Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “difference graphs”

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.

313 records · Page 18

Science opportunity analyzer - a multi-mission tool for planning

For many years the diverse scientific community that supports JPL's wide variety ofinterplanetary space missions has needed a tool in order to plan and develop their experiments. The tool needs to be easily adapted to various mission types and portable to the user community. The Science Opportunity Analyzer, SOA, now in its third year of development, is intended to meet this need. SOA is a java-based application that is designed to enable scientists to identify and analyze opportunities for science observations from spacecraft. It differs from other planning tools in that it does not require an in-depth knowledge of the spacecraft command system or operation modes to begin high level planning. Users can, however, develop increasingly detailed levels of design. SOA consists of six major functions: Opportunity Search, Visualization, Observation Design, Constraint Checking, Data Output and Communications. Opportunity Search is a GUI driven interface to existing search engines that can be used to identify times when a spacecraft is in a specific geometrical relationship with other bodies in the solar system. This function can be used for advanced mission planning as well as for making last minute adjustments to mission sequences in response to trajectory modifications. Visualization is a key aspect of SOA. The user can view observation opportunities in either a 3D representation or as a 2D map projection. The user is given extensive flexibility to customize what is displayed in the view. Observation Design allows the user to orient the spacecraft and visualize the projection of the instrument field of view for that orientation using the same views as Opportunity Search. Constraint Checking is provided to validate various geometrical and physical aspects of an observation design. The user has the ability to easily create custom rules or to use official project-generated flight rules. This capability may also allow scientists to easily impact the cost to science if flight rule changes occur. Data Output generates information based on the spacecraft's trajectory, opportunity search results or based on a created observation. The data can be viewed either in tabular format or as a graph. Finally, SOA is unique in that it is designed to be able to communicate with a variety of existing planning and sequencing tools. From the very beginning SOA was designed with the user in mind. Extensive surveys of the potential user community were conducted in order to develop the software requirements. Throughout the development period, close ties have been maintained with the science community to insure that the tool maintains its user focus. Although development is still in its early stages, SOA is already developing a user community on the Cassini project, which is depending on this tool for their science planning. There are other tools at JPL that do various pieces of what SOA can do; however, there is no other tool which combines all these functions and presents them to the user in such a convenient, cohesive, and easy to use fashion.

SOA science planning mission operations sequence s↗

Power System Options Evaluated for the Radiation and Technology Demonstration Mission

The Radiation and Technology Demonstration (RTD) Mission is under joint study by three NASA Centers: the NASA Johnson Space Center, the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and the NASA Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field. This Earth-orbiting mission, which may launch on a space shuttle in the first half of the next decade, has the primary objective of demonstrating high-power electric thruster technologies. Secondary objectives include better characterization of Earth's Van Allen trapped-radiation belts, measurement of the effectiveness of the radiation shielding for human protection, measurement of radiation effects on advanced solar cells, and demonstration of radiation-tolerant microelectronics. During the mission, which may continue up to 1 year, the 2000-kg RTD spacecraft will first spiral outward from the shuttle-deployed, medium-inclination, low Earth orbit. By the phased operation of a 10-kW Hall thruster and a 10-kW Variable Specific Impulse Magneto-Plasma Rocket, the RTD spacecraft will reach a low-inclination Earth orbit with a radius greater than five Earth radii. This will be followed by an inward spiraling orbit phase when the spacecraft deploys 8 to 12 microsatellites to map the Van Allen belts. The mission will conclude in low Earth orbit with the possible retrieval of the spacecraft by the space shuttle. A conceptual RTD spacecraft design showing two photovoltaic (PV) array wings, the Hall thruster with propellant tanks, and stowed microsatellites is presented. Early power system studies assessed five different PV array design options coupled with a 120-Vdc power management and distribution system (PMAD) and secondary lithium battery energy storage. Array options include (1) state-of-the-art 10-percent efficient three-junction amorphous SiGe thin-film cells on thin polymer panels deployed with an inflatable (or articulated) truss, (2) SCARLET array panels, (3) commercial state-of-the-art, planar PV array rigid panels with 25-percent efficient, three-junction GaInP2/GaAs/Ge solar cells, (4) rigid panels with 25-percent efficient, three-junction GaInP2/GaAs/Ge solar cells, in a 2 -concentrator trough configuration, and (5) thin polymer panels with 25-percent efficient, three-junction GaInP2/GaAs/Ge solar cells deployed with an inflatable (or articulated) truss. To assess the relative merits of these PV array design options, the study group developed a dedicated Fortran code to predict power system performance and estimate system mass. This code also modeled Earth orbital environments important for accurately predicting PV array performance. The most important environmental effect, solar cell radiation degradation, was calculated from electron-proton fluence input from the industry standard AE8/AP8 trapped radiation models and the concept of damage equivalence. Power systems were sized to provide 10 kW of thruster power and approximately 1 kW of spacecraft power at end of life. Of the five PV array design options, the option 1 (thin-film cells) power system was the most massive 590 kg, whereas the option 4 (trough concentrator) power system was the lightest 260 kg. Arguably, the lowest cost would come from the option 3 (commercial array panels) power system with an acceptable, albeit greater, system mass of 320 kg. Predicted power system performance during the spiral-out mission phase is shown the preceding graph for the option 5 (flexible-panel) array. From the results, the radiation-induced power loss over time is evident as the spacecraft slowly spirals outward through the trapped proton belt. The importance of the spiral trip time is also evident in the two curves representing 74-day and 182-day spiral-out periods. The longer spiral time introduces a beginning-of-life power oversizing penalty greater than 1 kW. Future studies will analyze power system performance and mass with a 50-Vdc power management and distribution architecture favorable to the VASIMR thruster and longer missions.

Kerslake, Thomas W.↗

Oxidation States of Grim Glasses in EET79001 Based on Vanadium Valence

Gas-rich impact-melt (GRIM) glasses in SNC meteorites are very rich in Martian atmospheric noble gases and sulfur suggesting a possible occurrence of regolith-derived secondary mineral assemblages in these samples. Previously, we have studied two GRIM glasses, 506 and 507, from EET79001 Lith A and Lith B, respectively, for elemental abundances and spatial distribution of sulfur using EMPA (WDS) and FE-SEM (EDS) techniques and for sulfur-speciation using K-edge XANES techniques. These elemental and FE-SEM micro-graph data at several locations in the GRIM glasses from Shergotty (DBS), Zagami 994 and EET79001, Lith B showed that FeO and SO3 are positively correlated (SO3 represents a mixture of sulfide and sulfate). FE-SEM (EDS) study revealed that the sulfur-rich pockets in these glasses contain numerous micron-sized iron-sulfide (Fe-S) globules sequestered throughout the volume. However, in some areas (though less frequently), we detected significant Fe-S-O signals suggesting the occurrence of iron sulfate. These GRIM glasses were studied by K-edge microXANES techniques for sulfur speciation in association with iron in sulfur-rich areas. In both samples, we found the sulfur speciation dominated by sulfide with minor oxidized sulfur mixed in with various proportions. The abundance of oxidized sulfur was greater in 506 than in 507. Based on these results, we hypothesize that sulfur initially existed as sulfate in the glass precursor materials and, on shock-impact melting of the precursor materials producing these glasses, the oxidized sulfur was reduced to predominately sulfide. In order to further test this hypothesis, we have used microXANES to measure the valence states of vanadium in GRIM glasses from Lith A and Lith B to complement and compare with previous analogous measurements on Lith C (note: 506 and 507 contain the largest amounts of martian atmospheric gases but the gas-contents in Lith C measured by are unknown). Vanadium is ideal for addressing this re-dox issue because it has multiple valence states and is a well-studied element. Ferrous-dominated iron valences determined by microXANES on the Lith A and Lith B glasses provide little redox sensitivity. Vanadium valence measurements for impact glass in Lith C at three different locations yielded valence values of 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 with inferred fO2 values of IW-0.7, IW-0.1 and IW+0.7, respectively. This range of oxygen-fugacity values is understandable because the glasses are shock-molten impact glasses which are heterogeneous in nature. Oxygen fugacity values obtained from the analysis of Fe-Ti oxides and Eu partitioning in pyroxenes from EET79001 Lith A and Lith B (host lithologies) were in the range of IW+0.3 to IW+1.9 suggesting that V in the Lith C impact glass was reduced in the impact process. Here, we examine whether the 506 from Lith A and 507 from Lith B GRIM glasses yield similar or different fO2 values from those of Lith C using the vanadium K-edge microXANES technique.

Sutton, S. R.↗

Software Tools to Support the Assessment of System Health

This presentation provides an overview of three software tools that were developed by the NASA Glenn Research Center to support the assessment of system health: the Propulsion Diagnostic Method Evaluation Strategy (ProDIMES), the Systematic Sensor Selection Strategy (S4), and the Extended Testability Analysis (ETA) tool. Originally developed to support specific NASA projects in aeronautics and space, these software tools are currently available to U.S. citizens through the NASA Glenn Software Catalog. The ProDiMES software tool was developed to support a uniform comparison of propulsion gas path diagnostic methods. Methods published in the open literature are typically applied to dissimilar platforms with different levels of complexity. They often address different diagnostic problems and use inconsistent metrics for evaluating performance. As a result, it is difficult to perform a one ]to ]one comparison of the various diagnostic methods. ProDIMES solves this problem by serving as a theme problem to aid in propulsion gas path diagnostic technology development and evaluation. The overall goal is to provide a tool that will serve as an industry standard, and will truly facilitate the development and evaluation of significant Engine Health Management (EHM) capabilities. ProDiMES has been developed under a collaborative project of The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP) based on feedback provided by individuals within the aircraft engine health management community. The S4 software tool provides a framework that supports the optimal selection of sensors for health management assessments. S4 is structured to accommodate user ]defined applications, diagnostic systems, search techniques, and system requirements/constraints. One or more sensor suites that maximize this performance while meeting other user ]defined system requirements that are presumed to exist. S4 provides a systematic approach for evaluating combinations of sensors to determine the set or sets of sensors that optimally meet the performance goals and the constraints. It identifies optimal sensor suite solutions by utilizing a merit (i.e., cost) function with one of several available optimization approaches. As part of its analysis, S4 can expose fault conditions that are difficult to diagnose due to an incomplete diagnostic philosophy and/or a lack of sensors. S4 was originally developed and applied to liquid rocket engines. It was subsequently used to study the optimized selection of sensors for a simulation ]based aircraft engine diagnostic system. The ETA Tool is a software ]based analysis tool that augments the testability analysis and reporting capabilities of a commercial ]off ]the ]shelf (COTS) package. An initial diagnostic assessment is performed by the COTS software using a user ]developed, qualitative, directed ]graph model of the system being analyzed. The ETA Tool accesses system design information captured within the model and the associated testability analysis output to create a series of six reports for various system engineering needs. These reports are highlighted in the presentation. The ETA Tool was developed by NASA to support the verification of fault management requirements early in the Launch Vehicle process. Due to their early development during the design process, the TEAMS ]based diagnostic model and the ETA Tool were able to positively influence the system design by highlighting gaps in failure detection, fault isolation, and failure recovery.

Melcher, Kevin J.↗

Development and Testing of Pulse Guns for Combustion Instability Testing

To test liquid rocket engines (LREs) for combustion instabilities, devices such as bombs are often used to create pressure wave disturbances. Bombs, while effective, are inherently dangerous, expensive, and difficult to procure. Over the years, pulse guns have been used as a safer and more cost-effective way to generate controlled pressure disturbances in engine chambers. In anticipation of the need for stability testing of prototype LREs at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), a set of pulse guns have been designed, fabricated, tested, and characterized. The pulse gun program is funded by the RS-25 Engine Program managed out of MSFC and funded by NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) through the MSFC Liquid Engines Office (LEO). A pulse gun is a simple device – like a traditional gun, it has a breech and barrel section. However, unlike a traditional gun, there is no bullet, as the purpose of the pulse gun is strictly to fire a high pressure pulse. Instead of a firing pin and primer that would normally be used in a traditional gun, an initiator is used to activate the gun powder. The initiator is a highly reliable pyrotechnic initiator. For this study, clone versions of the NASA Standard Initiator (NSI) were used. The initiator is used to ignite a pre-measured amount of gun powder loaded into the breech. When the pressure of the burnt gun powder exceeds the set point of a downstream burst disk, the disk ruptures, allowing the high pressure pulse to travel downstream through the barrel section. A ballistic pressure transducer located in the breech section is used to measure the short duration, high pressure pulse. Some configurations of the pulse gun have barrel sections that include one or more additional ballistic pressure transducers. These additional pressure measurements help track the degradation and damping of the pulse as it travels out of the barrel section. The measurements may also be used to determine the velocity of pulse. The objective of this paper is to present the different variants of this newly-developed pulse gun and characterize performance over a range of parameters. The parameters include breech diameter, barrel length, amount of gun powder used, the way the gun powder is packed, and the pressure setting of the burst disk. There are a total of six pulse guns: three with the 0.25 inch breech and three different length barrels, and three with the 0.40 inch breech and three different length barrels. For both breech sizes, the associated barrels are referred to as standard, one-port, and two-port barrels. The standard barrel has no instrumentation and is likely the barrel that will be used for engine stability testing. The one- and two-port barrels were designed specifically for pulse gun component testing to allow measurements of the magnitude and timing of the high pressure pulse as it makes its way through the pulse gun. The burst disks tested were commercially-available burst disks designed to rupture at 8,000, 16,000, and 24,000 psid. Testing was accomplished by firing the pulse gun into a test chamber pressurized with nitrogen at about 2300 psig. A total of four Model 113B23 High frequency ICP® pressure sensors (10k psi) were mounted in the test chamber, in the same plane as the pulse gun. Two of the sensors had “trimmed” adapters, and two did not. Given the symmetrical configuration of the sensors within the test chamber, different amplitudes of pressure measurements are attributed to the use of trimmed versus untrimmed adapters. The untrimmed adapters, with their narrower passages, tended to amplify the pressure amplitudes by as much as 50%. In total, 41 pulse gun tests have been conducted.Data are still being analyzed, but some trends are apparent. For example, measurements taken within the pulse gun are shown in Figures 3 and 4 for Hot-fires (HFs) # 11 and 39, respectively. Both tests were identical in that the 0.40 inch ID breech, two-port barrel, 8,000 psid burst disk, and same amount of gunpowder (6.639 grains for HF# 11, and 6.576 grains for HF# 39) were used, and the back pressure in the nitrogen test chamber was ~2300 psig. Despite keeping all these variables constant, the results from these two tests look quite different. For both tests, the first pressure peak shown in the P2111 trace within the breech is the firing of the initiator. The second peak and any subsequent peaks are from the combustion of the gunpowder. It should be noted that because the sensors are dynamic, the ~2300 psig baseline static pressure is not shown in the figures. For HF# 11, the burst disk clearly ruptured in a little over 0.1 ms from the time the initiator was fired. This is evident from the abrupt rise in pressure for P2112 followed by another abrupt rise in pressure for P2113. The sensors track the movement of the high pressure pulse through the pulse gun. For HF# 39, however, there was nearly 1 ms delay between the initiator firing and the burst disk rupturing. The only difference between these two tests was the way in which the gunpowder was packed within the breech. For HF# 11, the gunpowder was poured directly into the breech, atop the initiator, and held in place with a vegetable fiber wad appropriately sized for the barrel diameter. Once in place, the wad firmly held the gunpowder in place. For HF# 39, the gunpowder was rolled within cigarette paper with the ends of the paper twisted. The rolled gunpowder was gently pushed down into the breech, toward the initiator, and no wad was used. This method of loading the gunpowder consistently produced longer delays in the rupture of the burst disk, presumably because there was a steady, fuller burning of the gunpowder. The burst disk was rated for 8,000 psid, which means that the burst disk should not have opened until the pressure in the breech reached ~10,300 since there was ~2300 psig back pressure in the test chamber. In the case of HF# 11, the breech pressure only reached roughly 4200 psi before there was leakage either through or past the burst disk, but for HF#39, the breech pressure reached 10,600 psi prior to the burst disk opening. The temperature of the burst disk is certainly a factor in determining when the burst disk will rupture. A sharp rise in the burst disk temperature could weaken it and cause it to stray from the designed set point burst pressure. The burst disks are manufactured of Inconel to try to reduce their sensitivity to temperature, but how the burst disks perform above 900°F is not documented. All burst disks were engineered and tested by the manufacturer for ambient temperature conditions. One theory for why rolling the gunpowder in cigarette paper may produce better results is related to a more controlled temperature environment. The cigarette paper may act as a sheath that protects the burst disk from excessive temperatures during the rapid buildup of pressure in the breech. The ultimate benefit of not breeching the burst disk prematurely is shown in Figures 5 and 6, which graphs the resultant pressure pulse produced in the test chamber. For HF #11, the peak pressure on the P2123 trimmed adapter is about 270 psi, while for HF# 39 it is 343 psi, which is about 1.27 times greater in magnitude. In either case, the pressure pulse is ~20 μs in width once it reaches the test chamber. Another pressure rise about 100 μs later can be seen on the sensors located across from the pulse gun port, P2124 and P2121. These pressures are lower due to attenuation of the pressure wave as it moves across the test chamber. After the wave encounters the wall, it reflects back and forth within the chamber until it completely dissipates.

Pulse Gun↗

Dynamics and Control of a Disordered System in Space

In this paper, we present some ideas regarding the modeling, dynamics and control aspects of granular spacecraft. Granular spacecraft are complex multibody systems composed of a spatially disordered distribution of a large number of elements, for instance a cloud of N grains in orbit, with N greater than 10(exp 3). These grains can be large (Cubesat-size) or small (mm-size), and can be active, i.e., a fully equipped vehicle capable sensing their own position and attitude, and enabled with propulsion means, or entirely passive. The ultimate objective would be to study the behavior of the single grains and of large ensembles of grains in orbit and to identify ways to guide and control the shape of a cloud composed of these grains so that it can perform a useful function in space, for instance, as an element of an optical imaging system for astrophysical applications. This concept, in which the aperture does not need to be continuous and monolithic, would increase the aperture size several times compared to large NASA observatories such as ATLAST, allowing for a true Terrestrial Planet Imager that would be able to resolve exo-planet details and do meaningful spectroscopy on distant world. In the paper, we address the modeling and autonomous operation of a distributed assembly (the cloud) of large numbers of highly miniaturized space-borne elements (the grains). A multi-scale, multi-physics model is proposed of the dynamics of the cloud in orbit, as well as a control law for cloud shape maintenance, and preliminary simulation studies yield an estimate of the computational effort, indicating a scale factor of approximately N(exp 1.4) as a function of the number of grains. A granular spacecraft can be defined as a collection of a large number of space-borne elements (in the 1000s) designed and controlled such that a desirable collective behavior emerges, either from the interactions among neighboring grains, and/or between the grains and the environment. In this paper, each grain is considered to be a highly miniaturized spacecraft which has limited size and mass, hence it has limited actuation, limited propulsive capability, limited power, limited sensing, limited communication, limited computational resources, limited range of motion, limited lifetime, and may be expendable. The modeling and dynamics of clouds of vehicles is more challenging than with conventional vehicles because we are faced with a probabilistic vehicle composed of a large number of physically disconnected vehicles. First, different scales of motion occur simultaneously in a cloud: translations and rotations of the cloud as a whole (macro-dynamics), relative rotation and translation of one cloud member with respect to another (meso-dynamics), and individual cloud member dynamics (micro-dynamics). Second, the control design needs to be tolerant of the system complexity, of the system architecture (centralized vs. decentralized large scale system control) as well as robust to un-modeled dynamics and noise sources. Figure 1, top left, shows the kinematic parameters of a 1000 element cloud in orbit. The motion of the system is described with respect to a local vertical-local horizontal (LV-LH) orbiting reference frame (x,y,z)=F(sub ORF) of origin O(sub ORF) which rotates with mean motion omega and orbital semi-major axis R(sub 0). The orbital geometry at the initial time is defined in terms of its six orbital elements, and the orbital dynamics equation for point O(sub ORF) is propagated forward in time under the influence of the gravitational field of the primary and other external perturbations, described below. The origin of this frame coincides with the initial position of the center of mass of the system, and the coordinate axes are z along the local vertical, x toward the flight direction, and y in the orbit normal direction. The assumptions we used to model the dynamics are as follows: 1) The inertial frame is fixed at Earth's center. 2) The orbiting Frame ORF follows Keplerian orbit. 3) the cloud system dynamics is referred to ORF. 4) the attitude of each grain uses the principal body frame as body fixed frame. 5) the atmosphere is assumed to be rigidly rotating with the Earth. Regarding the grains forming the cloud: 1) each grain is modeled as a rigid body; 2) a simple attitude estimator provides attitude estimates, 3) a simple guidance logic commands the position and attitude of each grain, 4) a simple local feedback controller based on PD control of local states is used to stabilize the attitude of the vehicle. Regarding the cloud: 1) the cloud as a whole is modeled as an equivalent rigid body in orbit, and 2) an associated graph establishes agent connectivity and enables coupling between modes of motion at the micro and macro scales; 3) a simple guidance and estimation logic is modeled to estimate and command the attitude of this equivalent rigid body; 4) a cloud shape maintenance controller is based on the dynamics of a stable virtual truss in the orbiting frame. Regarding the environmental perturbations acting on the cloud: 1) a non-spherical gravity field including JO (Earth's spherical field) zonal component, J2 (Earth's oblateness) and J3 zonal components is implemented; 2) atmospheric drag is modeled with an exponential model; 3) solar pressure is modeled assuming the Sun is inertially fixed; and 4) the Earth's magnetic field is model using an equivalent dipole model. The equations of motion are written in a referential system with respect to the origin of the orbiting frame and the state is propagated forward in time using an incremental predictor-corrector scheme. A representative cloud with varying number of grains is simulated to identify the limitations in computation time as the number of grains grows. We derive a control law to track a desired surface in the ORF (equivalently to maintain a reference cloud shape) by defining an error from a desired surface shape, and designing a control law that is exponentially stable and reduces the tracking error to zero. Figure 1 (top right) shows a comparison of various requirements for simulation of single spacecraft vs. granular spacecraft, indicating the high degree of complexity that needs to be taken into consideration. The ORF components of control force required by one of the grains is, for this particular case, in the micro-Newton range. However, no attempt has been made yet to reconfigure (or re-orient) the cloud configuration internally, for which forces in the milli-Newton level are expected, depending on the time required to do the reconfiguration. Figure 1, bottom, shows the computation time as a function of the number of grains, indicating an order N(exp 1.43) scaling on a 8 Gb, 1067 MHz RAM MacOSX computer with a 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor. With this metric, the same simulation for a system of N=1000 grains would take 5.4 hours, and 146 hours (i.e., 6 days) for a system with N=10,000 grains. Therefore, efficient ways to simulate this complex system, where not only the time scales of natural system dynamics, but also the sampling times of the Guidance, Navigation, and Control are included, remain to be explored. Additional details on the cloud modeling, dynamics, and control will be described in the paper.

simulation↗

Automated ISS Flight Utilities

During my internship at NASA Johnson Space Center, I worked in the Space Radiation Analysis Group (SRAG), where I was tasked with a number of projects focused on the automation of tasks and activities related to the operation of the International Space Station (ISS). As I worked on a number of projects, I have written short sections below to give a description for each, followed by more general remarks on the internship experience. My first project is titled "General Exposure Representation EVADOSE", also known as "GEnEVADOSE". This project involved the design and development of a C++/ ROOT framework focused on radiation exposure for extravehicular activity (EVA) planning for the ISS. The utility helps mission managers plan EVAs by displaying information on the cumulative radiation doses that crew will receive during an EVA as a function of the egress time and duration of the activity. SRAG uses a utility called EVADOSE, employing a model of the space radiation environment in low Earth orbit to predict these doses, as while outside the ISS the astronauts will have less shielding from charged particles such as electrons and protons. However, EVADOSE output is cumbersome to work with, and prior to GEnEVADOSE, querying data and producing graphs of ISS trajectories and cumulative doses versus egress time required manual work in Microsoft Excel. GEnEVADOSE automates all this work, reading in EVADOSE output file(s) along with a plaintext file input by the user providing input parameters. GEnEVADOSE will output a text file containing all the necessary dosimetry for each proposed EVA egress time, for each specified EVADOSE file. It also plots cumulative dose versus egress time and the ISS trajectory, and displays all of this information in an auto-generated presentation made in LaTeX. New features have also been added, such as best-case scenarios (egress times corresponding to the least dose), interpolated curves for trajectories, and the ability to query any time in the EVADES output. As mentioned above, GEnEVADOSE makes extensive use of ROOT version 6, the data analysis framework developed at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), and the code is written to the C++11 standard (as are the other projects). My second project is the Automated Mission Reference Exposure Utility (AMREU).Unlike GEnEVADOSE, AMREU is a combination of three frameworks written in both Python and C++, also making use of ROOT (and PyROOT). Run as a combination of daily and weekly cron jobs, these macros query the SRAG database system to determine the active ISS missions, and query minute-by-minute radiation dose information from ISS-TEPC (Tissue Equivalent Proportional Counter), one of the radiation detectors onboard the ISS. Using this information, AMREU creates a corrected data set of daily radiation doses, addressing situations where TEPC may be offline or locked up by correcting doses for days with less than 95% live time (the total amount time the instrument acquires data) by averaging the past 7 days. As not all errors may be automatically detectable, AMREU also allows for manual corrections, checking an updated plaintext file each time it runs. With the corrected data, AMREU generates cumulative dose plots for each mission, and uses a Python script to generate a flight note file (.docx format) containing these plots, as well as information sections to be filled in and modified by the space weather environment officers with information specific to the week. AMREU is set up to run without requiring any user input, and it automatically archives old flight notes and information files for missions that are no longer active. My other projects involve cleaning up a large data set from the Charged Particle Directional Spectrometer (CPDS), joining together many different data sets in order to clean up information in SRAG SQL databases, and developing other automated utilities for displaying information on active solar regions, that may be used by the space weather environment officers to monitor solar activity. I consulted my mentor Dr. Ryan Rios and Dr. Kerry Lee for project requirements and added features, and ROOT developer Edmond Offermann for advice on using the ROOT library. I also received advice and feedback from Dr. Janet Barzilla of SRAG, who tested my code. Besides these inputs, I worked independently, writing all of the code by myself. The code for all these projects is documented throughout, and I have attempted to write it in a modular format. Assuming that ROOT is updated accordingly, these codes are also Y2038-compliant (and Y10K-compliant). This allows the code to be easily referenced, modified and possibly repurposed for non-ISS missions in the future, should the necessary inputs exist. These projects have taught me a lot about coding and software design - I have become a much more skilled C++ programmer and ROOT user, and I also learned to code in Python and PyROOT (and its advantages and disadvantages compared to C++/ ROOT). Furthermore, I have learned about space radiation and radiation modeling, topics that greatly interest me as I pursue a degree in physics. Working alongside experimental physicists like Dr. Rios, I have developed a greater understanding and appreciation for experimental science, something I have always leaned towards but to which I lacked significant exposure. My work in SRAG has also given me the invaluable opportunity to witness the work environment for physicists at NASA, and what a career in academia may look like at a government laboratory such as NASA Johnson Space Center. As I continue my studies and look forward to graduate school and a future career, this experience at NASA has given me a meaningful and enjoyable opportunity to put my skills to use and see what my future career path might hold.

Offermann, Jan Tuzlic↗