Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “information science”

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 487 records · Page 27
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

Normalizing Resource Identifiers using Lexicons in the Global Change Information System: Linking Earth Science Identifiers, Concepts, and Communities

Earth Science informatics involves collaboration between multiple groups of people with diverse specializations and goals,often using variations in terminology to refer to common resources. The uniformity of the resource identifiers often does not cross organizational boundaries. Because of this, permanent, widely used, unambiguous identifiers for resources are elusive. We examine real world cases of changing and inconsistent identifiers which inherently work against persistence and uniformity. We also present a solution which mediates factors in these situations; namely the creation of lexicons:mappings of sets of terms to URIs which are curated within the Global Change Information System (GCIS). We discuss aspects of the GCIS which facilitate the use of lexicons: an information model which disambiguates resources, a RESTful API which provides metadata through content-negotiation, and a strategy for long term curation of URIs, including mechanisms for handling changes to URIs and variations in terms used by different communities while providing persistent URIs and preserving relationships between resources We provide working definitions of terms,contexts, and lexicons, and relate them to the practical challenges of disambiguation and curation. We also discuss the mechanisms employed and architecture of the GCIS, and how these choices facilitate representation of persistent identifiers and mappings of them to identifiers used colloquially within various earth science communities of practice.

Linkded Data↗
NASA NTRS1984

Pilot land data system

During the fall of 1983, the Information Systems Office of NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications assembled a Working Group to develop initial plans for a Pilot Land Data System (PLDS). Workshops coordinated planning and concept development activities between land-related and computer science disciplines, and examined land research requirements, information science technology requirements, PLDS architecture, and methodologies for system evaluation. The PLDS will be a limited-scale distributed information system to explore scientific, technical and management approaches to satisfy land science research needs. PLDS will pave the way for a Land Data System to improve data access, processing, transfer and analysis, fostering an environment in which land science information synthesis can occur on a scale not previously possible owing to limits to data assembly and access and efficiency of processing.

Cressy, P. J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Making Dataset Quality Information FAIR: Supporting Open-Source Science and Enhancing (Re)Use and Trustworthiness of Scientific Data

- Quality information should be documented and readily shared within and across domains. - Sharing of dataset quality information supports open science and trustworthiness of scientific data. - Dataset quality is more than data quality. - Quality tends to be domain-specific and context-dependent. - Community guidelines provide practical steps towards FAIR dataset quality information.

Ge Peng↗
NASA NTRS2023

NASA Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO) Advanced Information Systems Technology (AIST) Program: Earth Systems Digital Twins (ESDT) Standards for Interoperable Digital Twins Workshop Presentations

On September 18, 2023, NASA Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO) Advanced Information Systems Technology (AIST) Program conducted a mini-workshop that brought together seven experts to survey and discuss "Standards for Interoperable Digital Twins". Since three years, the AIST Program has been developing technologies and prototypes for Earth System Digital Twins (ESDT). During those developments and after the ESDT Workshop held in October 2022, it became clear that standard for ESDT interoperability were needed and should be defined as soon as possible. To address this challenge, the AIST program will survey ongoing development for Digital Twins standards in various domains and the September 18, 2023 Workshop represented the first step towards this understanding. Speakers during this event included: Michael Grieves (Digital Twin Institute), Siri Jodha Singh Khalsa (IEEE GRSS Standards), Trent Tinker (OGC), Ryan Berkheimer (NOAA), John Stone (NVIDIA), Thomas Geenen (ECMWF-DestinE) and Arne Berre (SINTEF-Iliad DTO and EDITO). This presentation regroups all the speakers' presentations.

Earth Science Remote Sensing; Information Systems↗
NASA NTRS1992

Functional requirements document for NASA/MSFC Earth Science and Applications Division: Data and information system (ESAD-DIS). Interoperability, 1992

These Earth Science and Applications Division-Data and Information System (ESAD-DIS) interoperability requirements are designed to quantify the Earth Science and Application Division's hardware and software requirements in terms of communications between personal and visualization workstation, and mainframe computers. The electronic mail requirements and local area network (LAN) requirements are addressed. These interoperability requirements are top-level requirements framed around defining the existing ESAD-DIS interoperability and projecting known near-term requirements for both operational support and for management planning. Detailed requirements will be submitted on a case-by-case basis. This document is also intended as an overview of ESAD-DIs interoperability for new-comers and management not familiar with these activities. It is intended as background documentation to support requests for resources and support requirements.

Stephens, J. Briscoe↗
NASA NTRS2003

Exploring the Solar System Activities Outline: Hands-On Planetary Science for Formal Education K-14 and Informal Settings

Activities by NASA scientists and teachers focus on integrating Planetary Science activities with existing Earth science, math, and language arts curriculum. The wealth of activities that highlight missions and research pertaining to the exploring the solar system allows educators to choose activities that fit a particular concept or theme within their curriculum. Most of the activities use simple, inexpensive techniques that help students understand the how and why of what scientists are learning about comets, asteroids, meteorites, moons and planets. With these NASA developed activities students experience recent mission information about our solar system such as Mars geology and the search for life using Mars meteorites and robotic data. The Johnson Space Center ARES Education team has compiled a variety of NASA solar system activities to produce an annotated thematic outline useful to classroom educators and informal educators as they teach space science. An important aspect of the outline annotation is that it highlights appropriate science content information and key science and math concepts so educators can easily identify activities that will enhance curriculum development. The outline contains URLs for the activities and NASA educator guides as well as links to NASA mission science and technology. In the informal setting educators can use solar system exploration activities to reinforce learning in association with thematic displays, planetarium programs, youth group gatherings, or community events. Within formal education at the primary level some of the activities are appropriately designed to excite interest and arouse curiosity. Middle school educators will find activities that enhance thematic science and encourage students to think about the scientific process of investigation. Some of the activities offered are appropriate for the upper levels of high school and early college in that they require students to use and analyze data.

Allen, J. S.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CERES Monthly TOA and SRB Averages (SRBAVG) data in HDF-EOS Grid (CER_SRBAVG_TRMM-PFM-VIRS_Edition2B)

The Monthly TOA/Surface Averages (SRBAVG) product contains a month of space and time averaged Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) data for a single scanner instrument. The SRBAVG is also produced for combinations of scanner instruments. The monthly average regional flux is estimated using diurnal models and the 1-degree regional fluxes at the hour of observation from the CERES SFC product. A second set of monthly average fluxes are estimated using concurrent diurnal information from geostationary satellites. These fluxes are given for both clear-sky and total-sky scenes and are spatially averaged from 1-degree regions to 1-degree zonal averages and a global average. For each region, the SRBAVG also contains hourly average fluxes for the month and an overall monthly average. The cloud properties from SFC are column averaged and are included on the SRBAVG. [Location=GLOBAL] [Temporal_Coverage: Start_Date=1998-02-01; Stop_Date=2000-03-31] [Spatial_Coverage: Southernmost_Latitude=-90; Northernmost_Latitude=90; Westernmost_Longitude=-180; Easternmost_Longitude=180] [Data_Resolution: Latitude_Resolution=1 degree; Longitude_Resolution=1 degree; Horizontal_Resolution_Range=100 km - < 250 km or approximately 1 degree - < 2.5 degrees; Temporal_Resolution=1 month; Temporal_Resolution_Range=Monthly - < Annual].

CLEAR-SKY ALBEDO↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

MISR Level 1B2 Terrain Data (MI1B2T_V2)

The MISR instrument consists of nine pushbroom cameras which measure radiance in four spectral bands. Global coverage is achieved in nine days. The cameras are arranged with one camera pointing toward the nadir, four cameras pointing forward and four cameras pointing aftward. It takes 7 minutes for all nine cameras to view the same surface location. The view angles relative to the surface reference ellipsoid, are 0, 26.1, 45.6, 60.0, and 70.5 degrees. The spectral band shapes are nominally gaussian, centered at 443, 555, 670, and 865 nm. The Terrain data are re-projected to the terrain altitude. In this product, surface data from all cameras will appear in the same geographic location. Thus, this product is the primary input to Level 2 aerosol/surface processing, which requires co-registration of the L1B2 imagery at the surface. Clouds will still be displaced due to their elevation above the surface, but this time with respect to the terrain rather than the ellipsoid. (The mountain location T is now assigned the geographic location at T, and the Cloud at F appears at the geographic location T.) In Level 2 aerosol/surface processing, algorithms are applied to screen out the clouds. Terrain data only exist for MISR blocks containing some land. [Location=GLOBAL LAND] [Temporal_Coverage: Start_Date=2000-02-24; Stop_Date=] [Spatial_Coverage: Southernmost_Latitude=-90; Northernmost_Latitude=90; Westernmost_Longitude=-180; Easternmost_Longitude=180] [Data_Resolution: Latitude_Resolution=563.2 km (cross-track); Longitude_Resolution=140.8 km (along-track).; Temporal_Resolution=about 15 orbits/day; Temporal_Resolution_Range=about 15 orbits/day].

SPECTRAL BANDS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

MISR Level 1B2 Terrain Data (MI1B2T_V3)

The MISR instrument consists of nine pushbroom cameras which measure radiance in four spectral bands. Global coverage is achieved in nine days. The cameras are arranged with one camera pointing toward the nadir, four cameras pointing forward and four cameras pointing aftward. It takes 7 minutes for all nine cameras to view the same surface location. The view angles relative to the surface reference ellipsoid, are 0, 26.1, 45.6, 60.0, and 70.5 degrees. The spectral band shapes are nominally gaussian, centered at 443, 555, 670, and 865 nm. The Terrain data are re-projected to the terrain altitude. In this product, surface data from all cameras will appear in the same geographic location. Thus, this product is the primary input to Level 2 aerosol/surface processing, which requires co-registration of the L1B2 imagery at the surface. Clouds will still be displaced due to their elevation above the surface, but this time with respect to the terrain rather than the ellipsoid. (The mountain location T is now assigned the geographic location at T, and the Cloud at F appears at the geographic location T.) In Level 2 aerosol/surface processing, algorithms are applied to screen out the clouds. Terrain data only exist for MISR blocks containing some land. [Location=GLOBAL LAND] [Temporal_Coverage: Start_Date=2000-02-24; Stop_Date=] [Spatial_Coverage: Southernmost_Latitude=-90; Northernmost_Latitude=90; Westernmost_Longitude=-180; Easternmost_Longitude=180] [Data_Resolution: Latitude_Resolution=563.2 km (cross-track); Longitude_Resolution=140.8 km (along-track).; Temporal_Resolution=about 15 orbits/day; Temporal_Resolution_Range=about 15 orbits/day].

IMAGERY↗
NASA NTRS2008

Actions Needed to Ensure Scientific and Technical Information is Adequately Reviewed at Goddard Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, Langley Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center

This audit was initiated in response to a hotline complaint regarding the review, approval, and release of scientific and technical information (STI) at Johnson Space Center. The complainant alleged that Johnson personnel conducting export control reviews of STI were not fully qualified to conduct those reviews and that the reviews often did not occur until after the STI had been publicly released. NASA guidance requires that STI, defined as the results of basic and applied scientific, technical, and related engineering research and development, undergo certain reviews prior to being released outside of NASA or to audiences that include foreign nationals. The process includes technical, national security, export control, copyright, and trade secret (e.g., proprietary data) reviews. The review process was designed to preclude the inappropriate dissemination of sensitive information while ensuring that NASA complies with a requirement of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (the Space Act)1 to provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information resulting from NASA research activities. We focused our audit on evaluating the STI review process: specifically, determining whether the roles and responsibilities for the review, approval, and release of STI were adequately defined and documented in NASA and Center-level guidance and whether that guidance was effectively implemented at Goddard Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, Langley Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center. Johnson was included in the review because it was the source of the initial complaint, and Goddard, Langley, and Marshall were included because those Centers consistently produce significant amounts of STI.

Information management↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How Can We Efficiently Build A Spacecraft That Has Longevity? Experiences From the GSFC Perspective to Inform Lunar Exploration and Science Orbiter’s Architecture

Recent successes in NASA planetary science missions has shown that long-lived missions can yield significant science return. These missions, despite their longevity, were not planned to operate beyond their deign life. For example, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has a design life of 2-3 years, and yet we are entering its 14th year on orbit. Spacecraft longevity in practice has been related to: 1) mission class; 2) did we test it long enough and resolve all the anomalies to be beyond the early failure curve; 3) consumables budgets, and 4) how components are de-signed and tested. Mission class has been perceived as one of the primary ways to drive longevity. But higher mission class is a significant cost and mission driver. Parts selection only from the limited military standard parts and extensive parts qualification adds to development time and cost. Largely redundant (often erroneously interpreted as fully redundant) adds to launch mass and increases testing complexity (which may reduce the amount of testing in the nominal con-figuration). Lower Risk Posture (reflected in a higher mission class) drives significant additional processes and quality assurance analyses. Higher mission class also drives significantly greater sparing and life testing costs. This discussion focuses on whether this is indeed the best way to achieve longevity efficiently or whether there are more efficient ways to achieve longevity. Empirical evidence shows that lower mission classes that implement effective risk reduction and selective redundancy generally results in long life at a lower Spacecraft bus cost. By evaluating redundancy careful-ly, spacecraft cost can be lowered which can enable a more capable payload. Risk of the mission is highly dependent on the complexity of the mission and is only loosely dependent on Class of Mission. High complexity missions can have many single point failures and require the development of new technology, while lower class mission can have lower risk by baselining or incorporating: (selective) redundancy, fault-tolerant design, design for minimum risk, ability to reset, and/or design for graceful degradation. The team met with Goddard Space Flight Center Space Systems Mission Operations leaders to discuss which avionics have proven in flight to be the most reliable and which have had lifetime issues. The paper proposes a list of components to focus on for redundancy for a long-lived lunar mission. Reliability numbers are presented for both single string and dual string missions. The history of life-time performance versus planned mission life according to mission class is presented. A mission with well thought out selective redundancy and effective on the ground test program, can be expected to last well beyond its mission lifetime and provided enhanced return for the community. This approach minimizes project expenditures that do not retire significant risk and allows the project to focus risk mitigation efforts on those risks that will have a significant likelihood of threatening mission success. This is aided by keeping the amount of technology maturation and mission complexity low, while focusing effort on ensuring all component stress-ing parameters well within the bounds of their capabilities.

Lessons Learned↗