Engineering topics

Barnes, J. E.

Publications and source records attributed to Barnes, J. E..

9 records

NASA NTRS2014

Total Volcanic Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Depths and Implications for Global Climate Change

Understanding the cooling effect of recent volcanoes is of particular interest in the context of the post-2000 slowing of the rate of global warming. Satellite observations of aerosol optical depth above 15 km have demonstrated that small-magnitude volcanic eruptions substantially perturb incoming solar radiation. Here we use lidar, Aerosol Robotic Network, and balloon-borne observations to provide evidence that currently available satellite databases neglect substantial amounts of volcanic aerosol between the tropopause and 15 km at middle to high latitudes and therefore underestimate total radiative forcing resulting from the recent eruptions. Incorporating these estimates into a simple climate model, we determine the global volcanic aerosol forcing since 2000 to be 0.19 +/- 0.09W/sq m. This translates into an estimated global cooling of 0.05 to 0.12 C. We conclude that recent volcanic events are responsible for more post-2000 cooling than is implied by satellite databases that neglect volcanic aerosol effects below 15 km.

aerosols↗

NASA NTRS2004

The NDSC ozone and temperature lidar alogorithm intercomparison ubutuatuve (A2I): project overview

In September 2003, the Lidar Working Group (LWG) of the Network for Detection of Stratospheric Change (NDSC) initiated an extensive project to compare the ozone and temperature algorithms used within NDSC. This initiative, referred to later as Algorithm Intercomparison Initiative (A2I), uses simulated lidar signals to test and compare various parts of the ozone and temperature lidar algorithms. In addition to the fact that it meets the requirement of the NDSC protocols, this exercise allows the detailed assessment, by all the participants, of some of the sources and magnitudes of various uncertainties associated with the algorithms, and/or with the theoretical assumptions made in these algorithms. The outcome of the A21 is to try to find common grounds in the way ozone and temperature can be retrieved in order to reduce and possibly eradicate discrepancies due to algorithm issues alone. Specific issues such as homogenizing the choice of Rayleigh extinction cross-sections, ozone absorption cross-sections, a priori information, and the definition of the vertical resolutions are among the primary targets of the A21 outcome.

lidar↗

NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): CIL issues resolution report, volume 1

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. This report contains IOA assessment worksheets showing resolution of outstanding IOA CIL issues that were summarized in the IOA FMEA/CIL Assessment Interim Report, dated 9 March 1988. Each assessment worksheet has been updated with CIL issue resolution and rationale. The NASA and Prime Contractor post 51-L FMEA/CIL documentation assessed is believed to be technically accurate and complete. No assessment issues remain that has safety implications. Volume 1 contain worksheets for the following sybsystems: Landing and Deceleration Subsystem; Purge, Vent and Drain Subsystem; Active Thermal Control and Life Support Systems; Crew Equipment Subsystem; Instrumentation Subsystem; Data Processing Subsystem; Atmospheric Revitalization Pressure Control Subsystem; Hydraulics and Water Spray Boiler Subsystem; and Mechanical Actuation Subsystem.

Urbanowicz, Kenneth J.↗

NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): FMEA/CIL assessment

The McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company (MDAC) was selected to perform an Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL). Direction was given by the Orbiter and GFE Projects Office to perform the hardware analysis and assessment using the instructions and ground rules defined in NSTS 22206. The IOA analysis featured a top-down approach to determine hardware failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, the analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA and Prime Contractor FMEA/CIL documentation. The assessment process compared the independently derived failure modes and criticality assignments to the proposed NASA post 51-L FMEA/CIL documentation. When possible, assessment issues were discussed and resolved with the NASA subsystem managers. Unresolved issues were elevated to the Orbiter and GFE Projects Office manager, Configuration Control Board (CCB), or Program Requirements Control Board (PRCB) for further resolution. The most important Orbiter assessment finding was the previously unknown stuck autopilot push-button criticality 1/1 failure mode. The worst case effect could cause loss of crew/vehicle when the microwave landing system is not active. It is concluded that NASA and Prime Contractor Post 51-L FMEA/CIL documentation assessed by IOA is believed to be technically accurate and complete. All CIL issues were resolved. No FMEA issues remain that have safety implications. Consideration should be given, however, to upgrading NSTS 22206 with definitive ground rules which more clearly spell out the limits of redundancy.

Hinsdale, L. W.↗

NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Assessment of the auxiliary power unit

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA effort first completed an analysis of the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) hardware, generating draft failure modes and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The IOA results were then compared to the NASA FMEA/CIL baseline with proposed Post 51-L updates included. A resolution of each discrepancy from the comparison is provided through additional analysis as required. This report documents the results of that comparison for the Orbiter APU hardware. The IOA product for the APU analysis, covering both APU hardware and APU electrical components, consisted of 344 failure mode worksheets that resulted in 178 potential critical items being identified. A comparison was made of the IOA product to the NASA APU hardware FMEA/CIL baseline which consisted of 184 FMEAs and 57 CIL items. The comparison identified 72 discrepancies.

Barnes, J. E.↗

NASA NTRS1986

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Analysis of the auxiliary power unit

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the hardware to determine failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. This report documents the independent analysis results corresponding to the Orbiter Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). The APUs are required to provide power to the Orbiter hydraulics systems during ascent and entry flight phases for aerosurface actuation, main engine gimballing, landing gear extension, and other vital functions. For analysis purposes, the APU system was broken down into ten functional subsystems. Each level of hardware was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode. A preponderance of 1/1 criticality items were related to failures that allowed the hydrazine fuel to escape into the Orbiter aft compartment, creating a severe fire hazard, and failures that caused loss of the gas generator injector cooling system.

Barnes, J. E.↗

NASA NTRS1973

Time and motion, experiment M151

Astronaut work performance during the preparation and execution of experiments in simulated Skylab tests was analyzed according to time and motion in order to evaluate the efficiency and consistency of performance (adaptation function) for several different types of activity over the course of the mission; to evaluate the procedures to be used by the same experiment in Skylab; to generate characteristic adaptation functions for later comparison with Skylab data; and to examine astronaut performance for any behavioral stress due to the environment. The overall results indicate that the anticipated adaptation function was obtained both for individual and for averaged data.

Kubis, J. F.↗

NASA NTRS1972

Apollo 16 time and motion study

A time and motion study is presented of astronaut lunar surface activity on Apollo 16 which consists of five distinct analyses: an evaluation of lunar mobility, a comparison of task performance in 1-g training and lunar EVA, a study of metabolic costs and adaptation, a discussion of falls, and retrieval of fallen objects. Two basic mobility patterns, the hop or canter and the traditional walking gait, were consistently utilized in longer traverses. The metabolic rates associated with these two mobility types, each used by a different astronaut, were relatively equivalent. The time to perform tasks on the lunar surface was significantly longer (on the order of 70%) than the time to perform the same tasks during the last 1-g training session. These results corroborated the findings on Apollo 15 and were not significantly different from them. There was general improvement in lunar EVA performance upon repetition of tasks. Metabolic rate (BTU/hr.) and metabolic cost (BTU) decreased over successive EVAs. Specifically, the metabolic rate associated with riding the lunar roving vehicle (LRV) decreased by approximately 18% from EVA 1 to EVA 2 and by 15% from EVA 2 to EVA 3.

Kubis, J. F.↗

NASA NTRS1972

Apollo 15 time and motion study

A time and motion study of Apollo 15 lunar surface activity led to examination of four distinct areas of crewmen activity. These areas are: an analysis of lunar mobility, a comparative analysis of tasks performed in 1-g training and lunar EVA, an analysis of the metabolic cost of two activities that are performed in several EVAs, and a fall/near-fall analysis. An analysis of mobility showed that the crewmen used three basic mobility patterns (modified walk, hop, side step) while on the lunar surface. These mobility patterns were utilized as adaptive modes to compensate for the uneven terrain and varied soil conditions that the crewmen encountered. A comparison of the time required to perform tasks at the final 1-g lunar EVA training sessions and the time required to perform the same task on the lunar surface indicates that, in almost all cases, it took significantly more time (on the order of 40%) to perform tasks on the moon. This increased time was observed even after extraneous factors (e.g., hardware difficulties) were factored out.

Kubis, J. F.↗