Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “baseline characterization”

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.

697 records · Page 39
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Initial On-Orbit Spectral Calibration of the PACE Ocean Color Instrument

The NASA Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, and ocean Ecosystem (PACE) mission Project Science Team has used Ocean Color Instrument (OCI) measurements of Fraunhofer lines in spectra of sunlight reflected by the solar diffuser and measurements of atmospheric absorption bands in cloudtop and ocean spectra to characterize the spectral calibration of OCI on orbit. Multiple lines have been analyzed for both the ultraviolet to visible (UVVIS, 340−607 nm) and visible to near-infrared (VISNIR, 597−897 nm) grating spectrographs. The spectrographs yield hyperspectral observations with 5 nm bandwidths and 0.625 nm sampling intervals. The on-orbit observations have been compared with the prelaunch spectral calibration of OCI performed by the Goddard Laser for Absolute Measurement of Radiance (GLAMR) during thermal vacuum testing to track any changes in the calibration since launch. The calibration analyzed the line positions and strengths for the Fraunhofer lines for each spectrograph by comparing the solar spectra measured by OCI with predicted solar spectra derived from the solar reference spectrum and the BRDF of the solar diffuser, convolved with the OCI relative spectral responses. The calibration also compared the line positions of the atmospheric absorption bands with the model transmissions used by the PACE Project. The line position comparisons show that the root mean square (RMS) spectral difference between the measured and predicted spectra is 0.15 nm, the average spectral shift is 0.062 nm, and the residual spectral dispersion over the wavelength range of the Fraunhofer lines is 0.17 nm. All three estimates of the spectral accuracy of OCI meet the instrument functional requirement of a spectral accuracy of 0.5 nm and are well within the 0.625 nm sampling interval of the data. The line strength comparisons between measured and predicted spectra are essentially the same. These results show that the spectral calibration of OCI on orbit has not drifted since the prelaunch calibration of OCI by GLAMR and that the on-orbit spectral calibration of OCI is stable over time. These results also provide a baseline for monitoring the future spectral performance of OCI on orbit.

Radiometric Calibration↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Investigation of Hardware and Instrumentation to Measure Hand Grasp Activity with the Spacesuit Gloves

Introduction: During the 2022 suited injury summit, it was hypothesized that there will be concerns for hand and glove injuries for future exploration space missions, especially given the fact that the “total number of Extravehicular activity (EVA) hours and frequency” for lunar surface missions is expected to vastly increase [1]. It has been reported that the hands experienced the greatest “absolute numbers” of reported injuries and far exceeds other injuries during EVA [1, 2]. It was reported that the most fatiguing part of the surface EVA was the repetitive gripping tasks [3]. It was recommended that a “glove sub-team” be created to look at possible injury mechanism and mitigation strategies. Some of the recommendations that were suggested [1] are as follows: examine hand fatigue, utilize motion capture, examine the duration and frequency of hand movements, and identify frequent hand motions. We started assessing hardware and instrumentation to measure hand grasp activity in the pressurized glove environment. The purpose of this test was to perform a hardware evaluation for motion capture (MoCap) gloves obtained from StretchSense (Auckland, New Zealand). The specific gloves used were the Pro Fidelity and SuperSplay to determine the repeatability, reliability, feasibility, and useability inside of a pressurized gloved environment. Methods: The MoCap gloves were customized (e.g., battery/Bluetooth pack relocated to upper arm) to better suit the pressurized testing environment and protect the subject from unintentional injury (Fig. 1). Fourteen total subjects from different demographics (i.e., gender and pressurized glove experience level) participated in this test series. Testing included one session each of a baseline data collection (NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) building 21) and a spacesuit glove box (Fig. 2 at JSC building 7 room 2027) data collection (under vacuum down to 4.3 psid), where each session lasted 3-5 hours. Controlled and reproducible tasks to systematically evaluate the repeatability and reliability of the hardware were performed during baseline data collection. Additionally, subjects performed simulated EVA-like tasks in a pressurized gloved environment. For all sessions, MoCap gloves were placed on each of the subjects’ hands and the signal from it, or the raw capacitance (Fig. 3), was analysed. The raw capacitance was used to estimate the open and closed hand states between the testing conditions and allow us to provide an offset caused by the pressurized environment. Results & Discussion: Initial observation with the bare hands (baseline) condition showed that the MoCap gloves appeared to track grasping and releasing of the fingers (opening and closing fist) with both high- and low-speed conditions, while adduction and abduction of the fingers were not relatively tracked. A hardware evaluation was done outside of the glove box to assess the reliability and repeatability of the MoCap glove. In one task, a point force was applied to various locations on the back of the hand. When the point force was applied to the space between the 1st digit and the pointer finger, there was a noticeable distortion to the MoCap data. Another task examining an increasing force from a 10 lb. sandbag applied to the back of the hand while lying flat on a table, showed a constant flat line with only a distortion when the weight was increased or added to the back of the hand. Fig. 3 shows an object relocation task where you can see when each individual finger “opened” and “closed” (changed position) when picking up and setting down the dumbbell. When the fingers were stationary, the signal remained relatively flat compared to the peaks and valleys that can be observed in Fig. 3. This study showed promising results and imperative input into an attempt to discriminate between hand states across various functional tasks and should be evaluated with context to the repeatability and reliability outcomes. Depending on the task done inside of the pressurized glove box environment and outside, the results appear to be affected by many different factors (i.e., drift, pressure, hand size, etc.). Significance: If this hardware proves to be reliable and repeatable in determining the open and closed hand states then this may provide critical insight into assisting in the characterization of the pressurized gloved environment and the effect on crew member exertion level. Ultimately, this tool will provide useful data for quantifying the repetitive nature of EVA training and tasks. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the NASA Mars Campaign Office for providing funding for this research. Lastly, thanks to all the engineers and technicians at NASA JSC who helped with this data collection. References: [1] Reiber, et al. (2022), NASA/TM-20220007605; [2] Scheuring, et al. (2009), Av., Sp., and Envir. Med. 80(2). [3] Scheuring, et al. (2007), NASA/TM–2007–214755.

Rachel L Thompson↗
NASA NTRS2002

The Solar-Sail Launched Interstellar Probe: Pre-Perihelion Trajectories and Application of Holography

Design of missions beyond our solar system presents many challenges. Here, we consider certain aspects of the solar-sail launched interstellar probe (ISP), a spacecraft slated for launch in the 2010 time period that is planned to reach the heliopause, at 200 Astronomical Units (AU) from the Sun after a flight of about 20-years duration. The baseline mission under consideration by NASA / JPL has a sail radius of 200 m, a science payload of 25 kg, a spacecraft areal mass thickness of about two grams per square meter and is accelerated out of the solar system at about 14 AU per year after performing a perihelion pass of about 0.25 AU. In current plans, the sail is to be dropped near Jupiter's orbit (5.2 AU from the Sun) on the outbound trajectory leg. One aspect of this study is application of a realistic model of sail thermo-optics to sail kinematics that includes diffuse / specular reflectance and sail roughness. The effects of solar-wind degradation of sail material, based on recent measurements at the NASA MSFC (Marshall Space Flight Center) Space Environment Facility were incorporated in the kinematical model. After setting initial and final conditions for the spacecraft, trajectory was optimized using the provision of variable sail aspect angle. The second phase of the study included consideration of rainbow holography as a medium for a message plaque that would be carried aboard the ISP in the spirit of the message plaques aboard Pioneer 10 /11 and Voyager 1 /2. A prototype holographic message plaque was designed and created by artist C. Bangs with the assistance of Ana Maria Nicholson and Dan Schweitzer of the Center for Holographic Arts in Long Island City, NY. The piece was framed by Simon Liu Inc. of Brooklyn, NY. Concurrent to the creation of the prototype message plaque, we explored the potential of this medium to transmit large amounts of visual information to any extraterrestrial civilization that might detect and intercept ISP. It was also necessary to investigate possible degradation of holograms by the space environment. We developed a new way of characterizing the optical quality of holograms.

Gregory L. Matloff↗
NASA NTRS2020

Calibration of the 11x11-Foot Transonic Wind Tunnel at NASA Ames Research Center

A static pipe calibration characterizing the streamwise static pressure distribution was conducted at the 11-By 11-Foot Transonic Wind Tunnel at NASA Ames Research Center. This data is used to determine the local Mach number within the test section and evaluate buoyancy corrections to axial force measurements. The 60 foot long, 6 inch diameter pipe contained 444 static pressure taps spanning the test section and nozzle regions of the tunnel. The forward end of the pipe extends into the settling chamber and is held by four cables mounting to the tunnel shell, and the aft end is fixed on the institutional model support system. A hydraulic cylinder at the aft end of the pipe provides tension on the system to reduce vibration and to keep the pipe as level as possible throughout the test section. The previous calibration was improved upon by using pressure scanners with greater accuracy, ensuring a uniform pressure tube length for each tap to control pneumatic lag, optically tracking any streamwise movement of the pipe, and more tightly controlling the tunnel condition set points. Typically this calibration is conducted with the pipe on tunnel centerline and 33 inches below centerline for sting-mounted models and semi-span (i.e. floor-mounted) models respectively, however schedule demands permitted only the centerline calibration. The semi-span calibration is planned to be completed in the summer of 2020. Immediately following the static pipe calibration, a shorter, 9 foot static pipe used as the calibration check standard was installed to obtain its first post-calibration pressure dataset. This short static pipe consists of 148 static pressure taps distributed along the pipe section and one total pressure tap at the end of an ogive nose. Performing the calibration test and its check standard back-to-back allows this dataset to establish a reliable baseline for future calibration check standard testing. Over time the use of a calibration check standard offers the ability to assess the stability of the calibration through statistical process control in an efficient and costeffective manner, thereby potentially increasing the time required between full tunnel calibrations.

White, Bethany↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

VALENTInE: A Concept for a New Frontiers Class Long Duration In-Situ Balloon Mission to Venus

Venus and Earth are similar in bulk composition, size, density, and approximate distance from the Sun, yet Venus’s modern-day climate and surface geology is distinctly different [1]. Previous missions to Venus revealed unusual volcanic features, possible continental crust, widespread volcanic plains, a weak magnetic field [2], and insights into the Venusian atmosphere [3,4]. Unfortunately, data from these missions were limited in spatial and temporal resolution and global extent. A future mission to Venus is critical to address fundamental questions surrounding the chemical composition and dynamics of the Venusian atmosphere [5], its geologic history [6,7], its internal structure [8,9], and its habitability throughout time [10,11]. We present the Venus Air and Land Expedition: a Novel Trailblazer for In situ Exploration (VALENTInE) mission to meet this need. VALENTInE is a variable altitude balloon that will passively float in Venus’s atmosphere between 45 and 55 km altitude. VALENTInE will acquire atmospheric data at varying latitudes and longitudes in addition to mapping the surface geomorphology and mineralogy across multiple terrains. Mission Objectives: The VALENTInE mission concept is driven by four main science objectives: 1. Determine whether the driving force of the superrotation of Venus’s atmosphere is caused by horizontal or vertical momentum transport. 2. Determine whether the atmospheric composition and noble gas inventory of the Venusian atmosphere is a product of outgassing from the initial protoplanetary source or if there are significant contributions from exogenic sources. 3. Determine whether the tesserae regions (particularly Aphrodite Terra) are felsic and relatively older than surrounding regions. 4. Determine if there is any evidence of a recent dynamo preserved in the rock record of Venus. Mission Overview: A balloon architecture provides a robust system that can survive long-term in the Venusian environment while taking accurate measurements of the lower cloud deck and surface. Two prior balloon missions to Venus, VEGA 1 and VEGA 2 in 1984, have demonstrated the potential for such planetary exploration; however, these missions were short-lived (46 hr), with limited range (54 km). Our spacecraft concept consists of a battery powered balloon with a gondola and flyby carrier stage (Fig. 1). Our novel design allows for at least 15 days of atmospheric exploration, including multiple ascents and descents in the Venus atmosphere. VALENTInE is baselined to launch in 2032, cruise on solar power for 128 days, enter, descend, and inflate (EDI) into Venus’s atmosphere above Aphrodite Terra, and float in Venus’s atmosphere for a total nominal mission duration of 15 days. The balloon, able to control its altitude by changing its buoyancy, will make one full circumnavigation every 4–8 days and move poleward ~1 o latitude per day; it will be passively directed by the horizontal air currents on Venus. The balloon can only be controlled in the z direction, and the expected latitude range is ±10° from EDI. The balloon itself will be a tracer for atmospheric structures such as zonal winds [5, 12]. During the 15-day operational period, there will be five dips to 45 km for a compositional study of the lower atmosphere and geological and magnetic mapping of the surface. Dips are used to take images and measurements closer to the surface and to obtain in situ vertical atmospheric profiles between 45 and 55 km. Instruments: The VALENTInE instrument payload will allow for extensive study of the geology, atmosphere, and interior of Venus. The instrument suite consists of six instruments. The mission profile for each instrument is shown in Fig. 2. Lower Atmosphere Meteorology Analyzer (LAMA) is an atmospheric structure instrument consisting of a thermometer, barometer, and accelerometer to continuously measure temperature and pressure as a function of altitude, longitude, and latitude. TracE and Noble Gas Investigator (TENGI) is aneutral mass spectrometer used to sample the dense atmosphere. TENGI will operate continuously at 45 km and 55 km and will measure D/H ratios, as well as Ne, Ar, and O isotopic ratios. Kilometer Scale Spectral Imager (KSSI) is amultispectral imager (850-1150 nm) used to resolve surface features on the order of km. Near InfraRed Multispectral Photometer (NIRMP) is an Infrared (IR) photometer used to image the surface through the clouds to characterize mineral assemblages at five different areas of the surface. NIRMP will be operated during dwell. ELevation REConnaissance (ELREC) is a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) instrument used for measuring topography at five different areas of the surface. The ELREC data will be combined with those of NIRMP to determine mineral assemblages and how they correlate to topography. Magnetic Exploration and Interior Detective (MEID) is a magnetometer used to detect any near-surface magnetic anomalies. The magnetometer will continuously operate at all altitudes. Mission Design: The spacecraft’s propulsion system will have a wet mass of 930 kg and will be launched on an Atlas V rocket. The spacecraft will jettison the payload upon arrival in Venus’s atmosphere before decelerating to orbital velocity. Figure 2. Notional power-dip profile while the balloon is on the dayside. Risks and Challenges: Raising and lowering the spacecraft to dip beneath the haze layer require a large amount of energy. This issue was partly compensated by limiting the number of dips over the 15 day prime mission. Power needs for pumping helium are reduced by slowing the descent speed, which consequently increases spatial resolution of in situ measurements between 45 and 55 km. The main limitation for the duration of the mission is the need to carry 15 days’ worth of batteries. The bus experiences external Venusian temperatures ranging from ~27°C at 55 km altitude to ~110°C at 45 km altitude. These high atmospheric temperatures require thermal protection for the bus (instruments, electronics, and flight systems) during its descent, dwell at 45 km, and ascent. The bus is maintained at a mechanically safe temperature range of -10°C to 50°C using white external paint, multi-layer insulation (MLI), mechanical/thermal isolation (e.g. Ti, composites), and ~57 kg of Phase Change Materials (PCM). Images and spectra taken below the haze dominate the available data transmission regardless of the time spent at 45 km. Therefore, less time at the lower altitude mainly reduces the coverage of in situ measurements there. Further, we assumed an unrealistically low-density material for the helium storage tanks on the gondola. However, this issue is partially resolved if we were to jettison 75% of the spent helium storage tanks. After the entry process, the balloon volume remains mostly inflated and storage tanks are required only for reducing balloon volume in dipping to 45 km. This mission was planned against an expected New Frontiers 5 (NF5) cost cap of $1B, as the NF5 call had not yet been released. The mission we describe fits within the predicted cost cap if the flyby carrier stage, responsible for powering the spacecraft during cruise and for relaying in situ measurements back to Earth, can be contributed by another space agency. Acknowledgments: We thank the JPL Planetary Science Summer School, especially A. Nash, J. Scully, K. Mitchell, L. Lowes, and J. Armijo, and our mentors from JPL Team X. Thank you to our review panel for their insightful review. References: [1] Kane, S. et al. (2019) JGR:Ps, 124 , 2015–2028. [2] Phillips, J. L., & Russell, C. T. (1987). JGR: Space Physics , 92 (A3), 2253-2263. [3] Nakamura, M. et al. (2018) Earth Planets Space, 70 (1), 144. [4] Svedhem, H. et al. (2009) JGR:P 114 (E5). [5] Limaye et al. (2009) Decadal Survey White Paper . [6] Ivanov, M. and Head, J. (2011) PSS, 59 (13) , 1559-1600. [7] Smrekar, S. et al. (2018) Space Sci Rev, 214 (5), 88. [8] O’Rourke, J. et al. (2018) EPSL, 502 , 46-56. [9] O’Rourke J. et al. (2019) GRL , (46), 5768–5777 [10] Way, M. et al. (2016) GRL, 43 (16), 8376-8383. [11] Way, M. et al. (2020) JGR:P, 125 (5), e2019JE006276. [12] Preston, R. A. et al. (1986) Science, 231 (4744), 1414-1416.

Mission Concept↗
NASA NTRS2022

Analysis of Base Metal Microstructures and Mechanical Properties of a Single-Piece, Spin-Formed Forward Pressure Vessel Bulkhead

In 2012, a pathfinder forward pressure vessel bulkhead (FPVBH) for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) was fabricated using aluminum (Al) alloy 2219. The demonstration article was offered as a replacement for the baseline configuration, which at that time was a multi-piece welded construction using aluminum-lithium (Al-Li) alloy 2195. In 2014, the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) funded a Phase I effort to explore spin-forming as a manufacturing method to produce a complex-shaped, single-piece FPVBH for the crew module (CM) [1]. The primary focus of the NESC effort was to expand spin-forming technology to the fabrication of an Al-Li 2195 FPVBH. As a result, limited testing and analysis was performed on the original Al 2219 article. In this study, a sufficiently large plate of Al 2219 was not available for the fabrication of a FPVBH. Therefore, the forming blank comprised two plates (from different lots) butt welded together using a single friction stir weld. The welded forming blank was then spin formed into the FPVBH configuration and heat treated to the T62 temper. Mechanical property testing of the spin-formed 2219-T62 FPVBH revealed that the tensile properties were comparable to the Metallic Material Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS) A-basis allowable for Al 2219-T6 wrought products. However, post-spin forming application of the standard heat treatment produced large, recrystallized grains in the material. The response varied within the two plates; one plate lot exhibited nearly complete recrystallization, while the other lot contained bands of recrystallization. Although no reduction in tensile properties was observed due to these microstructural variations, a more detailed investigation was recommended to better understand the effect of spin forming on the recrystallization mechanism and the impact on other material properties. The current study examined the microstructure and mechanical properties of the fully processed Al 2219-T62 FPVBH with emphasis on comparing differences between the two plates. Testing was limited to the cone region of the FPVBH. The two specific tasks in this study were: a) Characterization of the microstructure and mechanical properties in the two plates used in the FPVBH. b) Isolation of the impact of each step in the thermo-mechanical processing (TMP) sequence of the FPVBH on recrystallization and grain growth. Mechanical property testing sampled regions containing both large, recrystallized and small, unrecrystallized grains. Tensile strengths and elongations were equivalent in both regions and exceeded MMPDS A-basis allowables. Fracture toughness was equivalent in both regions and fracture morphology was typical of aluminum alloys. The fatigue precrack region of the fracture toughness specimens appeared more faceted in the recrystallized plate. This suggests that property testing that is more sensitive to grain size, such as fatigue crack growth rate and stress corrosion cracking, may be warranted. Alcoa reviewed the production records for the two plate lots and confirmed that composition of both plates was within the allowable range for Al 2219 and that plate processing steps were all performed within production limits. However, the Fe content was notably higher in the fully recrystallized plate, resulting in a greater volume fraction of large Fe-bearing inclusions and Al-Cu constituent particles. Alcoa did not provide details regarding plate processing variables for the two plate lots. It was surmised that deformation by hot rolling was the most accurate TMP simulation of commercial spin forming within a laboratory setting. Both hot rolling and spin forming comprise combinations of shear and compressive deformation. The through-thickness strain caused by hot rolling is symmetrical about the mid-plane, as the rollers contact both sides of the material. Shear strains are maximum at the inner and outer surfaces and trend toward zero at the mid-thickness. In contrast, spin forming utilizes a single roller on the outer surface, producing a gradient in shear stress through the thickness. Shear strains in spin-formed material are highest at the outer surface due to direct contact with the roller, and trend toward zero at the inner surface. Consequently, there will undoubtedly be some discrepancies in the mechanical response of hot-rolled and spin-formed products in the through-thickness direction. Interrupted TMP simulations were performed on remnant plate from the FPVBH forming blank in order to isolate the effects of a post-weld anneal, spin-forming deformation/thermal cycling, and solution heat treatment (SHT) on development of the recrystallized microstructures. Analysis confirmed that large, recrystallized grains formed exclusively during SHT and only after a certain deformation level was exceeded. Remnant plate from both lots that received thermal processing only did not exhibit recrystallization but exhibited fully recrystallized microstructures when processed by hot rolling. This indicates that (1) the level of deformation exceeded the critical level for recrystallization in both plates and (2) that the level of deformation during hot rolling was greater than that which accumulated during spin forming of the FPVBH. Comparison of the hot-rolled plate with the spin-formed material showed that the recrystallized grain size was larger in the FPVBH, providing further evidence that deformation levels were lower in the FPVBH. The most plausible explanation for the differing degrees of recrystallization in the two plates is particle stimulated nucleation (PSN) at the Fe-bearing inclusions and large Al-Cu constituent particles. In the plate with higher solute content, the greater volume fraction of these particles reduces the deformation level required to promote recrystallization. During spin forming the critical deformation level was likely exceeded for the higher Fe content plate resulting in a fully recrystallized microstructure. The lower Fe content plate developed a microstructure that exhibited bands of recrystallization due to the combination of a non-uniform distribution of particles and deformation. The critical deformation required for recrystallization was likely only exceeded during spin forming in regions of higher particle content. While there were differences in Fe content between these lots of Al 2219 plate, the composition of both was within defined alloy limits and Alcoa reported no anomalies during plate production. The observed differences in recrystallization after spin forming may reflect the inherent variability between these two lots of plate. The spin-forming vendor, Spincraft, reported that similar variations in recrystallized microstructures have been observed during examination of multiple spin-forming trials of a different 2xxx series aluminum alloy. Hence, tighter chemical specification limits on impurity levels in Al 2219 plate may help ensure uniform, predictable microstructures. Finally, the tensile and fracture toughness properties were not affected by the microstructural variations noted.

single-piece↗
NASA NTRS2016

Pilot Field Test: Performance of a Sit-to-Stand Test After Long-Duration Space Flight

BACKGROUND: Astronauts returning from the International Space Station are met by a team of recovery personnel typically providing physical assistance and medical support immediately upon landing. That is because long-duration spaceflight impacts astronauts' functional abilities. Future expeditions to planets or asteroids beyond the low Earth orbit, however, may require crewmembers to egress the vehicle and perform other types of physical tasks unassisted. It is therefore important to characterize the extent and longevity of functional deficits experienced by astronauts in order to design safe exploration class missions. Pilot Field Test (PFT) experiment conducted with participation of ISS crewmembers traveling on Soyuz expeditions 34S - 41S comprised several tasks designed to study the recovery of sensorimotor abilities of astronauts during the first 24 hours after landing and beyond. METHODS: The first test in the PFT battery sequence, and also the least demanding one from the sensorimotor perspective, was a Sit-to-Stand test. Test subjects were seated in the chair and had to stand up on command and remain standing for ten seconds. The subjects were instructed to stand up unassisted as quickly as they were able to, while maintaining postural control. Synchronized wireless inertial sensors mounted on the head, chest, lower back, wrists, and ankles were used to continuously log body kinematics. Crewmembers' blood pressure and heart rate were monitored and recorded with the Portapres and Polar systems. Each session was recorded with a digital video camera. During data collections occurring within the 24-hour postflight period, crewmembers were also asked to (1) evaluate their perceived motion sickness symptoms on a 20-point scale before and after completion of the test and (2) estimate how heavy they felt compared to their normal (preflight) body weight. Consent to participate in PFT was obtained from 18 crewmembers (11 US Orbital Segment [USOS] astronauts and 7 Russian cosmonauts). For 10 subjects, the first set of data was collected in the medical tent in Soyuz landing zone (1-2 hours after landing); the other 8 subjects were tested at the Kazakhstan deployment airport (4-5 hours after landing). 8 of the 11 astronauts were tested twice more within the first 24 hours postflight, at a refueling stop on the way to Houston (approximately 13 hours after landing) and at the Johnson Space Center (approximately 24 hours after landing). Later postflight data were collected in the first two weeks on some crewmembers. Finally, 6 astronauts were tested 60+ days after landing to establish a delayed baseline. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Two of the 18 PFT participants felt too ill to attempt any tests in Kazakhstan (at either the landing zone or deployment airport). The remaining test subjects completed the Sit-to-Stand test and their reported motion sickness scores were unaffected by this task. The task completion times and body kinematics data analysis are currently underway. Preliminary analysis of astronaut data shows a steep improvement in the time to complete the task on the second data take, and in some cases, the trend continues through day six postflight. Head and trunk pitch angles and pitch rates were also examined and increases in all measures are evident throughout the observed recovery period (60+ days postflight). Interesting patterns of head and trunk pitch coordination have also emerged. One of the data analysis objectives is comparison of initial postflight performance and recovery of experienced crewmembers and first-time fliers. Another one - possible differences in performance between USOS and Russian crewmembers.

Kofman, I. S.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Monitoring Airspace Complexity and Determining Contributing Factors

The national airspace has evolved over many years to accommodate increased traffic demand [1] while simultaneously maintaining one of the safest forms of transportation [2], [3]. One of the reasons for this success is the ability of the system and the operators to adapt and accommodate to situations that routinely disrupt optimal operations. These situations may include: adverse weather, delays, early arrivals, equipment outages, and other factors that are outside the operators ability to control. These factors can lead to states where automation is unable to properly handle these issues and therefore air traffic controllers and pilots have to intervene, ultimately increasing communication between operators resulting in higher workload. As controller workload increases to handle sub-optimal operating conditions this can be viewed as an increase in complexity. The reasoning for this is because humans are now required to make tactical decisions in response to external factors, resulting in a departure from the strategic plan where operations would be more efficiently managed. Human operators control airspace complexity under rigid regulations that are constantly changing. The airspace is divided into sectors and the number of aircraft assigned to each controller is limited for safe handling. There has been past work that devised airspace complexity metrics in commercial aviation and related these metrics to controller workload (e.g., [4],[5]). The upper bounds on the system load are pre-determined. Such bounds on complexity make for a safe system, but the system cannot scale and adapt to autonomous, dense, and heterogeneous traffic, including the many types of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) envisioned to be added to the operations. We hypothesize that, as traffic density and heterogeneity grow, and other key metrics change, there will be phase transitions at which the way traffic should be managed changes significantly [6]. We offer a method for in-time detection of contributing factors that lead to phase transitions, characterized by increased complexity. To the best of our knowledge, there is no tool similar to our proposed effort that identifies such contributing factors or precursor patterns. To define the scope we are proposing to measure complexity from the viewpoint of the Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON) controller’s perspective. In particular we are analyzing arrivals into KSFO. With safety as the top concern for airspace operators, it is important to recognize that as density and heterogeneity grow, the focus of the system will change. Times of the day when the airspace has low density and heterogeneity, the flights will follow more efficient paths where the aircraft move on established routes that are more or less directly to the destination. However, when density and heterogeneity increases, the system will begin changing focus to avoiding conflicts and collisions and route the flights in a more flexible way. Higher flexibility requires more communication and coordination between controllers and pilots which the current automation is unable to handle. This paper proposes a novel approach that monitors airspace complexity at multiple scales, uses a Machine Learning-based tool that predicts when operations will transition to a regime of greater complexity, and identifies actions that can reduce the complexity while still maintaining efficient and safe operations. We demonstrate our proposed approach using data from multiple complementary sources. This includes, but is not limited to: historical aircraft surveillance data from NASA’s Sherlock Data Warehouse [7], METAR weather data, and airport configuration data from Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM). The surveillance data flight paths are sampled at a variable sample rate — increasing as the aircraft approaches the airport. This is due to how Sherlock manages flight track stitching between different radar facilities which have different sampling rates. The weather and performance data are logged at defined intervals throughout the day at a courser refresh rate. In addition to the logged data and metrics, we leverage pre-defined Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) procedures to characterize the path of each flight. Each flight files for one of these routes in the flight plan well before entering the terminal airspace, and approximately follows the route until it leaves the STAR, typically on the final fix of a runway transition. However, most flights do not always fly the full STAR procedure to completion [8], but the majority do adhere to the fixes within the common route of the procedure. Our approach leverages fixes in the common route of each of the STARs to build a reference path to the airport. This allows us to characterize the flight paths in what we are defining as the “maneuvering area” (the airspace between the STAR and before the flight is lined up on the runway’s final approach) to determine how off nominal the flights are to calculate its complexity score. Determining airspace complexity is a concept that does not have a concrete answer. In designing this metric, we consider what increases the workload for the air traffic controllers. Consequently more specialized vectoring maneuvers results in higher workload. Accordingly, we start with a theory: each flight has a direct path it takes from the STAR’s common route to the final approach’s outer marker fix for the flight’s landing runway. It is important to note that the direct path is only used as a reference. If the majority of the flights have a large consistent offset as compared to other routes it does not necessarily mean that those flights have higher complexity. We are merely building a distribution based on this direct path for that particular STAR and runway pair to determine the normal mode of operations for that route. Flights that are in the upper tail of these distributions will result in higher complexity scores and flights that fly in the median will represent the normal mode of operations and therefore will have lower complexity scores. Since flights following each STAR route take different paths to the airport, we have a different distribution for each STAR route and therefore can model these distributions to compute a complexity score from their respective normalized distributions. To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed airspace complexity metric we will compare against an established approach based on trajectory clustering [9]. This unsupervised learning technique consists of the following steps: (1) identify the general maneuvering areas (waypoints) by performing $\kappa$-means or DBSCAN clustering on locations where aircraft frequently turn based on the surveillance radar track data, (2) map flight trajectories onto sequences of waypoints, and (3) cluster the sequences based on their common subsequences. From a high-level perspective, this baseline model learns nominal operations in the airspace through the sequence of waypoints that are representative of where aircraft change direction and defines deviations from the nominal operations as “complex.” Therefore, more deviations from the nominal operations correspond to higher complexity values. For our validation, we re-implemented this technique and tune model hyper-parameters to correctly detect waypoints for the arrival traffic into the San Francisco bay area. We will compute the complexity measure over a one-year period using our proposed technique as well as the baseline. Our validation will be based on each technique’s ability to detect a set of undesirable outcomes (e.g., go-arounds, holding patterns, average time in the airspace, etc.). Since our current complexity metric is derived from the offset from the direct reference path, it’s important to understand what causes these offsets. In many of the flights with high offset distance, flights performing holding patterns and S turns can be observed. These maneuvering tactics are utilized to add distance between the aircraft and the destination runway to prevent multiple flights from having conflicting arrival times. In order to predict a rise in complexity (or the precursor to complexity), it’s necessary to be able to identify these potential conflicts (which in turn, result in higher offsets). To do this, we define a “representative flight” for each STAR route and runway pair. This flight is approximately the path the flight would take if there was a clear path with no other flights in the airspace — including the time remaining to the airport. We first identify the flights for a given STAR runway pair using the offset to the reference path distributions that fall between the 44-55 percentiles. This yields the flights that conform to the most normal mode of operation. Each of these flights is partitioned based on the percent complete from the entry point into the maneuvering areas from 0\% – 100\% complete. Then for each percent “bin”, we take the median value of the flight’s latitude/longitude coordinates, airspeed, and (non causal) time remaining to the airport to construct a lookup table for each percent complete bin on a given route. As a flight enters the maneuvering area, we can find the estimated arrival time of a flight to the airport by finding the closest point to the representative path’s percent complete bin (relative to the flight’s current position at any snapshot in the airspace) and therefore retrieve the corresponding remaining time left on the “representative path”. We assume that the flight will follow the representative path to completion when deriving these estimates. We can then compare these estimated arrival times against other flights for the same snapshot in time to identify potential conflicts. If more flights are estimated to arrive within a tolerance window than there are runways available, then we have a potential conflict. We can use this derived measure along with other factors expected to add disruption to the operation such as weather and runway configuration changes as an input to machine learning tools to detect precursors that increases in our complexity measure. This novel method will assist in uncovering insights into the contributing factors that lead to increased complexity that may allow for in-time responses to avoid reaching a high complexity state in the airspace.

complexity↗
NASA NTRS1993

LOITA: Lunar Optical/Infrared Telescope Array

LOITA (Lunar Optical/Infrared Telescope Array) is a lunar-based interferometer composed of 18 alt-azimuth telescopes arranged in a circular geometry. This geometry results in excellent uv coverage and allows baselines up to 5 km long. The angular resolution will be 25 micro-arcsec at 500 nm and the main spectral range of the array will be 200 to 1100 nm. For infrared planet detection, the spectral range may be extended to nearly 10 mu m. The telescope mirrors have a Cassegrain configuration using a 1.75 m diameter primary mirror and a 0.24 m diameter secondary mirror. A three-stage (coarse, intermediate, and fine) optical delay system, controlled by laser metrology, is used to equalize path lengths from different telescopes to within a few wavelengths. All instruments and the fine delay system are located within the instrument room. Upon exiting the fine delay system, all beams enter the beam combiner and are then directed to the various scientific instruments and detectors. The array instrumentation will consist of CCD detectors optimized for both the visible and infrared as well as specially designed cameras and spectrographs. For direct planet detection, a beam combiner employing achromatic nulling interferometry will be used to reduce star light (by several orders of magnitude) while passing the planet light. A single telescope will be capable of autonomous operation. This telescope will be equipped with four instruments: wide field and planetary camera, faint object camera, high resolution spectrograph, and faint object spectrograph. These instruments will be housed beneath the telescope. The array pointing and control system is designed to meet the fine pointing requirement of one micro-arcsec stability and to allow precise tracking of celestial objects for up to 12 days. During the lunar night, the optics and the detectors will be passively cooled to 70-80 K temperature. To maintain a continuous communication with the earth a relay satellite placed at the L4 libration point will be used in conjunction with the Advanced Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (ATDRSS). Electrical power of about 10 kW will be supplied by a nuclear reactor based on the SP-100 technology. LOITA will be constructed in three phases of six telescopes each. The total mass of the first operational phase is estimated at 58,820 kg. The cost of the fully operational first phase of the observatory is estimated at $8.9 billion. LOITA's primary objectives will be to detect and characterize planets around nearby stars (up to ten parsec away), study physics of collapsed stellar objects, solar/stellar surface features and the processes in nuclear regions of galaxies and quasars. An interferometric array such as LOITA will be capable of achieving resolutions three orders of magnitude greater than Hubble's design goal. LOITA will also be able to maintain higher signal to noise ratios than are currently attainable due to long observation times available on the moon.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2016

Fluid Shifts: Otoacoustical Emission Changes in Response to Posture and Lower Body Negative Pressure

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the NASA Fluid Shifts Study is to characterize fluid distribution and compartmentalization associated with long-duration spaceflight and to correlate these findings with vision changes and other elements of the visual impairment and intracranial pressure (VIIP) syndrome. VIIP signs and symptoms, as well as postflight lumbar puncture data, suggest that elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) may be associated with spaceflight-induced cephalad fluid shifts, but this hypothesis has not been tested. Due to the invasive nature of direct measures of ICP, a noninvasive technique of monitoring ICP is desired for use during spaceflight. The phase angle and amplitude of otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) have been shown to be sensitive to posture change and ICP (1, 2), therefore use of OAEs is an attractive option. OAEs are low-level sounds produced by the sensory cells of the cochlea in response to auditory stimulation. These sounds travel peripherally from the cochlea, through the oval window, to the ear canal where they can be recorded. OAE transmission is sensitive to changes in the stiffness of the oval window, occurring as a result of changes in cochlear pressure. Increased stiffness of the oval window largely affects the transmission of sound from the cochlea at frequencies between 800 Hz and 1600 Hz. OAEs can be self-recorded in the laboratory or on the ISS using a handheld device. Our primary objectives regarding OAE measures in this experiment were to 1) validate this method during preflight testing of each crewmember (while sitting, supine and in head-down tilt position), and 2) determine if OAE measures (and presumably ICP) are responsive to lower body negative pressure and to spaceflight. METHODS: Distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) and transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) were recorded preflight using the Otoport Advance OAE system (Otodynamics Ltd., Hatfield, UK). Data were collected in four conditions (seated, supine, 15 degrees head down tilt (HDT), and 15 degrees HDT with lower body negative pressure (LBNP)) to produce a range of ICP in each subject and test the susceptibility of OAEs to LBNP. LBNP was induced using the Russian Chibis suit to produce the same fit and pressures that would be experienced inflight during Chibis LBNP trials. Similar trials have occurred inflight on the ISS. A comparative analysis of preflight and inflight phase measurements and magnitudes was completed in both broad and narrow band frequency ranges. RESULTS: TEOAE data demonstrated notable phase shifts from 859-1640 Hz when the seated baseline condition is compared to supine, HDT, and HDT plus Chibis conditions. Changes were particularly pronounced at low frequencies and were consistent with the expected ICP changes. Preflight DPOAE magnitude data revealed changes consistent with increased ICP in two conditions at 1414 Hz, where a magnitude change (relative to the seated condition) was seen in the HDT position and in HDT plus Chibis. DISCUSSION: OAEs revealed systematic changes in phase and magnitude throughout all test conditions (including use of Chibis LBNP) that were consistent with ICP changes. Results indicate that OAEs may provide a rapid noninvasive means of monitoring ICP changes. The first two subjects are projected to complete inflight testing on the ISS in early 2016, with the full complement of 10 subjects scheduled to be complete in 2018.

Melgoza, R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development and Testing of Pulse Guns for Combustion Instability Testing

To test liquid rocket engines (LREs) for combustion instabilities, devices such as bombs are often used to create pressure wave disturbances. Bombs, while effective, are inherently dangerous, expensive, and difficult to procure. Over the years, pulse guns have been used as a safer and more cost-effective way to generate controlled pressure disturbances in engine chambers. In anticipation of the need for stability testing of prototype LREs at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), a set of pulse guns have been designed, fabricated, tested, and characterized. The pulse gun program is funded by the RS-25 Engine Program managed out of MSFC and funded by NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) through the MSFC Liquid Engines Office (LEO). A pulse gun is a simple device – like a traditional gun, it has a breech and barrel section. However, unlike a traditional gun, there is no bullet, as the purpose of the pulse gun is strictly to fire a high pressure pulse. Instead of a firing pin and primer that would normally be used in a traditional gun, an initiator is used to activate the gun powder. The initiator is a highly reliable pyrotechnic initiator. For this study, clone versions of the NASA Standard Initiator (NSI) were used. The initiator is used to ignite a pre-measured amount of gun powder loaded into the breech. When the pressure of the burnt gun powder exceeds the set point of a downstream burst disk, the disk ruptures, allowing the high pressure pulse to travel downstream through the barrel section. A ballistic pressure transducer located in the breech section is used to measure the short duration, high pressure pulse. Some configurations of the pulse gun have barrel sections that include one or more additional ballistic pressure transducers. These additional pressure measurements help track the degradation and damping of the pulse as it travels out of the barrel section. The measurements may also be used to determine the velocity of pulse. The objective of this paper is to present the different variants of this newly-developed pulse gun and characterize performance over a range of parameters. The parameters include breech diameter, barrel length, amount of gun powder used, the way the gun powder is packed, and the pressure setting of the burst disk. There are a total of six pulse guns: three with the 0.25 inch breech and three different length barrels, and three with the 0.40 inch breech and three different length barrels. For both breech sizes, the associated barrels are referred to as standard, one-port, and two-port barrels. The standard barrel has no instrumentation and is likely the barrel that will be used for engine stability testing. The one- and two-port barrels were designed specifically for pulse gun component testing to allow measurements of the magnitude and timing of the high pressure pulse as it makes its way through the pulse gun. The burst disks tested were commercially-available burst disks designed to rupture at 8,000, 16,000, and 24,000 psid. Testing was accomplished by firing the pulse gun into a test chamber pressurized with nitrogen at about 2300 psig. A total of four Model 113B23 High frequency ICP® pressure sensors (10k psi) were mounted in the test chamber, in the same plane as the pulse gun. Two of the sensors had “trimmed” adapters, and two did not. Given the symmetrical configuration of the sensors within the test chamber, different amplitudes of pressure measurements are attributed to the use of trimmed versus untrimmed adapters. The untrimmed adapters, with their narrower passages, tended to amplify the pressure amplitudes by as much as 50%. In total, 41 pulse gun tests have been conducted.Data are still being analyzed, but some trends are apparent. For example, measurements taken within the pulse gun are shown in Figures 3 and 4 for Hot-fires (HFs) # 11 and 39, respectively. Both tests were identical in that the 0.40 inch ID breech, two-port barrel, 8,000 psid burst disk, and same amount of gunpowder (6.639 grains for HF# 11, and 6.576 grains for HF# 39) were used, and the back pressure in the nitrogen test chamber was ~2300 psig. Despite keeping all these variables constant, the results from these two tests look quite different. For both tests, the first pressure peak shown in the P2111 trace within the breech is the firing of the initiator. The second peak and any subsequent peaks are from the combustion of the gunpowder. It should be noted that because the sensors are dynamic, the ~2300 psig baseline static pressure is not shown in the figures. For HF# 11, the burst disk clearly ruptured in a little over 0.1 ms from the time the initiator was fired. This is evident from the abrupt rise in pressure for P2112 followed by another abrupt rise in pressure for P2113. The sensors track the movement of the high pressure pulse through the pulse gun. For HF# 39, however, there was nearly 1 ms delay between the initiator firing and the burst disk rupturing. The only difference between these two tests was the way in which the gunpowder was packed within the breech. For HF# 11, the gunpowder was poured directly into the breech, atop the initiator, and held in place with a vegetable fiber wad appropriately sized for the barrel diameter. Once in place, the wad firmly held the gunpowder in place. For HF# 39, the gunpowder was rolled within cigarette paper with the ends of the paper twisted. The rolled gunpowder was gently pushed down into the breech, toward the initiator, and no wad was used. This method of loading the gunpowder consistently produced longer delays in the rupture of the burst disk, presumably because there was a steady, fuller burning of the gunpowder. The burst disk was rated for 8,000 psid, which means that the burst disk should not have opened until the pressure in the breech reached ~10,300 since there was ~2300 psig back pressure in the test chamber. In the case of HF# 11, the breech pressure only reached roughly 4200 psi before there was leakage either through or past the burst disk, but for HF#39, the breech pressure reached 10,600 psi prior to the burst disk opening. The temperature of the burst disk is certainly a factor in determining when the burst disk will rupture. A sharp rise in the burst disk temperature could weaken it and cause it to stray from the designed set point burst pressure. The burst disks are manufactured of Inconel to try to reduce their sensitivity to temperature, but how the burst disks perform above 900°F is not documented. All burst disks were engineered and tested by the manufacturer for ambient temperature conditions. One theory for why rolling the gunpowder in cigarette paper may produce better results is related to a more controlled temperature environment. The cigarette paper may act as a sheath that protects the burst disk from excessive temperatures during the rapid buildup of pressure in the breech. The ultimate benefit of not breeching the burst disk prematurely is shown in Figures 5 and 6, which graphs the resultant pressure pulse produced in the test chamber. For HF #11, the peak pressure on the P2123 trimmed adapter is about 270 psi, while for HF# 39 it is 343 psi, which is about 1.27 times greater in magnitude. In either case, the pressure pulse is ~20 μs in width once it reaches the test chamber. Another pressure rise about 100 μs later can be seen on the sensors located across from the pulse gun port, P2124 and P2121. These pressures are lower due to attenuation of the pressure wave as it moves across the test chamber. After the wave encounters the wall, it reflects back and forth within the chamber until it completely dissipates.

Pulse Gun↗
NASA NTRS2021

Validation Assessment for the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) Level 4 Carbon (L4_C) Data Product Version 5

The post-launch Cal/Val phase of the SMAP mission is guided by two primary objectives for each science product team: 1) to calibrate, verify, and improve the performance of the science algorithms, and 2) validate accuracies of the science data products as specified in the SMAP Level-1 mission science requirements. Algorithm science and product maintenance activities during the SMAP extended mission phase have also involved periodic algorithm calibration and product refinements to maintain or enhance product consistency and performance as well as science utility. This report provides an assessment of the latest (Version 5) SMAP Level 4 Carbon (L4_C) product. The L4_C Version 5 (v5) global record now spans more than six years (March 2015 – present) of SMAP operations and has benefited from five major reprocessing updates to the operational product. These reprocessing events and L4_C product release updates have incorporated various algorithm refinements and calibration adjustments to account for similar refinements to the upstream GEOS land model assimilation system, SMAP brightness temperatures, and MODIS vegetation inputs used for L4_C processing. The SMAP L4_C algorithms utilize a terrestrial carbon flux model informed by daily surface and root zone soil moisture information contributed from the SMAP Level 4 Soil Moisture (L4_SM) product along with optical remote sensing-based (e.g. MODIS-based) land cover and canopy fractional photosynthetic active radiation (fPAR), and other ancillary biophysical data. The carbon flux model estimates global daily net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE) and the component carbon fluxes, namely, vegetation gross primary production (GPP) and soil heterotrophic respiration (Rh). Other L4_C product elements include surface (~0-5 cm depth) soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks and associated environmental constraints to these processes, including soil moisture-related controls on GPP and ecosystem respiration (Kimball et al. 2014, Jones et al. 2017). The L4_C product addresses SMAP carbon cycle science objectives by: 1) providing a direct link between terrestrial carbon fluxes and underlying freeze/thaw and soil moisture-related constraints to these processes, 2) documenting primary connections between terrestrial water, energy and carbon cycles, and 3) improving understanding of terrestrial carbon sink activity. The SMAP L4_C algorithms and operational product are mature and at a CEOS Validation Stage 4 level (Jackson et al. 2012) based on extensive validation of the multi-year record against a diverse array of independent benchmarks, well characterized global performance, and systematic refinements gained from five major reprocessing events. There are no Level-1 mission science requirements for the L4_C product; however, self-imposed requirements have been established focusing on NEE as the primary product field for validation, and on demonstrating L4_C accuracy and success in meeting product science requirements (Jackson et al. 2012). The other L4_C product fields also have strong utility for carbon science applications (e.g., Liu et al. 2019, Endsley et al. 2020); however, analysis of these other fields is considered secondary relative to primary validation activities focusing on NEE. The L4_C targeted accuracy requirements are to meet or exceed a mean unbiased root-mean-square error (ubRMSE, or standard deviation of the error) for NEE of 1.6 g C m-2 d-1 and 30 g C m-2 yr-1, emphasizing northern (≥45°N) boreal and arctic ecosystems; this accuracy is similar to that of tower eddy covariance measurement-based observations (Baldocchi 2008). Methods used for the latest v5 L4_C product performance and validation assessment have been established from the SMAP Cal/Val plan and previous studies (Jackson et al. 2012, Jones et al. 2017) and include: 1) consistency evaluations of the product fields against earlier product releases (version 4 or earlier); 2) comparisons of daily carbon flux estimates with independent tower eddy 4covariance measurement-based daily carbon (CO2) flux observations from core tower validation sites (CVS); and 3) consistency checks against other global carbon products, including soil carbon inventory records, global GPP records derived from tower observation upscaling methods, and satellite-based observations of canopy solar induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) as a surrogate for GPP. Metrics used to evaluate relative agreement between L4_C product fields and observational benchmarks include correlation (r-value), RMSE differences, bias and model sensitivity diagnostics. Following these validation criteria, the present report provides a validation assessment of the latest L4_C product release (v5). Detailed descriptions of the L4_C algorithm and additional global product accuracy and performance results are given elsewhere (Jones et al. 2017, Endsley et al. 2020). The v5 L4_C product replaces earlier product versions and continues to show: (i) accuracy and performance levels meeting or exceeding SMAP L4_C science requirements; (ii) improvement over the previous product version (version 4); and (iii) suitability for a diversity of science applications. Example L4_C applications from the recent literature include clarifying environmental trends and controls on the northern terrestrial carbon sink (Liu et al. 2019), diagnosing drought-related impacts on ecosystem productivity (Li et al. 2020), and regional monitoring of cropland conditions for projecting annual yields (Wurster et al. 2020). 2EXPECTED L4_C ALGORITHM AND PRODUCTPERFORMANCE The L4_C algorithm performance, including variance and uncertainty estimates of model outputs, was determined during the mission pre-launch phase through spatially explicit model sensitivity studies using available model inputs similar to those currently being used for operational production and evaluating the resulting model simulations over the observed range of northern (≥45 °N) and global conditions (Kimball et al. 2012, Entekhabi et al. 2014). The L4_C algorithm options were also evaluated during the mission prelaunch phase, including deriving canopy fPAR from lower order NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) inputs in lieu of using MODIS (MOD15) fPAR; and including an explicit model representation of boreal fire disturbance recovery impacts. These results indicated that the L4_C accuracy requirements (i.e., NEE ubRMSE ≤ 30 g C m-2 yr-1or ≤ 1.6 g C m-2 d-1) could be met from the baseline algorithms over more than 82% and 89% of global and northern vegetated land areas, respectively (Yi et al. 2013, Kimball et al. 2014). The global L4_C algorithm error budget for NEE derived during the mission prelaunch phase indicated that the estimated NEE ubRMSE uncertainty is proportional to GPP and is therefore larger in higher biomass productivity areas, including forests and croplands (Kimball et al. 2014). Likewise, NEE ubRMSE uncertainty is expected to be lower in less-productive areas, including grasslands and shrublands. Expected model NEE ubRMSE levels were also generally within targeted accuracy levels for characteristically less-productive boreal and Arctic biomes, even though relative model error as a proportion of total productivity (NEE RMSE / GPP) may be large in these areas. The estimated NEE uncertainty was lower than expected in some warmer tropical high biomass productivity areas (e.g. Amazon rainforest) because of reduced low temperature and moisture constraints to the L4_C respiration calculations so that the bulk of model uncertainty is contributed by GPP in these areas. Model NEE uncertainty in the African Congo was estimated to

SMAP↗
NASA NTRS2024

Launch Complex 34, SWMU CC054 2023 DNAPL Source Zone Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring, Site-Wide Long-Term Monitoring, and Hot Spot 6 Air Sparge System Annual Performance Monitoring and Phase Two Expansion Construction Completion Report Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida

This Annual Performance Monitoring Report (PMR) for the Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Source Zone (DSZ), Site-Wide Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), and Hot Spot 6 (HS 6) Air Sparge (AS) System presents the results of Year 14 operations and performance monitoring of the hydraulic containment (HC) Interim Measure (IM), details associated with construction and implementation of the HS 6 AS system expansion (Phase Two), 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. The timeframe for activities documented in this PMR extends from April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024. 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 shallow and deep DSZ and surrounding 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 recharacterize the DSZ, which included investigating TCE mass in Layer 7. This data was subsequently used to optimize the pumping rates of the HCS and install additional recovery wells in Layer 7 to more adequately capture residual contaminant mass. The operational period for Year 14 of the HCS was from April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024. Operational runtime for the system was 94 percent during Year 14, with downtime events attributed to planned maintenance, system repairs, and power outages. As of March 31, 2024, a total of 344,849,634 cumulative gallons of groundwater containing 94,656 pounds of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) have been removed by the HCS. During the reporting period covered under this report, the HCS recovered 31,176,393 gallons and approximately 6,319 pounds of CVOC mass. Total combined influent concentrations of TCE have decreased since startup from approximately 280,000 µg/L (January 2010) to 25,000 µg/L (March 2024). 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 January 2024 within the DSZ to evaluate TCE contamination. Groundwater samples were collected via DPT at nine locations, consistent with previous events between 2017 and 2022. Full vertical profile sampling was completed at each DPT from 8 to 98 feet below land surface (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 and at depths ranging from 28 to 98 feet bls. An overall decreasing trend of TCE concentrations was observed in DPT samples during this reporting period, which is a reduction from the previous event (December 2022) and the peak event in December 2021, where TCE percentages appeared to increase in all depth zones because several recovery wells were turned off during the AS pilot study in the DSZ. The maximum TCE concentration in January 2024 was 1,600,000 µg/L in the 53 feet bls depth interval at DPT594 (previous maximum result in 2022 was 1,800,000 µg/L in the 48 feet bls depth interval at DPT599). This maximum concentration in the 53 feet bls depth interval is in the deep capture zone. During the January 2024 DPT event, the largest portion of TCE mass was observed in the 48 feet bls interval above/within Layer 4. This trend remains consistent with previous years and appears to indicate continued mass discharge from Layer 4 (fine-grained unit). In addition to DPT sampling, annual groundwater samples were collected from 11 deep monitoring wells in the DSZ area (Layers 7 and 8) in December 2023 to verify vertical and horizontal delineation. Three of the wells were also sampled biweekly to evaluate operations of recovery well RW21D (screened 86 to 106 feet bls), which was installed in January 2023. Of the Layer 7/8 monitoring sampled only annually, results were non-detect or less than groundwater cleanup target levels GCTLs in December 2023, with the exception of one well, IW45D2, which had a cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cDCE), detection greater than the GCTL. Of the three wells sampled biweekly during the operational period, the well located closest to Layer 7 recovery well RW21D (IW44D2, screened 105 to 115 feet bls) had concentrations of TCE, cDCE and vinyl chloride (VC) greater than GCTLs throughout the operational period, but displayed a decreasing trend since the peak concentrations in September 2023. The maximum TCE concentration during this operational period was 190,000 µg/L at IW44D2 in September 2023, but reduced to 700 µg/L in March 2024, indicating the HCS is still effectively removing mass from the source area. Expansion of the HCS and addition of new recovery wells is ongoing and will continue to be evaluated as the groundwater recovery scheme is optimized. Details of the expansion and optimization will be provided in a future PMR. The HS 6 AS IM was initiated in 2018 with 160 AS wells and expanded in 2019 with another 140 AS wells. An additional expansion of the HS 6 AS IM was completed during the reporting period covered under this report and details of the construction implementation and startup of the expansion are detailed in Section III of this report. The new expansion, referred to as Phase Two, was implemented between August 17, 2022 and August 28, 2023, and included the installation of 190 air sparge wells to treat an additional 11.2 acres. The original configuration (referred to as Phase One) operated until Phase Two came online, then all but 52 AS wells were turned off so the components could be moved and utilized in the Phase Two area. The 52 AS wells that remain on are in a barrier configuration preventing contaminated groundwater from impacting the treated area. The HS 6 AS system (both Phase One and Two) operated normally during the reporting period covered under this report. Semi-annual performance monitoring of the Phase One configuration was conducted in April and November 2023, consistent with previous years. For the Phase Two configuration, 21 new monitoring wells were installed and sampled quarterly, with a baseline event in July 2023, and quarterly events in November 2023 and February 2024 summarized in this report. Semi-annual monitoring results collected in April and October 2023 show concentrations of contaminants of concern (cDCE, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, and VC) have decreased to less than GCTLs in nearly all wells and not impacting the surface water drainage canal, indicating the HS 6 IM continues to meet objectives. The baseline and quarterly sampling for the Phase Two configuration indicate generally decreasing concentrations in wells within and around the perimeter of the treatment area. At least two more quarters of monitoring will be conducted and once those results are evaluated a reduced the sampling frequency may be considered. Overall, the tasks associated with Year 14 operation of the HC IM and operation of the HS 6 AS IM were performed in accordance with recommendations included in the previous 2022 LC34 (Year 13) PMR. Evaluation of results from the HC IM and HS 6 IM show that these systems are operating as designed and meeting performance objectives.

groundwater remediation↗