several explanations for these patterns, including male offspring, but not female offspring, acting as helpers, increased female nestling provisioning late in the breeding season, differences in food abundance and egg-laying order. Future work will help to uncover the mechanisms leading to these patterns. Identifying patterns and mechanisms of sex ratio skew from long-term datasets is important for informing predictions regarding life-history trade-offs in wildlife populations.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS1994

High performance techniques for space mission scheduling

In this paper, we summarize current research at Carnegie Mellon University aimed at development of high performance techniques and tools for space mission scheduling. Similar to prior research in opportunistic scheduling, our approach assumes the use of dynamic analysis of problem constraints as a basis for heuristic focusing of problem solving search. This methodology, however, is grounded in representational assumptions more akin to those adopted in recent temporal planning research, and in a problem solving framework which similarly emphasizes constraint posting in an explicitly maintained solution constraint network. These more general representational assumptions are necessitated by the predominance of state-dependent constraints in space mission planning domains, and the consequent need to integrate resource allocation and plan synthesis processes. First, we review the space mission problems we have considered to date and indicate the results obtained in these application domains. Next, we summarize recent work in constraint posting scheduling procedures, which offer the promise of better future solutions to this class of problems.

Smith, Stephen F.↗

DOE OSTI2026

Storing Affordability: Battery Storage as an Asset to Reduce Data Center Cost Shifts

This report examines how battery energy storage systems (BESS) can help utilities accommodate large load growth while protecting affordability for existing ratepayers. Rapid growth in electricity demand from artificial intelligence (AI) data centers is straining the U.S. grid. Furthermore, many new data centers are entering rural markets, which could offer economic benefits but may also pose implementation challenges for smaller utilities. At the same time, retail electricity prices are increasing faster than inflation, elevating customer affordability as a key challenge. While data centers have not been the primary driver of increases in residential prices to date, they have pushed wholesale energy and capacity prices higher in several markets. Fundamental utility cost-allocation principles show that data center growth can be rate-positive for existing customers only if new peak demand grows faster than the costs a utility must incur to serve it. Several factors, including a utility’s degree of wholesale market exposure, forecast uncertainty and stranded-asset risk, and tariff design can determine the outcome of load growth on retail rates. Energy storage can make several affordability contributions in the face of this landscape of uncertainty and market volatility, including deferral of higher-cost grid investments through improved utilization of existing assets and flexibility of new large loads, insulation from volatile wholesale prices through peak shaving, and reliability support to address grid risks stemming from the behavior of AI data center loads. Different potential BESS deployment pathways—utility-scale front-of-the-meter systems, aggregated small-scale storage installations, and data center-sited behind-the-meter storage—are compared against each other and against conventional capacity alternatives. This framework is intended as a conceptual resource to utilities, particularly smaller public utilities with rural service territories, who may be considering the role that energy storage can play in insulating existing ratepayers from data center cost shifts.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗