Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “response reserve classification”

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.

Strategic Deconfliction Performance: Results and Analysis from the NASA UTM Technical Capability Level 4 Demonstration

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) refers to the service-based, cooperative approach to the management of small UAS in the National Airspace System that is safe, scalable, and fair. UTM provides the means to manage the airspace in a complementary manner that does not burden the current air traffic control workforce or infrastructure but allows the Air Navigation Service Provider to maintain its regulatory and operational authority of the airspace. A key feature of UTM is the ability to provide operators the means to strategically deconflict operations from others in the airspace through the digital exchange of information via supporting services. Through this approach, the four-dimensional operation volumes that encompass the intent of operators in a given area are discoverable and can be used for airspace awareness as well as planning conflict free operations that account for and avoid other operations. In certain cases, it is also possible to negotiate volume intersections for shared airspace use without the need to re-plan. In the NASA UTM concept, strategic deconfliction is the first layer of three in the overall conflict management model. The three layers of the conflict management model, which follow the International Civil Aviation Organization’s scheme [ICAO 2005] are: strategic conflict management, separate provision, and collision avoidance. In UTM, the strategic layer mostly occurs prior to departure, but is applicable to en route operations with sufficient planning horizon. The initial requirements for a strategic deconfliction capability within UTM are defined in a NASA publication [Rios 2018]. Within the concept and implementation of service-provided strategic deconfliction is the notion of priority. It is understood that there are instances in which an operation requires a priority designation within the UTM system and special handling accordingly to provide situation awareness and facilitate appropriate responses from other airspace users. Examples of situations requiring priority designation include: when an operator declares an emergency due to problems with the vehicle or its immediate surroundings; operations that are in support of certain organizations (e.g., public safety and first responders); or special missions that also require priority use of airspace (e.g., emergency medical deliveries). UAS Volume Reservations (UVRs) also relate to the topic of priority in the sense that the airspace that the volume encompasses has a different status or classification in which unassociated operations must vacate if inside, or avoid if outside, through strategic deconfliction with the volume. Operations that are specially permitted to access the UVR area are typically assigned priority status given the nature of their mission and their associated credentials. The ability to perform strategic deconfliction, handle certain operations with a priority distinction, and establish UVRs that are communicated throughout the UTM system, is predicated on an architecture that has been established through an evolutionary process in response to close collaboration with stakeholders from government and industry. Another important and influential aspect of these capabilities and architecture is the live, distributed flight tests that have been conducted across the Technical Capability Levels (TCLs) that culminated with a set of complex tests performed as part of TCL4 [Rios 2020]. The TCL4 flight test involved two FAA-designated UAS test sites building teams to collaborate with NASA’s UTM Project on the execution of several detailed, small UAS scenarios in urban environments.

conflict management↗

Relative effectiveness of kinetic analysis vs single point readings for classifying environmental samples based on community-level physiological profiles (CLPP)

The relative effectiveness of average-well-color-development-normalized single-point absorbance readings (AWCD) vs the kinetic parameters mu(m), lambda, A, and integral (AREA) of the modified Gompertz equation fit to the color development curve resulting from reduction of a redox sensitive dye from microbial respiration of 95 separate sole carbon sources in microplate wells was compared for a dilution series of rhizosphere samples from hydroponically grown wheat and potato ranging in inoculum densities of 1 x 10(4)-4 x 10(6) cells ml-1. Patterns generated with each parameter were analyzed using principal component analysis (PCA) and discriminant function analysis (DFA) to test relative resolving power. Samples of equivalent cell density (undiluted samples) were correctly classified by rhizosphere type for all parameters based on DFA analysis of the first five PC scores. Analysis of undiluted and 1:4 diluted samples resulted in misclassification of at least two of the wheat samples for all parameters except the AWCD normalized (0.50 abs. units) data, and analysis of undiluted, 1:4, and 1:16 diluted samples resulted in misclassification for all parameter types. Ordination of samples along the first principal component (PC) was correlated to inoculum density in analyses performed on all of the kinetic parameters, but no such influence was seen for AWCD-derived results. The carbon sources responsible for classification differed among the variable types with the exception of AREA and A, which were strongly correlated. These results indicate that the use of kinetic parameters for pattern analysis in CLPP may provide some additional information, but only if the influence of inoculum density is carefully considered. c2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

NASA Center KSC↗

How Sample Completeness Affects Gamma-Ray Burst Classification

Unsupervised pattern recognition algorithms support the existence of three gamma-ray burst classes; class I (long, large fluence bursts of intermediate spectral hardness), Class II (short, small fluence, hard bursts), and class III (soft bursts of intermediate durations and fluences). The algorithms surprisingly assign larger membership to class III than to either of the other two classes. A known systematic bias has been previously used to explain the existence of class III in terms of class I; this bias allows the fluences and durations of some bursts to be underestimated. We show that this bias primarily affects only the longest bursts and cannot explain the bulk of the class III properties. We resolve the question of class III existence by demonstrating how samples obtained using standard trigger mechanisms fail to preserve the duration characteristics of small peak flux bursts: (Sample incompleteness is thus primarily responsible for the existence of class III.) In order to avoid this incompleteness, we show how a new dual timescale peak flux can be defined in terms of peak flux and fluence. The dual timescale peak flux reserves the duration distribution of faint bursts and correlates either with spectral hardness (and presumably redshift) than either peak flux or fluence. The techniques presented here are generic and have applicability to the studies of other transient events. The results also indicate that pattern recognition algorithms are sensitive to sample completeness; this can influence the study of large astronomical databases such as those found in a Virtual Observatory.

Hakkila, Jon↗