Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “reporting”

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.

At least 361 records · Page 20
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1996

NASA/DOD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project: Survey of Reader Preferences Concerning the Format of NASA Langley-Authored Technical Reports - Paper 58

The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded research and development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. Little is also known about the intermediary-based system that is used to transfer the results of federally funded R&D to the U.S. aerospace industry. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the NASA/DOD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. In this paper, we summarize the literature on the U.S. government technical report and present the results of a survey of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists that solicited their opinions concerning the format of NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC)-authored technical reports. To learn more about the preferences of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists concerning the format of NASA LaRC-authored technical reports, we surveyed 133 report producers (i.e., authors) and 137 report users in March-April 1996. Questions covered such topics as (1) the order in which report components are read, (2) components used to determine if a report would be read, (3) those components that could be deleted, (4) the placement of such components as the symbols list, (e) the de-sirability of a table of contents, (5) the format of reference citations, (6) column layout and right margin treatment, and (7) and person and voice. Mail (self-reported) surveys were used to collect the data. The response rates for report producers (i.e., authors) was 68% and for users was 62%.

Pinelli, Thomas E.↗
NASA NTRS1997

NASA/DOD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Paper 65: Survey of Reader Preferences Concerning the Format of NASA Langley-Authored Technical Reports

The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded research and development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. Little is also known about the intermediary-based system that is used to transfer the results of federally funded R&D to the U.S. aerospace industry. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. In this article, we summarize the literature on the U.S. government technical report and present the results of a survey of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists that solicited their opinions concerning the format of NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC)-authored technical reports. To learn more about the preferences of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists concerning the format of NASA LaRC-authored technical reports, we surveyed 133 report producers (i.e., authors) and 137 report users in March-April 1996. Questions covered such topics as: (a) the order in which report components are read; (b) components used to determine if a report would be read; (c) those components that could be deleted; (d) the placement of such components as the symbols list; (e) the desirability of a table of contents; (f) the format of reference citations; (g) column layout and right margin treatment; and (h) writing style in terms of person and voice. Mail (self-reported) surveys were used to collect the data. The response rates for report producers (i.e., authors) was 68% and for users was 62%.

Pinelli, Thomas E.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Technology Development Report: CDDF, Dual Use Partnerships, SBIR/STTR: Fiscal Year 2003 Activities

The FY2003 NASA John C. Stennis Stennis Space Center (SSC) Technology Development Report provides an integrated report of all technology development activities at SSC. This report actually combines three annual reports: the Center Director's Discretionary Fund (CDDF) Program Report, Dual Use Program Report, and the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program Report. These reports are integrated in one document to summarize all technology development activities underway in support of the NASA missions assigned to SSC. The Dual Use Program Report provides a summary review of the results and status of the nine (9) Dual Use technology development partnership projects funded and managed at SSC during FY2003. The objective of these partnership projects is to develop or enhance technologies that will meet the technology needs of the two NASA SSC Mission Areas: Propulsion Test and Earth Science Applications. During FY2003, the TDTO managed twenty (20) SBIR Phase II Projects and two (2) STTR Phase II Projects. The SBIR contracts support low TRL technology development that supports both the Propulsion Test and the Earth Science Application missions. These projects are shown in the SBIR/STTR Report. In addition to the Phase II contracts, the TDTO managed ten (10) SBIR Phase I contracts which are fixed price, six month feasibility study contracts. These are not listed in this report. Together, the Dual Use Projects and the SBIR/STTR Projects constitute a technology development partnership approach that has demonstrated that success can be achieved through the identification of the technical needs of the NASA mission and using various available partnership techniques to maximize resource utilization to achieve mutual technology goals. Greater use of these partnership techniques and the resource leveraging they provide, is a goal of the TDTO, providing more support to meet the technology development needs of the mission areas at SSC.

Bailey, John W.↗
NASA NTRS2005

International VLBI Service for Geodesy and Astrometry 2004 Annual Report

Contents include the following: Combination Studies using the Cont02 Campaign. Coordinating Center report. Analysis coordinator report. Network coordinator report. IVS Technology coordinator report. Algonquin Radio observatory. Fortaleza Station report for 2004. Gilmore Creek Geophysical Observatory. Goddard Geophysical and Astronomical observatory. Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory (HartRAO). Hbart, Mt Pleasant, station report for 2004. Kashima 34m Radio Telescope. Kashima and Koganei 11-m VLBI Stations. Kokee Park Geophysical Observatory. Matera GGS VLBI Station. The Medicina Station status report. Report of the Mizusawa 10m Telescope. Noto Station Activity. NYAL Ny-Alesund 20 metre Antenna. German Antarctic receiving Station (GARS) O'higgins. The IVS network station Onsala space Observatory. Sheshan VLBI Station report for 2004. 10 Years of Geodetic Experiments at the Simeiz VLBI Station. Svetloe RAdio Astronomical Observatory. JARE Syowa Station 11-m Antenna, Antarctica. Geodetic Observatory TIGO in Concepcion. Tsukuba 32-m VLBI Station. Nanshan VLBI Station Report. Westford Antenna. Fundamental-station Wettzell 20m Radiotelescope. Observatorio Astroonomico Nacional Yebes. Yellowknife Observatory. The Bonn Geodetic VLBI Operation Center. CORE Operation Center Report. U.S. Naval Observatory Operation Center. The Bonn Astro/Geo Mark IV Correlator.

Behrend, Dirk↗
NASA NTRS2011

An Interim Report on NASA's Draft Space Technology Roadmaps

NASA has developed a set of 14 draft roadmaps to guide the development of space technologies under the leadership of the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT). Each of these roadmaps focuses on a particular technology area (TA). The roadmaps are intended to foster the development of advanced technologies and concepts that address NASA's needs and contribute to other aerospace and national needs. OCT requested that the National Research Council conduct a study to review the draft roadmaps, gather and assess relevant community input, and make recommendations and suggest priorities to inform NASA's decisions as it finalizes its roadmaps. The statement of task states that "based on the results of the community input and its own deliberations, the steering committee will prepare a brief interim report that addresses high-level issues associated with the roadmaps, such as the advisability of modifying the number or technical focus of the draft NASA roadmaps." This interim report, which does not include formal recommendations, addresses that one element of the study charge. NASA requested this interim report so that it would have the opportunity to make an early start in modifying the draft roadmaps based on feedback from the panels and steering committee. The final report will address all other tasks in the statement of task. In particular, the final report will include a prioritization of technologies, will describe in detail the prioritization process and criteria, and will include specific recommendations on a variety of topics, including many of the topics mentioned in this interim report. In developing both this interim report and the final report to come, the steering committee draws on the work of six study panels organized by technical area, loosely following the organization of the 14 roadmaps, as follows: A Panel 1: Propulsion and Power TA01 Launch Propulsion Systems TA02 In-Space Propulsion Technologies TA03 Space Power and Energy Storage Systems TA13 Ground and Launch Systems Processing B Panel 2: Robotics, Communications, and Navigation TA04 Robotics, TeleRobotics, and Autonomous Systems TA05 Communication and Navigation Systems C Panel 3: Instruments and Computing TA08 Science Instruments, Observatories, and Sensor Systems TA11 Modeling, Simulation, Information Technology, and Data Processing D Panel 4: Human Health and Surface Exploration TA06 Human Health, Life Support, and Habitation Systems TA07 Human Exploration Destination Systems E Panel 5: Materials Panel TA10 Nanotechnology TA12 Materials, Structures, Mechanical Systems, and Manufacturing TA14 Thermal Management Systems F Panel 6: Entry, Descent, and Landing Panel TA09 Entry, Descent, and Landing Systems In addition to drawing on the expertise represented on the steering committee and panels, the committee obtained input from each of 14 public workshops held on each of the 14 roadmaps. At these 1-day workshops, invited speakers, guests, and members of the public engaged in discussions on the different technology areas and their value to NASA. Broad community input was also solicited from a public website, where more than 240 public comments were received on the draft roadmaps in response to application of criteria (such as benefit, risk and reasonableness, and alignment with NASA and national goals) that the steering committee established. This interim report reflects the results of deliberations by the steering committee in light of these public inputs as well as additional inputs from the six panels. The steering committee's final report will be completed early in 2012. That report will prioritize the technologies that span the entire scope of the 14 roadmaps and provide additional guidance on crosscutting themes and other relevant topics.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2004

Lessons Learned Study Final Report for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate

This report is the final product of a 90-day study performed for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. The study was to assemble lessons NASA has learned from previous programs that could help the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate pursue the Exploration vision. It focuses on those lessons that should have the greatest significance to the Directorate during the formulation of program and mission plans. The study team reviewed a large number of lessons learned reports and data bases, including the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and Rogers Commission reports on the Shuttle accidents, accident reports from robotic space flight systems, and a number of management reviews by the Defense Sciences Board, Government Accountability Office, and others. The consistency of the lessons, findings, and recommendations validate the adequacy of the data set. In addition to reviewing existing databases, a series of workshops was held at each of the NASA centers and headquarters that included senior managers from the current workforce as well as retirees. The full text of the workshop reports is included in Appendix A. A lessons learned website was opened up to permit current and retired NASA personnel and on-site contractors to input additional lessons as they arise. These new lessons, when of appropriate quality and relevance, will be brought to the attention of managers. The report consists of four parts: Part 1 provides a small set of lessons, called the Executive Lessons Learned, that represent critical lessons that the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate should act on immediately. This set of Executive Lessons and their supporting rationale have been reviewed at length and fully endorsed by a team of distinguished NASA alumni; Part 2 contains a larger set of lessons, called the Selected Lessons Learned, which have been chosen from the lessons database and center workshop reports on the basis of their specific significance and relevance to the near-term work of the Exploration Directorate. These lessons frequently support the Executive lessons but are more general in nature; Part 3 consists of the reports of the center workshops that were conducted as part of this activity. These reports are included in their entirety (approximately 200 pages) in Appendix G and have significance for specific managers; Part 4 consists of the remainder of the lessons that have been selected by this effort and assembled into a database for the use of the Explorations Directorate. The database is archived and hosted in the Lessons Learned Knowledge Network, which provides a flexible search capability using a wide variety of search terms. Finally, a spreadsheet lists databases searched and a bibliography identifies reports that have been reviewed as sources of lessons for this task. NASA has been presented with many learning opportunities. We have conducted numerous programs, some extremely successful and others total failures. Most have been documented with a formal lessons learned activity, but we have not always incorporated these learning opportunities into our normal modes of business. For example, the Robbins Report of 2001 clearly indicates that many project failures of the past two decades were the result of violating well documented best practices, often in direct violation of management instructions and directives. An overarching lesson emerges: that disciplined execution in accordance with proven best practices is the greatest single contributor to a successful program. The Lessons Learned task team offers a sincere hope that the lessons presented herein will be helpful to the Exploration Systems Directorate in charting and executing their course. The success of the Directorate and of NASA in general depends on our collective ability to move forward without having to relearn the lessons of those who have gone before.

Van Laak, Jim↗
DOE OSTI2021

Core Analysis E-Reports Produced for the Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration for Wells 13-10A, 13-14, and 32-8 of the Farnsworth Unit, Texas

The submission is three electronic reports (e-reports) produced by Terra Tek, a former Schlumberger company, for and under the oversight of the Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP). The SWP designed and implemented a coring and core analysis program in conjunction with the previous field operator Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. The main SWP contacts who oversaw the coring and core analysis program, including geologic core descriptions and sample selection for testing by the Terra Tek, are listed below in the Authors section. The three reports are for Wells 13-10A, 13-14, and 32-8 of the Farnsworth Unit, TX, a site of the SWP's CO2 storage and enhanced oil recovery project. The e-reports include many data types that are not listed in full detail here, but may include: geomechanical, geochemical, and petrophysical measurements; white light and UV core photos; spectral gamma logs on the core; and Heterogeneous Rock Analysis logs. Fracture core review reports are included for Wells 13-14 and 32-8. The three e-reports each have many subfolders with the various types of data in spreadsheets, pdfs, image files, or other formats. The main e-reports for each well are listed by the well name. The sub-folder “E-Report” for each well has a Report.html file, which, when opened, will have hyperlinks to the various data sets and information. The files in the zipped folder will need to be extracted for the Report.html files to work properly. These authors thank Joseph Hall, a geologist formerly of Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., for assistance in designing the coring program, his geologic expertise of the Farnsworth Unit, and his assistance with characterizing the core. Christopher Gillespie, of Terra Tek at the time, managed the myriad geomechanical, geochemical, and petrophysical measurements provided by Terra Tek for this project. The core from which the samples were collected for this project are housed at the Subsurface Data and Core Libraries of the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro, New Mexico, USA. Funding for this project is provided by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) through the Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) under Award No. DE-FC26-05NT42591. Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525. These e-reports describe objective technical results and analysis. Any subjective views or opinions that might be expressed in the reports do not necessarily represent the views of the US Department of Energy or the United States Government.

Caprock↗
NASA NTRS2001

International Space Station Increment-2 Quick Look Report

The objective of this quick look report is to disseminate the International Space Station (ISS) Increment-2 reduced gravity environment preliminary analysis in a timely manner to the microgravity scientific community. This report is a quick look at the processed acceleration data collected by the Microgravity Acceleration Measurement System (MAMS) during the period of May 3 to June 8, 2001. The report is by no means an exhaustive examination of all the relevant activities, which occurred during the time span mentioned above for two reasons. First, the time span being considered in this report is rather short since the MAMS was not active throughout the time span being considered to allow a detailed characterization. Second, as the name of the report implied, it is a quick look at the acceleration data. Consequently, a more comprehensive report, the ISS Increment-2 report, will be published following the conclusion of the Increment-2 tour of duty. NASA sponsors the MAMS and the Space Acceleration Microgravity System (SAMS) to support microgravity science experiments, which require microgravity acceleration measurements. On April 19, 2001, both the MAMS and the SAMS units were launched on STS-100 from the Kennedy Space Center for installation on the ISS. The MAMS unit was flown to the station in support of science experiments requiring quasisteady acceleration data measurements, while the SAMS unit was flown to support experiments requiring vibratory acceleration data measurement. Both acceleration systems are also used in support of the vehicle microgravity requirements verification. The ISS reduced gravity environment analysis presented in this report uses mostly the MAMS acceleration data measurements (the Increment-2 report will cover both systems). The MAMS has two sensors. The MAMS Orbital Acceleration Research Experiment Sensor Subsystem, which is a low frequency range sensor (up to 1 Hz), is used to characterize the quasi-steady environment for payloads and vehicle. The MAMS High Resolution Acceleration Package is used to characterize the ISS vibratory environment up to 100 Hz. This quick look report presents some selected quasi-steady and vibratory activities recorded by the MAMS during the ongoing ISS Increment-2 tour of duty.

Jules, Kenol↗
NASA NTRS2022

Launch Complex 34, SWMU Cc054 2021 DNAPL Source Zone Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring, and Hot Spot 6 Air Sparge System Annual Performance Monitoring Report Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida

This Annual Performance Monitoring Report (PMR) for the Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Source Zone (DSZ) and Hot Spot 6 (HS 6) Air Sparge (AS) System presents the results of Year 12 operation of the hydraulic containment (HC) Interim Measure (IM), the results of performance monitoring direct-push technology (DPT) sampling and monitoring well sampling conducted in the DSZ, and the results of operations and performance sampling of the HS 6 AS IM at Launch Complex 34 (LC34), located at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), Florida. Site-wide biennial LTM sampling was not conducted during this reporting period and is scheduled to be conducted in December 2022. The timeframe for activities documented in this PMR extends from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. LC34 has been designated Solid Waste Management Unit CC054 under the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program. The objective of the HC IM at LC34 is to contain the DSZ and deep dissolved-phase trichloroethene (TCE) high concentration plume via operation of a hydraulic containment system (HCS). The pre-IM design 300 micrograms per liter (μg/L) TCE groundwater contour was used to establish the deep zone capture area for deep recovery wells, and the shallow zone capture area was defined by the DSZ. The system began operating in 2010, and in 2015, the system was expanded to provide HC for areas within the 300 μg/L TCE groundwater isocontours of HS 3 and 4. In 2018 and 2019, an investigation was conducted to re-characterize the DSZ, which included investigating TCE mass in Layer 7. This data was subsequently used to optimize the pumping rates of the HCS to more adequately capture residual contaminant mass. The operational period for Year 12 of the HCS was from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. Operational runtime for the system was 94 percent during Year 12, with downtime events attributed to planned maintenance, system repairs, and power outages. As of March 31, 2022, a total of 285,712,801 gallons of groundwater containing 84,933 pounds of VOCs have been removed by the HCS. Influent concentrations of TCE have decreased since startup from approximately 280,000 µg/L (January 2010) to 12,000 µg/L (March 2022). During the reporting period, all effluent concentrations from the HCS (aqueous and vapor) were below regulatory reporting limits, indicating the system continues to operate as intended. Performance monitoring was conducted in December 2021 within the DSZ to evaluate TCE contamination. Groundwater samples were collected via DPT at nine locations, consistent with previous events in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. Full vertical profile sampling was completed at each DPT from 8 to 98 ft bls, at 5 foot intervals. The DPT performance monitoring results are summarized in this PMR. The results revealed TCE remains at concentrations greater than 11,000 µg/L in the DSZ (1-percent solubility, indicative of DNAPL) at eight of the nine DPT locations at depths ranging from 8 to 98 ft bls. An overall increasing trend of TCE concentrations was observed in DPT samples during this reporting period, which may be due to several recovery wells that were turned off during the AS Pilot Study in the DSZ that operated from July 2021 to February 2022 (documented separately from this report). The maximum TCE concentration in 2021 was 15,400,000 µg/L in the 58 ft bls depth interval at DPT597 (previous maximum result in 2020 was 1,690,000 at 48 ft bls at DPT596). During the 2021 DPT event, the overall majority of TCE contamination was identified in the 58 ft bls interval (below Layer 4), where in the previous year the majority of mass was observed in Layer 4. This trend appears to indicate continued mass discharge from Layer 4 (fine-grained unit). In addition to DPT sampling, monitoring well samples were collected from deep wells in the DSZ area (Layers 7 and 8) to verify vertical delineation. All monitoring well results were non-detect or below cleanup levels, with exception of one well (IW0162, screened 105 to 115 ft bls, which is below the existing recovery well capture zone) where TCE was identified above cleanup target levels. The HS 6 AS system remained operational during the reporting period covered under this report. The HS 6 AS IM was initiated in 2018 with 160 AS wells, and expanded in 2019 with an additional 140 AS wells. Quarterly performance monitoring was reduced to semi-annual prior to this operational period. The results of the HS 6 system operation and semi-annual performance monitoring are summarized in this report. Semi-annual monitoring results collected in April and October 2021 show concentrations of contaminants of concern (cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,2- dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride) are generally decreasing and not impacting the surface water drainage canal, indicating the HS 6 IM is meeting objectives. Overall, the tasks associated with Year 12 operation of the HC IM and operation of the HS 6 AS IM were performed in accordance with the recommendations of the 2020 LC34 (Year 11) Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Report for DNAPL Source Zone, Site Wide LongTerm Monitoring, and Hot Spot 6 Air Sparging System PMR (NASA, 2021c). Evaluation of results from the HC IM and HS 6 IM show that these systems are operating as designed and meeting performance objectives.

trichloroethene↗
DOE OSTI2023

Prevalence of Self-Reported Bothersome Tinnitus in U.S. Army Soldiers From January 1, 2015, Through September 30, 2019

Purpose: Tinnitus is a symptom of auditory dysfunction or injury and can be a precursor to permanent hearing loss. Tinnitus can interfere with communication, sleep, concentration, and mood; when this occurs, it is referred to as bothersome tinnitus. Annual hearing surveillance in the U.S. Army includes screening for bothersome tinnitus. Estimating the prevalence of self-reported bothersome tinnitus can facilitate prioritization of prevention and education efforts. The objective of this study was to examine Army hearing conservation data to estimate the prevalence of self-reported bothersome tinnitus as a function of age, hearing, sex, service component, and pay grade. Method: The study employed a cross-sectional, retrospective design. Records from 1,485,059 U.S. Army Soldiers retrieved from the Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System–Hearing Conservation were analyzed. Descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression analysis were used to estimate the prevalence of bothersome tinnitus and its associations with Soldiers' demographic characteristics. Results: The estimated prevalence of self-reported bothersome tinnitus was 17.1% between January 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019; 13.6% of the Soldiers reported “bothered a little” and 3.5% reported “bothered a lot.” Proportionally, the prevalence of self-reported bothersome tinnitus was higher for males, older Soldiers, and Reserve Component Soldiers. For every 1-year increase in age, the odds of self-reporting “bothered a little” tinnitus relative to “bothered not at all tinnitus” would be expected to increase by 2.2% (2.1%, 2.3%), and the odds of self-reporting “bothered a lot” tinnitus relative to “bothered not at all” tinnitus would be expected to increase by 3.6% (3.5%, 3.7%). Conclusions: The self-reported prevalence of bothersome tinnitus in the U.S. Army (17.1%) is substantially higher than that of the general population, where prevalence of bothersome tinnitus is estimated at 6.6%. Examination of bothersome tinnitus among Soldiers is an important step toward optimizing prevention, education, and intervention efforts.

Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology↗
DOE OSTI2020

ESS-DIVE reporting format for leaf-level gas exchange data and metadata

Here we present documentation of the ESS-DIVE reporting format for leaf-level gas exchange data and metadata. This reporting format provides guidance to data contributors on how to store data to maximize their discoverability, facilitate their efficient reuse, and add value to individual datasets. For data users, the reporting format will better allow data repositories to optimize data search and extraction, and more readily integrate similar data into harmonized synthesis products. The reporting format specifies data table variable naming and unit conventions, as well as metadata characterizing experimental conditions and protocols. For common data types that were the focus of this initial version of the reporting format, i.e., survey measurements, dark respiration, carbon dioxide and light response curves, and parameters derived from those measurements, we took a further step of defining required additional data that would maximize the potential reuse of those data types. To aid data contributors and the development of data ingest tools by data repositories we provided a translation table comparing the outputs of common gas exchange instruments. The reporting format presented here is intended to form a foundation for future development that will incorporate additional data types and variables as gas exchange systems and measurement approaches advance in the future. The reporting format documentation is maintained and updated on the ESS-DIVE Community Space GitHub. This data package is the first published version of this reporting format, and comprises a zip file of the complete content of https://github.com/ess-dive-community/essdive-leaf-gas-exchange v1.0. The zip contains the reporting format description, guidelines, variable tables and instructions in GitHub markdown language (*.md) and 2 metadata templates as spreadsheets with drop down options (*.xlsx files, also function in GoogleSheets).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

2019 LANL Radionuclide Air Emissions Report

In June 2020, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) submitted letter ESHQSS: 20-025 to Region 6 of the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This letter transmitted the 2019 LANL Radionuclide Air Emissions Report to the EPA. This report summarizes LANL operations, air emissions of radionuclides, and subsequent off-site dose consequence from these emissions for calendar year 2019. This report is issued to meet requirements of 40 CFR 61 Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities. This regulation, called the Radionuclide NESHAP, establishes a limit of 10 millirem per year to the maximally exposed member of the public and requires an annual report to be submitted to the appropriate EPA Region by June 30th of each year. LANL’s off-site dose from airborne emissions of radionuclides in 2019 was 0.43 millirem. The normal practice is to issue this report directly to EPA Region 6 in June of each year, and then after the report is accepted by the EPA, re-issue the report for inclusion in the LANL Electronic Public Reading Room (EPRR). This second part is usually done in July of each year, but this step was overlooked in July 2020 due to other commitments. We regret this error. This omission was noted in late 2020; we are submitting the 2019 LANL Radionuclide Air Emissions Report to the EPRR now in December 2020. Aside from the addition of this cover sheet explaining the delay, the report is unchanged from the version submitted to EPA Region 6 in June.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Annual Site Environment Report for Calendar Year 2023 - Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

This report provides the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the public with information on the level of radioactive and non-radioactive pollutants (if any) that are added to the environment as a result of Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s (PPPL) operations. This report fulfills the annual public reporting requirements of DOE Order 231.1B. The results of PPPL’s 2023 environmental surveillance and monitoring program are presented and discussed. The report also summarizes environmental initiatives, assessments, and community involvement programs that were undertaken in 2023. This report provides the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the public with information on the level of radioactive and non-radioactive pollutants (if any) that are added to the environment as a result of Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s (PPPL) operations. This report fulfills the annual public reporting requirements of DOE Order 231.1B. The results of PPPL’s 2023 environmental surveillance and monitoring program are presented and discussed. The report also summarizes environmental initiatives, assessments, and community involvement programs that were undertaken in 2023. In 2023, PPPL’s radiological environmental monitoring program measured tritium in the air at onsite sampling stations. Using highly sensitive air monitors, PPPL is capable of detecting small changes in the ambient levels of tritium. The operation of monitors located on D-site is used to demonstrate compliance with the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) regulations. Also included in PPPL’s radiological environmental monitoring program, are water monitoring – ground, surface, and waste waters. PPPL’s radiological monitoring program characterized the background levels of tritium in the environment and those data are presented in this report. Ground water monitoring continued under New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) Site Remediation Program regulations. PPPL monitored for non-radiological contaminants, mainly volatile organic compounds (components of common degreasing solvents). In 2023, PPPL complied with permit limits for surface water and sanitary wastewater discharges. PPPL was honored with an award for EPEAT-certified electronics purchasing from the Global Electronics Council on July 27, 2023.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
NASA NTRS1985

NASA's New Technology Reporting System: A Review and Future Prospects

This report represents a systematic effort to describe how NASA's new technology reporting system operates today, and how that system might be enhanced. Although the system has run for more than two decades, it is not well documented in terms of organization, operational practices, or other program benchmarks. The study seeks to identify and assess incentives or disincentives to reporting, program management, program follow through, and the feasibility of various means for improving the general process. Initially, it was hoped that the study team might uncover the kind of information that would permit the determination of some 'average' sequence of events (or a time line) from the point of identifying a solution to technical 'need' to the point where its solution was actually reported to NASA. Information regarding this objective proved to be too elusive, primarily because early probes revealed that con- tractor awareness of the new technology requirements generally was too poor to provide useful information. The report that follows is based primarily upon documents furnished by NASA Headquarters, by Field Center technology utilization officers, and interviews with persons knowledgeable about the system. Visits were made to seven Field Centers: Ames Research Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Johnson Space Center, Langley Research Center, Lewis Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center. Other documents were furnished by officials of major aerospace corporations. Detailed interviews were conducted with Field Center technology utilization officials, project engineers or scientists, patent counsels, and other Field Center officials who had knowledge about the new technology reporting system. Interviews also were conducted with knowledgeable officials from a number of the primary aerospace companies. Numeric data was obtained from regular NASA reports, from original sources such as, NASA Tech Briefs, or from contractor reports. I am indebted to dozens of persons in both NASA and industry who took time to assist in the data collection by being interviewed, and through answering follow up questions on the telephone. Individuals interviewed and their affiliations are shown in Appendix A. I am most grateful to them for their kind assistance. A note of thanks is due to the other members of the DRI study team: Jody Briles, Kathy Hirst, and Joel Johnson. The responsibility for this report, its accuracy, and the nature of the observations and conclusions rest solely with the author. Text or citations in the numbered footnotes are to be found at the end of each chapter.

Chapman, Richard L.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Aviation Safety Reporting System: Process and Procedures

The Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) was established in 1976 under an agreement between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This cooperative safety program invites pilots, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, maintenance personnel, and others to voluntarily report to NASA any aviation incident or safety hazard. The FAA provides most of the program funding. NASA administers the program, sets its policies in consultation with the FAA and aviation community, and receives the reports submitted to the program. The FAA offers those who use the ASRS program two important reporting guarantees: confidentiality and limited immunity. Reports sent to ASRS are held in strict confidence. More than 350,000 reports have been submitted since the program's beginning without a single reporter's identity being revealed. ASRS removes all personal names and other potentially identifying information before entering reports into its database. This system is a very successful, proof-of-concept for gathering safety data in order to provide timely information about safety issues. The ASRS information is crucial to aviation safety efforts both nationally and internationally. It can be utilized as the first step in safety by providing the direction and content to informed policies, procedures, and research, especially human factors. The ASRS process and procedures will be presented as one model of safety reporting feedback systems.

Connell, Linda J.↗
NASA NTRS2006

TOPEX Radar Altimeter Engineering Assessment Report Final Update-Side B Turn-On to End-of-Mission on October 9, 2005

This is the thirteenth and final report in a series of TOPEX Radar Altimeter Engineering Assessment Reports. The initial TOPEX Radar Altimeter Engineering Assessment Report, in February 1994, presented performance results for the NASA Radar Altimeter on the TOPEX/POSEIDON spacecraft, from its launch in August 1992 to February 1994. Since the time of that initial report and prior to this report, there have been eleven interim supplemental Engineering Assessment Reports, issued in March 1995, May 1996, March 1997, June 1998, August 1999, September 2000, June 2001, March 2002, May 2003, April 2004 and September 2005. The sixth supplement in September 2000 was the first assessment report that addressed Side B performance, and presented the altimeter performance from Side B turn-on until the end of calendar year 1999. This report extends the performance assessment of Side B to the final collection of data on October 9, 2005, and includes the performance assessment of Jason-1, the TOPEX follow-on mission, launched on December 7, 2001. This report provides some comparisons of Side A and Side B performance.

Lockwood, Dennis W.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Space Shuttle Guidance, Navigation, and Rendezvous Knowledge Capture Reports

This document is a catalog and readers guide to lessons learned, experience, and technical history reports, as well as compilation volumes prepared by United Space Alliance personnel for the NASA/Johnson Space Center (JSC) Flight Dynamics Division.1 It is intended to make it easier for future generations of engineers to locate knowledge capture documentation from the Shuttle Program. The first chapter covers observations on documentation quality and research challenges encountered during the Space Shuttle and Orion programs. The second chapter covers the knowledge capture approach used to create many of the reports covered in this document. These chapters are intended to provide future flight programs with insight that could be used to formulate knowledge capture and management strategies. The following chapters contain descriptions of each knowledge capture report. The majority of the reports concern the Space Shuttle. Three are included that were written in support of the Orion Program. Most of the reports were written from the years 2001 to 2011. Lessons learned reports concern primarily the shuttle Global Positioning System (GPS) upgrade and the knowledge capture process. Experience reports on navigation and rendezvous provide examples of how challenges were overcome and how best practices were identified and applied. Some reports are of a more technical history nature covering navigation and rendezvous. They provide an overview of mission activities and the evolution of operations concepts and trajectory design. The lessons learned, experience, and history reports would be considered secondary sources by historians and archivists.

John L Goodman↗
NASA NTRS2012

2011 NASA Range Safety Annual Report

Welcome to the 2011 edition of the NASA Range Safety Annual Report. Funded by NASA Headquarters, this report provides a NASA Range Safety overview for current and potential range users. As is typical with odd year editions, this is an abbreviated Range Safety Annual Report providing updates and links to full articles from the previous year's report. It also provides more complete articles covering new subject areas, summaries of various NASA Range Safety Program activities conducted during the past year, and information on several projects that may have a profound impact on the way business will be done in the future. Specific topics discussed and updated in the 2011 NASA Range Safety Annual Report include a program overview and 2011 highlights; Range Safety Training; Range Safety Policy revision; Independent Assessments; Support to Program Operations at all ranges conducting NASA launch/flight operations; a continuing overview of emerging range safety-related technologies; and status reports from all of the NASA Centers that have Range Safety responsibilities. Every effort has been made to include the most current information available. We recommend this report be used only for guidance and that the validity and accuracy of all articles be verified for updates. Once again the web-based format was used to present the annual report. We continually receive positive feedback on the web-based edition and hope you enjoy this year's product as well. As is the case each year, contributors to this report are too numerous to mention, but we thank individuals from the NASA Centers, the Department of Defense, and civilian organizations for their contributions. In conclusion, it has been a busy and productive year. I'd like to extend a personal Thank You to everyone who contributed to make this year a successful one, and I look forward to working with all of you in the upcoming year.

Dumont, Alan G.↗