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 415 records · Page 23
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor System Market Assessment Report. Volume 3: Energy Saving Opportunity

This report seeks to inform the potential for motor systems to support decarbonization by estimating their potential energy, electricity cost, and CO 2 emissions reduction potential from adoption of proven energy efficiency actions and advanced technologies. This is the third and final report in a series of reports disseminating the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Motor System Market Assessment (MSMA). The MSMA and this report focus on polyphase motor systems greater than or equal to 1 horsepower (hp) in the industrial and commercial sectors. In the U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor System Market Assessment Report Volume 1: Characteristics of the Installed Base (Volume 1 report), it was determined that these motor systems consume more than 1,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) annually. This equates to 29% of the U.S. electric grid load and results in 765 million metric tons (MMT) of CO 2 emissions and $166 billion in electricity costs. This report finds that substantial reductions to these energy, cost, and emissions impacts are possible, with three areas of significant opportunity being (1) improved load matching, (2) replacing older inefficient motors with more efficient motors, and (3) improving the condition of fluid (e.g., air, water, compressed air) distribution systems. A summary of the savings potential from these three opportunities placed within the context of the overall consumption for motor systems is illustrated in Figure ES 1 (industrial) and Figure ES 2 (commercial).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Reducing Uncertainty of Fielded Photovoltaic Performance (Final Technical Report)

Improved analysis and reporting of photovoltaic (PV) field performance increases the certainty of owners and financiers that systems will perform as expected. Advanced module technologies (e.g., PERC, HJT, and bifacial) introduce new degradation mechanisms and performance characteristics. The FY19-21 Reducing Uncertainty project leveraged data from the ever-increasing PV fleet to develop models and understanding of the field performance of existing and new technologies. Specifically, we accomplished: report on field performance and degradation rates for high-efficiency silicon (HJT, PERC, IBC) and more conventional technologies; developed automated analysis techniques to quantify system performance (performance ratio, energy yield) and production shortfalls (soiling, degradation, availability); refined the RdTools software toolkit to bring standard, validated analysis techniques to bear on third-party data; analyzed and reported on large datasets including Treasury data and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Utility-Scale dataset to expand the high-quality degradation-rate histogram published previously; worked with industry partners and the DuraMAT data hub to enable private parties to share and aggregate PV production data anonymously, leveraging cloud-based data analysis infrastructure and publishing on US fleet-scale performance comprising over 7GW of operating systems. (https://www.nrel.gov/pv/fleet-performance-data-initiative.html). Through our industry collaborations we have engaged in NDA-covered data transfer with twelve PV fleet owners as of January 2022, with more agreements in negotiation. Our scalable cloud-based time series database contains over 30 billion rows (20TB) of PV time series data, representing over 1700 commercial and utility-scale systems, and over 7.2 GW of DC capacity (Fig 1). Initial field performance results have been distributed in several public reports. Because our fleet composition and data quality methods are continually improving, annual updates to these results are published to our PV Fleet webpage [ https://www.nrel.gov/pv/fleet-performance-data-initiative.html ] and DuraMAT data hub [DOI: 10.21948/1842958]. Another existing dissemination channel used for observed soiling losses is a map we maintain for soiling losses. Additional products developed include a report detailing fleet-wide performance index, availability, startup loss and snow loss factors, a detailed report on the 1603 grant dataset comprising over 100,000 PV systems with failure and performance details and a utility-scale report coauthored with LBNL on 31 GW of system performance.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

2021 Idaho National Laboratory Site Environmental Report

The INL Site’s operations, as well as the ongoing cleanup, necessarily involve a commitment to environmental stewardship and full compliance with environmental protection laws. As part of this commitment, the INL Site Environmental Report is prepared annually to inform the public, regulators, stakeholders, and other interested parties of the INL Site’s environmental performance during the year. This report is published for the DOE-ID in compliance with DOE O 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.” Its purpose is to: • Present the INL Site, mission, and programs • Report compliance status with applicable federal, state, and local regulations • Describe the INL Site environmental programs and activities • Summarize results of environmental monitoring • Discuss potential radiation doses to the public residing in the vicinity of the INL Site • Report on ecological monitoring and research conducted by contractors and affiliated agencies and by independent researchers through the Idaho National Environmental Research Park • Describe quality assurance methods used to ensure confidence in monitoring data • Provide supplemental technical data and reports that support the INL Site Environmental Report (https://idahoeser.inl.gov/publications.html).

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Energy Storage Grand Challenge: Energy Storage Market Report

As part of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Storage Grand Challenge (ESGC), DOE intends to synthesize and disseminate best available energy storage data, information, and analysis to inform decision-making and accelerate technology adoption. The ESGC Roadmap provides options for addressing technology development, commercialization, manufacturing, valuation, and workforce challenges to position the United States for global leadership in the energy storage technologies of the future. This report provides a baseline understanding of the numerous, dynamic energy storage markets that fall within the scope of the ESGC via an integrated presentation of deployment, investment, and manufacturing data from the best, publicly-available sources. This report covers the following energy storage technologies: lithium ion batteries, lead acid batteries, pumped storage hydropower, comrpessed air energy storage, redox flow batteries, hydrogen, building thermal energy storage, and select long duration energy storage technologies. Not all energy storage technologies and markets could be addressed in this report. Due to the wide array of energy technologies, market niches, and data availability issues, this market report only included a select group of technologies. For example, thermal energy storage technologies are very broadly defined and cover a wide range of potential markets, technology readiness levels, and primary energy sources. In other areas, data scarcity necessitates a greater understanding of future applications and emerging science. Future efforts will update data presented in this report and be expanded to include other energy storage technologies. This data-driven assessment of the current status of energy storage markets is essential to track progress toward the goals described in the Energy Storage Grand Challenge and inform the decision-making of a broad range of stakeholders. At the same time, gaps identified through the development of this report can point to areas where further data collection and analysis could provide an even greater level of understanding of the full range of markets and technologies. Finally, numerous complementary analyses are planned, underway, or completed that will provide a deeper understanding of the specific technologies and markets covered at a high-level in this report.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2023

Renewable Thermal Energy Systems: Characterization of the Most Important Thermal Energy Applications in Buildings and Industry (Report 1)

This report is the first in a three-report series that evaluates the provision of renewable heat for industry and buildings via current and prospective renewable thermal energy system (RTES) technologies. The RTES project has undertaken initial research focused on technologies that could be suited for industrial process heat applications at different temperature levels, and, where possible, gathered performance and cost data for these technologies. This project does not directly evaluate RTES for distributed residential or commercial applications, nor does it yet include documented cases or modeling of RTES using geothermal, biomass, waste heat, renewable fuels like renewable natural gas, or hydrogen production. The three technical reports are summarized as follows: Renewable Thermal Energy Systems: Characterization of the Most Important Thermal Energy Applications in Buildings and Industry (Report 1), this report: summary of thermal demands of U.S. industry and buildings, and relevant hybrid RTES configurations; Renewable Thermal Energy Systems: Systemic Challenges and Transformational Policies (Report 2): discussion of socio-technical characteristics of RTES, innovation challenges, and supporting policies. Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/83020.pdf; Renewable Thermal Energy Systems: Modeling Developments and Future Directions (Report 3): Energy yield and performance modeling of RTES, techno-economic analysis via case studies, and proposed development of a user decision support tool. Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/83021.pdf.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

43-0434 Bridge Inspection Report 2021

The documentation includes the following: 1. 2021 NMDOT Bridge Inspection Report including Element Level Data Collection (in digital formats prepared by NMSU)--conforms to the National Bridge Inspection Standards and AASHTO Manual for Bridge Element Inspection; 2. 2021 Supplemental Report (in digital formats prepared by NMSU)--provides detailed information related to current condition of major bridge components; 3. 2021 Inspection Pictures (in digital format prepared by NMSU); 4. 2021 Delamination Map (in digital format prepared by LANL). During the 2021 inspection, three critical findings were reported to our LANL contact, Mr. Jonathan Stein, by text and/or email on June 26, 2021. 1. The south joint of the bridge had a modular section of the joint that could potentially come loose during the passing of vehicles. This was reported as a critical finding for safety. If the modular section becomes dislodged or deformed it could pose a serious hazard that could result in a punctured tire to vehicles, motorcyclists and/or bicyclist causing drivers/riders to lose control; 2. The bracket plate located at the north end of the bridge on the pedestrian walkway was corroded through and provides little protection to pedestrians and bicyclists. This was reported as a critical finding for safety to prevent injuries to people; 3. The north approach rail has three missing posts. These posts help ensure that traffic is redirected and the energy is absorbed by the rail. This was reported as a critical finding for safety. Additionally, the approach rail is on a curve with a nearby drop off. Immediate repair is recommended. Based on the 2021 inspection, the bridge deck is rated in "fair" condition. The chain drag performed on the deck identified several areas with delamination that are concentrated near the expansion joints, in the closure joint of the deck near the bridge centerline, and at the south end of the northbound lanes. The chain drag performed during the 2021 inspection revealed 215,333 sq. in. (1495 sq. ft) of delaminations and patched areas (not including the sidewalk). This is approximately a 600% increase from 2019. It is recommended that the delaminations and spalls with exposed rebar be repaired. The "delaminated area" map for the 2021 inspection is provided in the supplemental report.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Feedback on the Electric Emergency Incident and Disturbance Report, OE-417

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Electricity (OE) mandates requirements for reporting electric emergencies and disruptions in the United States. Specific electric power industry organizations (such as balancing authorities, reliability coordinators, some generating entities, and electric utilities) report this information through the OE-417 Electric Emergency Incident and Disturbance Report via Form OE-417. Entities are required to submit Form OE-417 when at least one of the qualifying 26 criteria is met pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-275). Entities are required to report, within 6 hours of the incident, loss of electric service to 50,000 customers or more for 1 hour or longer. The deadline for submitting Form OE-417 depends on the nature of the incident. An updated Form OE-417 Schedule 1 and all of Schedule 2 are both due within 72 hours of the incident to provide complete disruption information. Additionally, a Final Report must be filed within 72 hours of the incident, unless an interim update has been provided. If the incident meets specific criteria, the form must be filed within one hour, six hours, or by the later of 24 hours after the recognition of the incident or by the end of the next business day.1 The ability of DOE to respond quickly to energy emergencies that could affect the nation’s infrastructure and help alleviate or prevent further disruptions depends on the industry’s prompt and complete submission of information. This report summarizes current issues with Form OE-417 and the reporting process and presents recommendations for improvements.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

High-temperature seals for supercritical carbon-dioxide (sCO 2 ) turbines (Final Report)

This is the final report for project DE-FE0031924 titled “High-temperature seals for supercritical carbon-dioxide (sCO 2 ) turbines.” The report provides a summary of the entire project efforts from October 2020 through December 2024 including the high-temperature commercial dry gas seal (DGS) tests and thermal modeling of Task 2, as well as the high-temperature, large-diameter seal design and high-temperature tests of large-diameter seals in Task 3. A key outcome of Task 2 was the testing completion of specially instrumented commercial DGS in the GE-SwRI Apollo sCO 2 compressor (27,000 rpm). Test data from the DGS showed elevated temperatures upwards of 350 o F, which are close to the higher operating temperature limit of the DGS. The temperature measurements provide insight into the expected thermal loads on DGS operating in high-speed sCO 2 compressor and provided test data for validation of an in-house thermal model of the compressor/seal. Under Task 2.0, this report also presents the development of a steady-state conjugate heat-transfer model of the DGS operating in the sCO 2 compressor – a first of its kind model for modeling heat transfer of sCO 2 in an actual operating compressor. The findings of the thermal model show a reasonable match between temperature predictions of the model and the measured temperature data, also pointing out the validity of the approach and assumptions made in modeling the flows, heat transfer coefficients and windage modeling in the rig. Under Task 3.0, this report presents the preliminary design of a large-diameter hybrid face seal (14 inch and 26-inch diameter) for field testing in a land-based GE turbine. The preliminary seal design effort presented in this report under project DE-FE0031924 builds on the development and successful laboratory testing for such large diameter hybrid face seal under the prior DE-FE0024007 project. Key aspects of seal fluid analyses with CFD, mechanical design considerations and assembly considerations in a land-based turbine are presented. Finally, under Task 3.0, this report also presents the continued high-temperature testing of the 14-inch diameter hybrid face seal developed previously under the DE-FE0024007 program. Specifically, test data demonstrating successful non-contact seal operation and seal effective leakage of 0.001-inch with seal inlet temperatures above 700 o F are presented in this report. Successful hybrid seal operation in a laboratory environment for a large diameter (14-inch) seal at temperatures above 700 o F is a major technological milestone for this technology.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2026

2024 Bioenergy Industry Status Report

This report provides a snapshot of the bioenergy industry status at the end of 2024. The report compliments other annual market reports from the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) offices and is supported by DOE'sOffice of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation's Alternative Fuels and Feedstocks Office. The 2024 Bioenergy Industry Status Report focuses on past year data covering multiple dimensions of the bioenergy industry and does not attempt to make future market projections. There report covers production, consumption, plants, trade, and end-use for all biofuels, biopower, and biobased products where data is available. The report provides a balanced and unbiased assessment of the industry and associated markets. It is openly available to the public and is intended to complement other industry reports with a focus on DOE stakeholder needs.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Radiometric Testing of Germicidal UV Products, Round 1: UV-C Towers and Whole-Room Luminaires (CALiPER Summary Report)

This summary report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. A companion full report provides additional information and discussion of the tested products, test methods, and results. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products used low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One non-portable GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product used an LED source. • Five non-portable GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five used LPM sources. Radiometric and electrical performance was evaluated for all 13 products. Photobiological safety was also assessed for two of the products because their documentation included testable claims. The test results were compared across products and to manufacturer or vendor claims. The testing identified many issues related to the accuracy of reported GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. And when claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. These product claim issues were more numerous with consumer-oriented tower products, but problems with accurate performance claims were found across all products. The UV-C radiant efficiency of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. Several testing challenges and limitations were identified. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. Only 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products could be tested in this sphere. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field are not reflective of UV and therefore could not be used to increase test distance. As a result, 7 of 13 products could not be tested far field. The implication is that electronic files of UV-C intensity data typically imported into design software for designing GUV applications may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances. It is currently unclear if these are industry-wide testing laboratory limitations, and what solutions may exist to address them. Specifiers and buyers of GUV products will need accurate performance claims and data to safely and effectively deploy GUV technology to reduce the transmission of diseases in buildings. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training that is needed for manufacturers and vendors to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further standards and guidelines are needed to improve test methods, address testing limitations, and improve reporting of product performance. Additionally, the wide range in UV-C radiant efficiency of GUV products means there is a large energy-savings opportunity for more energy efficient GUV products.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2024

2023 Billion-Ton Report

The U.S. Department of Energy Bioenergy Technology Office's (BETO's) 2023 Billion-Ton Report (BT23) is an assessment of renewable carbon resources potentially available in the United States. BT23 explores these resources in terms of quantity, price, geographical density and distribution, and market maturity. Resource quantities in this report are limited by specified economic and environmental sustainability constraints. Good practices are needed to ensure biomass production has positive environmental outcomes. BT23 supports BETO's mission, particularly the 2023 Multi-Year Program Plan. To access 2023 Billion-Ton Report PDFs, appendices, and high-level messages, navigate to the 2023 Billion-Ton Report landing page at https://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/2023-billion-ton-report-assessment-us-renewable-carbon-resources on the U.S. Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office website. To access information about the quality assumptions used in this report, please see the Biomass Feedstock Library at https://bioenergylibrary.inl.gov/Home/Home.aspx Please cite the 2023 Billion-Ton Report as: U.S. Department of Energy. 2024. 2023 Billion‐Ton Report: An Assessment of U.S. Renewable Carbon Resources. M. H. Langholtz (Lead). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ORNL/SPR-2024/3103. doi: 10.23720/BT2023/2316165. Contact Us

BT23↗
NASA NTRS1981

The technical report as an effective medium for information transmittal

The NASA technical report is evaluated to determine its effectiveness as a medium for information transmittal. Empirical data was compiled through a survey of report producers and through an assessment of report components, format, and organization found in current style manuals. It was found that little documented research exists to support or suggest criteria for assessing the effectiveness of a technical report. The survey showed that wide variances in the technical report exist: ninety-nine report producers generated ninety-eight different structural components, only five of which were used by 50% or more of the respondents. Moreover, 33% of the respondents claimed to use no style manual at all. Future research is planned to assess the adequacy of a reduced set of report components, clearly defining the purpose and evaluating the criteria for each component.

Stohrer, F. F.↗
NASA NTRS1995

The atmospheric effects of stratospheric aircraft: A fourth program report

This document presents the fourth report from the Atmospheric Effects of Stratospheric Aircraft (AESA) component of NASA's High-Speed Research Program (HSRP). Market and technology considerations continue to provide an impetus for high-speed civil transport research. A recent AESA interim assessment report and a review of that report have shown that considerable uncertainty still exists about the possible impact of aircraft on the atmosphere. The AESA has been designed to develop the body of scientific knowledge necessary for the evaluation of the impact of stratospheric aircraft on the atmosphere. The first Program report presented the basic objectives and plans for AESA. This fourth report comes after the interim assessment and sets forth directions for the 1995 assessment at the end of AESA Phase 1. It also sets forth the goals and directions for AESA Phase 2, as reported at the 1994 Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project (AEAP) annual meeting held in June. The focus of the Phase 2 effort is to obtain the best possible closure on the outstanding problems identified in the interim assessment and NASA/NRC review. Topics discussed in this report include how high-speed civil transports (HSCT) might affect stratospheric ozone, emissions scenarios and databases to assess potential atmospheric effects from HSCT's, calculated results from 2-D zonal mean models using emissions data, engine trace constituent measurements.

Stolarski, Richard S.↗
NASA NTRS1986

Pretest Report for the Full Span Propulsive Wing/Canard Model Test in the NASA Langley 4 x 7 Meter Low Speed Wind Tunnel Second Series Test

A full span propulsive wing/canard model is to be tested in the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) 4 x 7 meter low speed wind tunnel. These tests are a continuation of the tests conducted in Feb. 1984, NASA test No.290, and are being conducted under NASA Contract NAS1-17171. The purpose of these tests is to obtain extensive lateral-directional data with a revised fuselage concept. The wings, canards, and vertical tail of this second test series model are the same as tested in the previous test period. The fuselage and internal flow path have been modified to better reflect an external configuration suitable for a fighter airplane. Internal ducting and structure were changed as required to provide test efficiency and blowing control. The model fuselage tested during the 1984 tests was fabricated with flat sides to provide multiple wing and canard placement variations. The locations of the wing and canard are important variables in configuration development. With the establishment of the desired relative placement of the lifting surfaces, a typically shaped fuselage has been fabricated for these tests. This report provides the information necessary for the second series tests of the propulsive wing/canard model. The discussion in this report is limited to that affected by the model changes and to the second series test program. The pretest report information for test 290 which is valid for the second series test was published in Rockwell report NR 83H-79. This report is presented as Appendix 1 and the modified fuselage stress report is presented as Appendix 2 to this pretest report.

Stewart, V. R.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Mars Program Independent Assessment Team Report

The Mars Climate Orbiter failed to achieve Mars orbit on September 23, 1999. On December 3, 1999, Mars Polar Lander and two Deep Space 2 microprobes failed. As a result, the NASA Administrator established the Mars Program Independent Assessment Team (MPIAT) with the following charter: 1) Review and analyze successes and failures of recent Mars and Deep Space Missions which include: a) Mars Global Surveyor, b) Mars Climate Orbiter, c) Pathfinder, d) Mars Polar Lander, e) Deep Space 1, and f) Deep Space 2; 2) Examine the relationship between and among, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), California Institute of Technology (Caltech), NASA Headquarters, and industry partners; 3) Assess effectiveness of involvement of scientists; 4) Identify lessons learned from successes and failures; 5) Review revised Mars Surveyor Program to assure lessons learned are utilized; 6) Oversee Mars Polar Lander and Deep Space 2 failure reviews; and 7) Complete by March 15, 2000. In-depth reviews were conducted at NASA Headquarters, JPL, and Lockheed Martin Astronautics (LMA). Structured reviews, informal sessions with numerous Mars Program participants, and extensive debate and discussion within the MPIAT establish the basis for this report. The review process began on January 7, 2000, and concluded with a briefing to the NASA Administrator on March 14, 2000. This report represents the integrated views of the members of the MPIAT who are identified in the appendix. In total, three related reports have been produced: a summary report, this report entitled "Mars Program Independent Assessment Team Report," and the "Report on the Loss of the Mars Polar Lander and Deep Space 2 Missions".

Young, Thomas↗
NASA NTRS2003

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report. Volume Two

Volume II of the Report contains appendices that were cited in Volume I. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board produced many of these appendices as working papers during the investigation into the February 1, 2003 destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Other appendices were produced by other organizations (mainly NASA) in support of the Board investigation. In the case of documents that have been published by others, they are included here in the interest of establishing a complete record, but often at less than full page size. Contents include: CAIB Technical Documents Cited in the Report: Reader's Guide to Volume II; Appendix D. a Supplement to the Report; Appendix D.b Corrections to Volume I of the Report; Appendix D.1 STS-107 Training Investigation; Appendix D.2 Payload Operations Checklist 3; Appendix D.3 Fault Tree Closure Summary; Appendix D.4 Fault Tree Elements - Not Closed; Appendix D.5 Space Weather Conditions; Appendix D.6 Payload and Payload Integration; Appendix D.7 Working Scenario; Appendix D.8 Debris Transport Analysis; Appendix D.9 Data Review and Timeline Reconstruction Report; Appendix D.10 Debris Recovery; Appendix D.11 STS-107 Columbia Reconstruction Report; Appendix D.12 Impact Modeling; Appendix D.13 STS-107 In-Flight Options Assessment; Appendix D.14 Orbiter Major Modification (OMM) Review; Appendix D.15 Maintenance, Material, and Management Inputs; Appendix D.16 Public Safety Analysis; Appendix D.17 MER Manager's Tiger Team Checklist; Appendix D.18 Past Reports Review; Appendix D.19 Qualification and Interpretation of Sensor Data from STS-107; Appendix D.20 Bolt Catcher Debris Analysis.

CAIB (COLUMBIA ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BOARD)↗
NASA NTRS2004

TOPEX Radar Altimeter Engineering Assessment Report Update: Side B Turn-On to January 1, 2004

This is the eleventh in a series of TOPEX Radar 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 the time of its launch in August 1992 to February 1994. Since the time of that initial report and prior to this report, there have been nine interim supplemental Engineering Assessment Reports, issued in March 1995, May 1996, March 1997, June 1998, August 1999, September 2000, June 2001, March 2002 and again in May 2003.The sixth supplement in September 2000 was the first assessment report that addressed Side B performance, and presented the altimeter performance from the turn-on of Side B until the end of calendar year 1999. This report extends the performance assessment of Side B to the end of calendar year 2003 and includes the performance assessment of Jason-1, the TOPEX follow-on mission, launched on December 7, 2001.

Hancock, David W., III↗
NASA NTRS2010

2010 NASA Range Safety Annual Report

this report provides a NASA Range Safety overview for current and potential range users. This report contains articles which cover a variety of subject areas, summaries of various NASA Range Safety Program activities conducted during the past year, links to past reports, and information on several projects that may have a profound impact on the way business will be done in the future. Specific topics discussed in the 2010 NASA Range Safety Annual Report include a program overview and 2010 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.

Dumont, Alan G.↗