Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “shape representation”

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.

452 records · Page 26

Selection and Assessment of Predictions of the Mars Pathfinder Landing Site

The successful landing of the Mars Pathfinder spacecraft on Mars allows the review of the process of selecting the landing site and assessing predictions made for the site based on Viking and Earth-based data. Selection of the landing site for Mars Pathfinder was a two-phase process. The first phase took place from October 1993 to June 1994 and involved: initial identification of engineering constraints, definition of environmental conditions at the site for spacecraft design, and evaluation of the scientific potential of different landing sites. This phase culminated with the first "Mars Pathfinder Landing Site Workshop", held at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas on April 18-19, 1994, in which suggested approaches and landing sites were solicited from the entire scientific community. A preliminary site was selected by the project for design purposes in June 1994. The second phase took place from July 1994 to March 1996 and involved: developing criteria for evaluating site safety using images and remote sensing data, testing of the spacecraft and landing subsystems (with design improvements) to establish quantitative engineering constraints on landing site characteristics, evaluating all potential landing sites on Mars, and certification of the site by the project. This phase included a second open workshop, "Mars Pathfinder Landing Site Workshop II: Characteristics of the Ares Vallis Region and Field Trips in the Channeled Scabland, Washington" held in Spokane and Moses Lake September 24-30, 1995 and formal acceptance of the site by NASA Headquarters. Engineering constraints on Pathfinder landing sites were developed from the initial design of the spacecraft and the entry, descent and landing scenario. The site must be within 5 degrees of the subsolar latitude at the time of landing (15N for maximum solar power and flexible communications with Earth. It also must be below 0 km elevation to enable enough time for the parachute to bring the lander to the proper terminal velocity for landing. The entire landing ellipse, which is 70 km by 200 km due to navigational, ephemeris and atmospheric uncertainties, must be free of steep slopes, scarps and obvious hazards in Viking orbiter images, have acceptable radar reflectivity, moderate rock abundances and have little or no dust. Scientific considerations of the Mars Pathfinder payload and mission indicate that analyses of "grab bag" samples at the mouths of outflow channels can offer a first order assessment of a variety of rock types on Mars. Highland sites offer the advantage of in situ analysis of ancient rocks on Mars that record crustal differentiation and the nature of the early environment. Dark gray sites offer the potential of analyzing unweathered and unoxidized materials. Following a general assessment of the safety of different sites, a preliminary selection of a "grab bag" site was made. This site, Ares Vallis, is near the mouth of an outflow channel that may contain ancient Noachian terrain, Hesperian ridged plains, and reworked channel materials. All potential landing sites on Mars that met basic safety criteria were analyzed in detail. Sites (100 by 200 km target ellipses) were considered safe if they were below 0 km elevation, were free of obvious hazards (high relief surface features) in high-resolution (< 50 m/pixel) Viking orbiter images and had acceptable reflectivity and roughness at radar wavelengths, high thermal inertia, moderate rock abundance, low red to violet ratio, and low albedo. Only 4 sites on Mars met all the above criteria, which included 1995 opposition 3.5 cm delay-Doppler radar data. Complete data were evaluated for 7 sites and the Viking landing sites for comparison for all the above criteria as well as crater abundance, hill and mesa abundance, slopes over meter to kilometer scales, low altitude winds (from global circulation models and slopes), the size-frequency distribution of large rocks, as well as rover trafficability and science potential. Discussion of potential hazards at Ares Vallis using a variety of data sets (including radar) at a second open workshop, indicated this site cannot be shown to be any more hazardous than the Viking landing sites. Field trips to the Channeled Scabland and the Ephrata Fan, analogs for Ares Vallis and the landing site, respectively, provided valuable insight into possible geologic processes and potential surface characteristics. Three sites met all the data requirements and safety criteria for landing Pathfinder. Ares Vallis was selected by the project because it appeared acceptably safe (although it appeared to have greater rock abundances than other sites, its elevation was likely the best known) and offered the prospect of analyzing a variety of rock types expected to be deposited by catastrophic floods, which would enable addressing first-order scientific questions such as differentiation of the crust, the development of weathering products, and the nature of the early martian environment and its subsequent evolution. The selection was reviewed by an external board at a number of meetings and accepted, and the site was approved by NASA Headquarters. Data gathered by the Pathfinder lander' and rover provides the opportunity to test the predictions made for the site in the selection process based on remote observations from Earth, orbit, and the surface. The discussion below is taken from Golombek et al. to which the reader is referred for a more complete discussion and a complete list of references, which are omitted here for brevity. Many characteristics of the landing site are consistent with its being shaped and deposited by the Ares and Tiu catastrophic floods. The rocky surface is consistent a depositional plain comprising semi-rounded pebbles, cobbles and tabular boulders (some of which appear imbricated and/or inclined in the direction of flow) that appear similar to depositional plains in terrestrial catastrophic floods. The Twin Peaks appear to be streamlined hills in lander images, which is consistent with interpretations of larger hills in Viking orbiter images of the region that suggest the lander is on the flank of a broad, gentle ridge trending northeast from Twin Peaks. This ridge, which is the rise to the north of the lander, is aligned in the downstream direction from the Ares and Tiu Valles floods, and may be a debris tail deposited in the wake of the Twin Peaks. Channels visible throughout the scene may be a result of late stage drainage. As predicted by delay-Doppler radar measurements and tracking results, the average elevation of the center of the site was about the same as Viking Lander I relative to the 6.1 mbar geoid. The Doppler tracking and two-way ranging estimate for the elevation of the spacecraft is only 45 in lower than the Viking I Lander and within 100 in of that expected, which is within the uncertainties of the measurements. After landing, surface pressures and winds (5-10 m/s) were found to be similar to expectations based on Viking data, although temperatures were about 10 K warmer. The temperature profile below 50 km was also roughly 20 K warmer. As a result, predicted densities were 5% higher near the surface and up to 40% lower at 50 km but within the entry, descent and landing design margins. The populations of craters and small hills and the slopes of the hills measured in high-resolution (38 m/pixel) Viking orbiter images and the radar derived slopes of the landing site are all consistent with observations of these properties in the lander images. A rocky surface was expected from Viking Infra-Red Thermal Mapper (IRTM) observations and comparisons with the Viking landing sites. The observed cumulative fraction of area covered by rocks with diameters greater than 3 cm and heights greater than 0.5 in (potentially hazardous to landing) at Ares is similar to that predicted by IRTM observations and models of Viking lander and Earth analog rock size-frequency distributions. The IRTM prediction postulated an effective thermal inertia of 30 (10(exp -3) cgs units - cal/cubic cm/s(exp 0.5)/K) for the rock population, but we obtain a slightly different effective thermal inertia for the actual rock population. The validity of interpretations of radar echoes prior to landing are supported by a simple radar echo model, an estimate of the reflectivity of the soil from its bulk density, and the fraction of area covered by rocks. In the calculations, the soil produces the quasi-specular echo and the rocks produce the diffuse echo. The derived quasispecular cross section is comparable to the cross-sections and reflectivities reported for 3.5-cm wavelength observations. The model yields a diffuse echo that is modestly larger than the polarized diffuse echo reported for 3.5-cm wavelength observations. At 12.5-cm wavelength, similar rock populations at Ares and the Viking I site were expected because the diffuse echoes are comparable, but the large normal reflectivities suggests that bulk densities of the soils at depth are greater than those at the surface. We also obtain a fine-component inertia near 8.4 which agrees with the fine-component inertia of 8.7 (in 10(exp -3) cgs units) estimated from thermal observations from orbit by the IRTM; for this estimate, we used a bulk thermal inertia of 10.4 for the landing site, an effective thermal inertia near 40 (10(exp -3) cgs units) for the rock population, and a graphical representation of Kieffer's model. Color and albedo data for Ares suggested surfaces of materials at Ares Vallis would be relatively dust free or unweathered prior to landing compared with the materials at the Viking landing sites. This suggestion is supported by the abundance of relatively dark-gray rocks at Ares and their relative rarity at the Viking landing sites, where rocks are commonly coated with bright red dust. Finally, the 40 km long Ephrata Fan of the Channeled Scabland in Washington state, which was deposited where c

Golombek, M. P.↗

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Lisk, Matthew↗