SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The program, project, system level cost and schedule data for the modular space station development are presented.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
No abstract available
Grid2 is a program that utilizes the Galileo Interim Radiation Electron model 2 (GIRE2) Jovian radiation model to compute fluences and doses for Jupiter missions. (Note: The iterations of these two softwares have been GIRE and GIRE2; likewise Grid and Grid2.) While GIRE2 is an important improvement over the original GIRE radiation model, the GIRE2 model can take as long as a day or more to compute these quantities for a complete mission. Grid2 fits the results of the detailed GIRE2 code with a set of grids in local time and position thereby greatly speeding up the execution of the model--minutes as opposed to days. The Grid2 model covers the time period from 1971 to 2050and distances of 1.03 to 30 Jovian diameters (Rj). It is available as a direct-access database through a FORTRAN interface program. The new database is only slightly larger than the original grid version: 1.5 gigabytes (GB) versus 1.2 GB.
No abstract available
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Abstract not provided.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This report compares the performance of three Circular Error Probable (CEP) estimators: the Grubbs-Patnaik estimator, a new, non-iterative, radial-integration estimator, and a median estimator. It also compares the performance of two Spherical Error Probable (SEP) estimators. The performance of each estimator is assessed in terms of bias, uncertainty, robustness, and computational complexity. Robustness is evaluated with respect to outliers, variations in the underlying statistical distribution characterizing munition impact positions, and impact-position measurement errors. The performance assessments indicate the radial-integration and Grubbs-Patnaik estimators perform nearly identically providing the statistical distribution of impact-position coordinates is jointly normal with zero means. In that case, both estimators outperform the median estimator by about 2% relative to the true CEP in terms of estimator uncertainty. The bias performance of the radial-integration and median estimators is close to zero for jointly normal impacts, however, the Grubbs-Patnaik estimator can be significantly biased for jointly normal impacts with non-zero means. When the statistical distribution characterizing impact positions is known, but not jointly normal, the radial-integration estimator is superior. In this case, the median estimator also outperforms the Grubbs-Patnaik estimator but is not quite as good as the radial-integration estimator. If the statistical distribution characterizing impacts is unknown and not jointly normal, or if distribution parameters are difficult or impractical to estimate, or if test data is corrupted with outliers, then the median estimator dramatically outperforms the other estimators, especially in terms of estimation bias. Unexpectedly, measurement noise did not significantly degrade the performance of any of the estimators, except for cases with signal to noise ratios less than five. Although the Grubbs-Patnaik estimator has remained the gold standard for CEP estimation for over half a century, the performance assessments indicate the new, non-iterative, radial-integration estimator and the median estimator offer significant advantages and, in most practical real-world conditions, are superior estimators. These estimators are also useful for SEP estimation whereas the Grubbs-Patnaik estimator does not extend to three dimensions.
Airborne scanning LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) has emerged as a promising tool to provide auxiliary data for sample surveys aiming at estimation of above-ground tree biomass (AGB), with potential applications in REDD forest monitoring. For larger geographical regions such as counties, states or nations, it is not feasible to collect airborne LiDAR data continuously ("wall-to-wall") over the entire area of interest. Two-stage cluster survey designs have therefore been demonstrated by which LiDAR data are collected along selected individual flight-lines treated as clusters and with ground plots sampled along these LiDAR swaths. Recently, analytical AGB estimators and associated variance estimators that quantify the sampling variability have been proposed. Empirical studies employing these estimators have shown a seemingly equal or even larger uncertainty of the AGB estimates obtained with extensive use of LiDAR data to support the estimation as compared to pure field-based estimates employing estimators appropriate under simple random sampling (SRS). However, comparison of uncertainty estimates under SRS and sophisticated two-stage designs is complicated by large differences in the designs and assumptions. In this study, probability-based principles to estimation and inference were followed. We assumed designs of a field sample and a LiDAR-assisted survey of Hedmark County (HC) (27,390 km2), Norway, considered to be more comparable than those assumed in previous studies. The field sample consisted of 659 systematically distributed National Forest Inventory (NFI) plots and the airborne scanning LiDAR data were collected along 53 parallel flight-lines flown over the NFI plots. We compared AGB estimates based on the field survey only assuming SRS against corresponding estimates assuming two-phase (double) sampling with LiDAR and employing model-assisted estimators. We also compared AGB estimates based on the field survey only assuming two-stage sampling (the NFI plots being grouped in clusters) against corresponding estimates assuming two-stage sampling with the LiDAR and employing model-assisted estimators. For each of the two comparisons, the standard errors of the AGB estimates were consistently lower for the LiDAR-assisted designs. The overall reduction of the standard errors in the LiDAR-assisted estimation was around 40-60% compared to the pure field survey. We conclude that the previously proposed two-stage model-assisted estimators are inappropriate for surveys with unequal lengths of the LiDAR flight-lines and new estimators are needed. Some options for design of LiDAR-assisted sample surveys under REDD are also discussed, which capitalize on the flexibility offered when the field survey is designed as an integrated part of the overall survey design as opposed to previous LiDAR-assisted sample surveys in the boreal and temperate zones which have been restricted by the current design of an existing NFI.
We wish to better constrain the properties of solar flares by exploring how parameterized models of solar flares interact with uncertainty estimation methods. We compare four different methods of calculating uncertainty estimates in fitting parameterized models to Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager X-ray spectra, considering only statistical sources of error. Three of the four methods are based on estimating the scale-size of the minimum in a hypersurface formed by the weighted sum of the squares of the differences between the model fit and the data as a function of the fit parameters, and are implemented as commonly practiced. The fourth method is also based on the difference between the data and the model, but instead uses Bayesian data analysis and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques to calculate an uncertainty estimate. Two flare spectra are modeled: one from the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite X1.3 class flare of 2005 January 19, and the other from the X4.8 flare of 2002 July 23. We find that the four methods give approximately the same uncertainty estimates for the 2005 January 19 spectral fit parameters, but lead to very different uncertainty estimates for the 2002 July 23 spectral fit. This is because each method implements different analyses of the hypersurface, yielding method-dependent results that can differ greatly depending on the shape of the hypersurface. The hypersurface arising from the 2005 January 19 analysis is consistent with a normal distribution; therefore, the assumptions behind the three non-Bayesian uncertainty estimation methods are satisfied and similar estimates are found. The 2002 July 23 analysis shows that the hypersurface is not consistent with a normal distribution, indicating that the assumptions behind the three non-Bayesian uncertainty estimation methods are not satisfied, leading to differing estimates of the uncertainty. We find that the shape of the hypersurface is crucial in understanding the output from each uncertainty estimation technique, and that a crucial factor determining the shape of hypersurface is the location of the low-energy cutoff relative to energies where the thermal emission dominates. The Bayesian/MCMC approach also allows us to provide detailed information on probable values of the low-energy cutoff, E{sub c} , a crucial parameter in defining the energy content of the flare-accelerated electrons. We show that for the 2002 July 23 flare data, there is a 95% probability that E{sub c} lies below approximately 40 keV, and a 68% probability that it lies in the range 7-36 keV. Further, the low-energy cutoff is more likely to be in the range 25-35 keV than in any other 10 keV wide energy range. The low-energy cutoff for the 2005 January 19 flare is more tightly constrained to 107 {+-} 4 keV with 68% probability. Using the Bayesian/MCMC approach, we also estimate for the first time probability density functions for the total number of flare-accelerated electrons and the energy they carry for each flare studied. For the 2002 July 23 event, these probability density functions are asymmetric with long tails orders of magnitude higher than the most probable value, caused by the poorly constrained value of the low-energy cutoff. The most probable electron power is estimated at 10{sup 28.1} erg s{sup -1}, with a 68% credible interval estimated at 10{sup 28.1}-10{sup 29.0} erg s{sup -1}, and a 95% credible interval estimated at 10{sup 28.0}-10{sup 30.2} erg s{sup -1}. For the 2005 January 19 flare spectrum, the probability density functions for the total number of flare-accelerated electrons and their energy are much more symmetric and narrow: the most probable electron power is estimated at 10{sup 27.66{+-}0.01} erg s{sup -1} (68% credible intervals). However, in this case the uncertainty due to systematic sources of error is estimated to dominate the uncertainty due to statistical sources of error.
The performance of mean-frequency estimators for Doppler radar and lidar measurements of winds is presented in terms of two basic parameters: Phi, the ratio of the average signal energy per estimate to the spectral noise level; and Omega, which is proportional to the number of independent samples per estimate. For fixed Phi and Omega, the Cramer-Rao bound (CRB) (theoretical best performance) for unbiased estimators of mean frequency (normalized by the spectral width of the signal), signal power, and spectral width are essentially independent of the number of data samples M. For large Phi, the estimators of mean frequency are unbiased and the performance is independent of M. The spectral domain estimators and covariance based estimators are bounded by the approximate period of M. The spectral domain estimators and covariance based estimators are bounded by the approximate periodogram CRB. The standard deviation of the maximum-likelihood estimator approaches the exact CRB, which can be more than a factor of 2 better than the performance of the spectral domain estimators or covariance-based estimators for typical Omega. For small Phi, the estimators are biased due to the effects of the uncorrelated noise (white noise), which results in uniformly distributed 'bad' estimates. The fraction of bad estimates is a function of Phi and M with weak dependence on the parameter Omega. Simple empirical models describe the standard deviation of the good estimates and the fraction of bad estimates. For Doppler lidar and for large Phi, better performance is obtained by using many low-energy pulses instead of one pulse with the same total energy. For small Phi, the converse is true.
A procedure is described to estimate bias errors for mean precipitation by using multiple estimates from different algorithms, satellite sources, and merged products. The Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly product is used as a base precipitation estimate, with other input products included when they are within +/- 50% of the GPCP estimates on a zonal-mean basis (ocean and land separately). The standard deviation s of the included products is then taken to be the estimated systematic, or bias, error. The results allow one to examine monthly climatologies and the annual climatology, producing maps of estimated bias errors, zonal-mean errors, and estimated errors over large areas such as ocean and land for both the tropics and the globe. For ocean areas, where there is the largest question as to absolute magnitude of precipitation, the analysis shows spatial variations in the estimated bias errors, indicating areas where one should have more or less confidence in the mean precipitation estimates. In the tropics, relative bias error estimates (s/m, where m is the mean precipitation) over the eastern Pacific Ocean are as large as 20%, as compared with 10%-15% in the western Pacific part of the ITCZ. An examination of latitudinal differences over ocean clearly shows an increase in estimated bias error at higher latitudes, reaching up to 50%. Over land, the error estimates also locate regions of potential problems in the tropics and larger cold-season errors at high latitudes that are due to snow. An empirical technique to area average the gridded errors (s) is described that allows one to make error estimates for arbitrary areas and for the tropics and the globe (land and ocean separately, and combined). Over the tropics this calculation leads to a relative error estimate for tropical land and ocean combined of 7%, which is considered to be an upper bound because of the lack of sign-of-the-error canceling when integrating over different areas with a different number of input products. For the globe the calculated relative error estimate from this study is about 9%, which is also probably a slight overestimate. These tropical and global estimated bias errors provide one estimate of the current state of knowledge of the planet's mean precipitation.
Existing national forest inventory plots, an airborne lidar scanning (ALS) system, and a space profiling lidar system (ICESat-GLAS) are used to generate circa 2005 estimates of total aboveground dry biomass (AGB) in forest strata, by state, in the continental United States (CONUS) and Mexico. The airborne lidar is used to link ground observations of AGB to space lidar measurements. Two sets of models are generated, the first relating ground estimates of AGB to airborne laser scanning (ALS) measurements and the second set relating ALS estimates of AGB (generated using the first model set) to GLAS measurements. GLAS then, is used as a sampling tool within a hybrid estimation framework to generate stratum-, state-, and national-level AGB estimates. A two-phase variance estimator is employed to quantify GLAS sampling variability and, additively, ALS-GLAS model variability in this current, three-phase (ground-ALS-space lidar) study. The model variance component characterizes the variability of the regression coefficients used to predict ALS-based estimates of biomass as a function of GLAS measurements. Three different types of predictive models are considered in CONUS to determine which produced biomass totals closest to ground-based national forest inventory estimates - (1) linear (LIN), (2) linear-no-intercept (LNI), and (3) log-linear. For CONUS at the national level, the GLAS LNI model estimate (23.95 +/- 0.45 Gt AGB), agreed most closely with the US national forest inventory ground estimate, 24.17 +/- 0.06 Gt, i.e., within 1%. The national biomass total based on linear ground-ALS and ALS-GLAS models (25.87 +/- 0.49 Gt) overestimated the national ground-based estimate by 7.5%. The comparable log-linear model result (63.29 +/-1.36 Gt) overestimated ground results by 261%. All three national biomass GLAS estimates, LIN, LNI, and log-linear, are based on 241,718 pulses collected on 230 orbits. The US national forest inventory (ground) estimates are based on 119,414 ground plots. At the US state level, the average absolute value of the deviation of LNI GLAS estimates from the comparable ground estimate of total biomass was 18.8% (range: Oregon,−40.8% to North Dakota, 128.6%). Log-linear models produced gross overestimates in the continental US, i.e., N2.6x, and the use of this model to predict regional biomass using GLAS data in temperate, western hemisphere forests is not appropriate. The best model form, LNI, is used to produce biomass estimates in Mexico. The average biomass density in Mexican forests is 53.10 +/- 0.88 t/ha, and the total biomass for the country, given a total forest area of 688,096 sq km, is 3.65 +/- 0.06 Gt. In Mexico, our GLAS biomass total underestimated a 2005 FAO estimate (4.152 Gt) by 12% and overestimated a 2007/8 radar study's figure (3.06 Gt) by 19%.