Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “reliability metrics”

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.

727 records · Page 41

Small Reactors in Microgrids: Technology Modeling and Selection (Net-Zero Microgrid Program Project Report)

This report demonstrates the capabilities of the net-zero microgrid (NZM) Xendee platform for modeling an SR module with electricity, heat extraction and thermal storage in microgrids configurations. The model effectively captures the most important technical and economic considerations for SR technology specific analysis: cost and operational characteristics of SR technology and financial costs and incentives. The model can analyze multiple scenarios to establish metrics for cost-competitive and zero-carbon microgrids connected to the grid or completely isolated. The model is fully integrated within the Xendee platform for modeling and analysis of clean energy microgrids with storage and generation from renewable energy sources. The model captures the capabilities, constraints, and nuances of SR by incorporating parameters related to plant economics, design efficiency and performance, plant operation and component and fuel lifespan. The cost and operational parameters modeled in the SR module are specific to the technology selected for integration in the microgrid. Cost parameters recognize advanced nuclear technology for modular production and installation based on economies of scale from factory manufacture and related commissioning, and cost reduction through technology maturation—first-of-a-kind (FOAK) and nth-of-a-Kind (NOAK). The cost parameters include installation, operations and maintenance (O&M), fuel refueling cycle, and reactor life. Installation cost reflects economies of scale due to unit sizing at scale and colocation. O&M economies of scale for both fixed- and variable-cost fuel life-cycle costs are incurred at every refueling interval, with separate front- and back-end fuel costs, as well as waste-handling and disposition costs. This report investigates key characteristics of different SR technologies suitable for microgrid applications, including design principles, sizing, coolant properties, temperature ratings, fuel structures, and life-cycle considerations. This also includes fuel technologies applicable to these SR systems, alongside strategies for nuclear-waste and spent-fuel management and approaches to address safety, security, and proliferation challenges. Four primary groups of SR technologies are examined: water-cooled, liquid-metal-cooled, high-temperature gas-cooled, and molten-salt-cooled systems. In this report, an initial guideline for technology selection is established, aligning the characteristics of the technologies with the requirements of microgrids. The selection of technology in a microgrid is influenced by various factors, including financial capacity, location and accessibility, demand type and characteristics, reliability and resilience requirements, area constraints, and the lifespan of the microgrid. The types of electrical and non-electrical applications within the microgrid also play a significant role in technology selection. The characteristics of SRs, such as their smaller size, modularity, transportability, long refueling interval, improved safety features, ability to operate in autonomous or semi-autonomous mode, and provision of high-grade heat, are particularly appealing for microgrids. Furthermore, a list of considerations for implementing SRs in microgrids is outlined. The SR model is created to be continuously improved with the acquisition of actual data on investment and operational costs, experience with supply chains, production at scale, and field deployments. In the near term, performance data on applications in microgrids will become available from lessons learned from laboratory tests, such as those planned for the Microreactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation Project (MARVEL), led by Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The SR model incorporates scenario data and known SR design specifications, enabling technoeconomic analysis for SR deployment in microgrids. It specifically considers the distinctive attributes of SRs as generators in technoeconomic studies. SRs can be modeled and analyzed with generation from renewable-energy sources, energy storage, and flexible loads over a range of functionality and applications. This offers a comprehensive tool for feasibility studies, scenario development, and sensitivity analysis for “what-if” consideration of any range of assumptions about SRs in microgrids and other aggregations of distributed-energy resources, including virtual power plants.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

Uncertainty Models for the Hybrid Parametric Variation Method of Uncertainty Quantification; Analysis

There is some level of uncertainty in every finite element model (FEM), which flows to a level of uncertainty in predicted results. The purpose of uncertainty quantification (UQ) is to provide statistical bounds on prediction accuracy based on model uncertainty. This is distinct from model updating, which attempts to modify models to improve their accuracy. UQ does not improve the accuracy of models, but accepts that the models are inherently inaccurate and attempts to quantify the impact of that inaccuracy on predicted results. Previously, an alternate method for UQ, called the Hybrid Parametric Variation (HPV) method, was applied to Space Launch System (SLS) Hurty/Craig-Bampton (HCB) components to predict system-level statistics for launch vehicle attitude control transfer functions and core stage section loads due to buffet. The HPV method combines a parametric variation of the HCB fixed-interface (FI) modal frequencies with a nonparametric variation (NPV) method that randomly varies the HCB mass and stiffness matrices as Wishart random matrix distributions using random matrix theory (RMT). Alternatively, the most common method for modeling uncertainty in the structural dynamics community is a parametric approach, which varies physical parameters in the model. However, there are several disadvantages associated with the parametric method. Determining a reduced set of parameters that have a significant impact on the system response can be time consuming, and the selected parameter probability distributions are rarely reliably known. Therefore, in practice, the parameters are surrogates for the actual errors, and the link to parameter uncertainty is unknown. Another major drawback is that the uncertainty that can be represented is limited to the form of the nominal FEM. It is the experience of the authors that based on numerous aerospace programs, almost all FEM errors are in form rather than parameter values. This hypothesis is supported by the observation of the authors that it is almost never possible to ‘tune’ a FEM to match modal test results by only modifying model parameters. Model-form uncertainty cannot be directly represented by FEM input parameters nor included in a parametric approach. However, model-form uncertainty can be modeled using RMT, where a probability distribution is developed for the matrix ensemble of interest. The major advantage of the NPV method is that it covers errors in model form. The HPV method anchors uncertainty at the HCB component level to component modal test results by matching the HCB and test modes based on mode descriptions or other methods, and then applying differing levels of frequency variation. The specific variations depend on the confidence to which a component FEM has been validated through modal testing. The NPV method is layered on the frequency variation to match modal test self-orthogonality and cross-orthogonality (XO) results. Once the component uncertainty models are identified, they are assembled, and the uncertainty is propagated to the system level using a Monte Carlo (MC) analysis approach that generates statistics for system-level predictions This provides a UQ method that can be traced to test data, which can be updated as additional data and improved correlated models become available. The purpose of this paper is to collect and present all of the theory for HPV that has been previously published in reports and papers and to present examples of its application. Specifically, component uncertainty models based on the dispersion of corresponding mass and stiffness matrices using proposed test/analysis correlation metrics are investigated. The first example is purely academic so that the true answers are known, and the validity of the HPV method and the corresponding uncertainty models can be determined. The purpose of this paper is to collect and present all of the theory for HPV that has been previously published in reports and papers and to present examples of its application. Specifically, component uncertainty models based on the dispersion of corresponding mass and stiffness matrices using proposed test/analysis correlation metrics are investigated. The first example is purely academic so that the true answers are known, and the validity of the HPV method and the corresponding uncertainty models can be determined. The second example is an application to a component that is design specific to the SLS. Based on this work and other assessments, the HPV method provides another tool to the toolset used for complex system UQ analysis. From experience gathered to date using the HPV method, additional design specific applications must be investigated to provide further confidence in the validity of the HPV method of UQ analysis.

Uncertainty quantification↗

Application of artificial intelligence methods in the international roughness index prediction of rigid and composite pavements: a systematic review

The International Roughness Index (IRI) is a widely adopted metric for quantifying pavement roughness, directly influencing vehicle safety, ride comfort, and overall roadway performance. In recent years, the use of Machine Learning (ML) models for IRI prediction has gained momentum, with the goal of improving the allocation of maintenance and rehabilitation resources by enabling accurate assessments of pavement conditions. Most prior reviews, however, have concentrated on flexible pavements, leaving a notable gap regarding rigid and composite pavements. To address this gap, the present study conducts a systematic review of Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods applied to IRI prediction for rigid and composite pavements. Literature published between 2004 and 2025 is synthesized to highlight prevailing trends, methodological contributions, and directions for future research. Particular attention is given to the types of models employed, the datasets used for training and validation, and the role of input variables and data-processing strategies. Across the included studies, ensemble learning methods (especially gradient boosting variants such as XGBoost), artificial neural networks, and hybrid architectures frequently achieved high predictive skill, with several models reporting test-set coefficients of determination approaching 0.9–0.96, indicating strong potential for capturing the influence of traffic, pavement structure, and climatic factors. Since these results are obtained from heterogeneous datasets and evaluation protocols, they are interpreted qualitatively rather than as strict cross-study rankings. Analysis of input variables revealed that pavement age and initial IRI were included in 91% (21 of 23) and 78% (18 of 23) of studies, respectively. Climatic variables such as the freezing index appeared in 57% (13 of 23), while traffic-related factors were considered in 65% (15 of 23). The findings underscore the importance of standardized, high-quality datasets, such as those from the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program, along with data consistency, model interpretability, computational efficiency, and replicability in enhancing IRI prediction. Future research should focus on incorporating input variable selection techniques to identify the most influential predictors, thereby improving accuracy and robustness. Integrating these approaches with advanced non-linear data-driven models, coupled with robust hyperparameter optimization, holds considerable promise for strengthening the reliability of IRI prediction and supporting resilient pavement management strategies.

42 ENGINEERING↗

US Department of Energy, Office of Science High Performance Computing Facility Operational Assessment 2019 Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility

Oak Ridge National Laboratory's (ORNL's) Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF) continues to surpass its operational target goals: supporting users; delivering fast, reliable computational ecosystems; creating innovative solutions for high performance computing (HPC) needs; and managing risks, safety, and security associated with operating some of the most powerful computers in the world. The results can be seen in the cutting-edge science conducted by users and the praise from the research community. Calendar year (CY) 2019 was a big year as OLCF staff ran five world-class resources (the leadershipclass computers Titan and Summit, the large analysis cluster called Eos, and the massive parallel filesystems called Atlas and Alpine)) and also began power and cooling upgrades for a 2021 exascale system called Frontier. While continuing exceptional operation of Titan, Eos, and Rhea, the OLCF released the Summit supercomputer for production on January 1, 2019. Summit debuted as the most capable and efficient system in its class and has been recognized as the most powerful system in the world for its performance on both the high performance linpack (HPL) and conjugate gradient (HPCG) benchmark applications since June 2018 according to TOP500. Summit represents the culmination of a multiyear effort between the OLCF, IBM, NVIDIA, and Mellanox to deliver a system that is unmatched for modeling, simulation, data analysis, and learning. To hit the ground running with science-ready applications on day one, application teams worked closely with the OLCF through the Center for Accelerated Application Readiness (CAAR) program for years in advance of the Summit deployment. CY 2019 was filled with outstanding results and accomplishments: a very high rating from users on overall satisfaction for the sixth year in a row; a tremendous amount of core-hours delivered to researchers from two leadership-class systems; and success in delivering on the allocation split of roughly 60%, 30%, and 10% of core-hours offered for the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE), Advanced Scientific Computing Research Leadership Computing Challenge (ALCC), and Director's Discretionary (DD) programs, respectively (see Operational Performance section). These accomplishments, coupled with the high utilization rates (overall and capability usage), represent the fulfillment of the promise of both leadership-class machines: efficient facilitation of leadership-class computational applications. Table ES.1 presents a summary of the 2019 OLCF metric targets and the associated results. More information can be found in the Operational Performance section for each OLCF resource. The scientific accomplishments of OLCF users are a strong indication of long-term operational success, with publications this year in such notable journals and publications as Nature, Nature Physics, Nature Plants, Physical Review X, Journal of the American Physical Society, Cell, Nano Letters, and Trends in Biotechnology. Crucial domain-specific discoveries facilitated by resources at the OLCF are described in the High Performance Computing Facility Operational Assessment 2019 Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OAR) Strategic Results section. For example, researchers used Summit to pinpoint and understand the production of proteins from genetic information, including mutations and the functional expression of disease (Section 8.2).

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Water Across Synthetic Aperture Radar Data (WASARD): SAR Water Body Classification for the Open Data Cube

The detection of inland water bodies from Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data provides a great advantage over water detection with optical data, since SAR imaging is not impeded by cloud cover. Traditional methods of detecting water from SAR data involves using thresholding methods that can be labor intensive and imprecise. This paper describes Water Across Synthetic Aperture Radar Data (WASARD): a method of water detection from SAR data which automates and simplifies the thresholding process using machine learning on training data created from Geoscience Australia’s WOFS algorithm. Of the machine learning models tested, the Linear Support Vector Machine was determined to be optimal, with the option of training using solely the VH polarization or a combination of the VH and VV polarizations. WASARD was able to identify water in the target area with a correlation of 97% with WOFS. Sentinel-1, Open Data Cube, Earth Observations, Machine Learning, Water Detection 1. INTRODUCTION Water classification is an important function of Earth imaging satellites, as accurate remote classification of land and water can assist in land use analysis, flood prediction, climate change research, as well as a variety of agricultural applications [2]. The ability to identify bodies of water remotely via satellite is immensely cheaper than contracting surveys of the areas in question, meaning that an application that can accurately use satellite data towards this function can make valuable information available to nations which would not be able to afford it otherwise. Highly reliable applications for the remote detection of water currently exist for use with optical satellite data such as that provided by LANDSAT. One such application, Geoscience Australia’s Water Observations from Space (WOFS) has already been ported for use with the Open Data Cube [6]. However, water detection using optical data from Landsat is constrained by its relatively long revisit cycle of 16 days [5], and water detection using any optical data is constrained in that it lacks the ability to make accurate classifications through cloud cover [2]. The alternative solution which solves these problems is water detection using SAR data, which images the Earth using cloud-penetrating microwaves. Because of its advantages over optical data, much research has been done into water detection using SAR data. Traditionally, this has been done using the thresholding method, which involves picking a polarization band and labeling all pixels for which this band’s value is below a certain threshold as containing water. The thresholding method works since water tends to return a much lower backscatter value to the satellite than land [1]. However, this method can be flawed since estimating the proper threshold is often imprecise, complicated, and labor intensive for the end user. Thresholding also tends to use data from only one SAR polarization, when a combination of polarizations can provide insight into whether water is present. [2] In order to alleviate these problems, this paper presents an application for the Open Data Cube to detect water from SAR data using support vector machine (SVM) classification. 2. PLATFORM WASARD is an application for the Open Data Cube, a mechanism which provides a simple yet efficient means of ingesting, storing, and retrieving remote sensing data. Data can be ingested and made analysis ready according to whatever specifications the researcher chooses, and easily resampled to artificially alter a scene’s resolution. Currently WASARD supports water detection on scenes from ESA’s Sentinel-1 and JAXA’s ALOS. When testing WASARD, Sentinel-1 was most commonly used due to its relatively high spatial resolution and its rapid 6 day revisit cycle [5]. With minor alterations to the application's code, however, it could support data from other satellites. 3. METHODOLOGY Using supervised classification, WASARD compares SAR data to a dataset pre-classified by WOFS in order to train an SVM classifier. This classifier is then used to detect water in other SAR scenes outside the training set. Accuracy was measured according to the following metrics:  Precision: a measure of what percentage of the points WASARD labels as water are truly water  Recall: a measure of what percentage of the total water cover WASARD was able to identify.  F1 Score: a harmonic average of the precision and recall scores Both precision and recall are calculated at the end of the training phase, when the trained classifier is compared to a testing dataset. Because the WOFS algorithm’s classifications are used as the truth values when training a WASARD classifier, when precision and recall are mentioned in this paper, they are always with respect to the values produced by WOFS on a similar scene of Landsat data, which themselves have a classification accuracy of 97% [6]. Visual representations of water identified by WASARD in this paper were produced using the function wasard_plot(), which is included in WASARD. 3.1 Algorithm Selection The machine learning model used by WASARD is the Linear Support Vector Machine (SVM). This model uses a supervised learning algorithm to develop a classifier, meaning it creates a vector which can be multiplied by the vector formed by the relevant data bands to determine whether a pixel in a SAR scene contains water. This classifier is trained by comparing data points from selected bands in a SAR scene to their respective labels, which in this case are “water” or “not water” as given by the WOFS algorithm. The SVM was selected over the Random Forest model, which outperformed the SVM in training speed, but had a greater classification time and lower accuracy, and the Multilayer Perceptron Artificial Neural Network, which had a slightly higher average accuracy than the SVM, but much greater training and classification times. Figure 1: Visual representation of the SVM Classifier. Each white point represents a pixel in a SAR scene. In Figure 1, the diagonal line separating pixels determined to be water from those determined not to be water represents the actual classification vector produced by the SVM. It is worth noting that once the model has been trained, classification of pixels is done in a similar manner as in the thresholding method. This is especially true if only one band was used to train the model. 3.1 Feature Selection Sentinel-1 collects data from two bands: the Vertical/Vertical polarization (VV) and the Vertical/Horizontal polarization (VH). When 100 SVM classifiers were created for each polarization individually, and for the combination of the two, the following results were achieved: Figure 2: Accuracy of classifiers trained using different polarization bands. Precision and Recall were measured with respect to the values produced by WOFS. Figure 2 demonstrates that using both the VV and VH bands trades slightly lower recall for significantly greater precision when compared with the VH band alone, and that using the VV band alone is inferior in both metrics. WASARD therefore defaults to using both the VV and VH bands, and includes the option to use solely the VH band. The VV polarization’s lower precision compared to the VH polarization is in contrast to results from previous research and may merit further analysis [4]. 3.2 Training a Classifier The steps in training a classifier with WASARD are 1. Selecting two scenes (one SAR, one optical) with the same spatial extents, and acquired close to each other in time, with a preference that the scenes are taken on the same day. 2. Using the WOFS algorithm to produce an array of the detected water in the scene of optical data, to be used as the labels during supervised learning 3. Data points from the selected bands from the SAR acquisition are bundled together into an array with the corresponding labels gathered from WOFS. A random sample with an equal number of points labeled “Water” and “Not Water” is selected to be partitioned into a training and a testing dataset 4. Using Scikit-Learn’s LinearSVC object, the training dataset is used to produce a classifier, which is then tested against the testing dataset to determine its precision and recall The result is a wasard_classifier object, which has the following attributes: 1. f1, recall, and precision: 3 metrics used to determine the classifier’s accuracy 2. Coefficient: Vector which the SVM uses to make its predictions. The classifier detects water when the dot product of the coefficient and the vector formed by the SAR bands is positive 3. Save(): allows a user to save a classifier to the disk in order to use it without retraining 4. wasard_classify(): Classifies an entire xarray of SAR data using the SVM classifier All of the above steps are performed automatically when the user creates a wasard_classifier object. 3.3 Classifying a Dataset Once the classifier has been created, it can be used to detect water in an xarray of SAR data using wasard_classify(). By taking the dot product of the classifier’s coefficients and the vector formed by the selected bands of SAR data, an array of predictions is constructed. A classifier can effectively be used on the same spatial extents as the ones where it was trained, or on any area with a similar landscape. While

Kreiser, Zachary↗

The Surface-Topography Challenge: A Multi-Laboratory Benchmark Study to Advance the Characterization of Topography

Surface performance is critically influenced by topography in virtually all real-world applications. The current standard practice is to describe topography using one of a few industry-standard parameters. The most commonly reported number is Ra, the average absolute deviation of the height from the mean line (at some, not necessarily known or specified, lateral length scale). However, other parameters, particularly those that are scale-dependent, influence surface and interfacial properties; for example the local surface slope is critical for visual appearance, friction, and wear. The present Surface-Topography Challenge was launched to raise awareness for the need of a multi-scale description, but also to assess the reliability of different metrology techniques. In the resulting international collaborative effort, 153 scientists and engineers from 64 research groups and companies across 20 countries characterized statistically equivalent samples from two different surfaces: a “rough” and a “smooth” surface. The results of the 2088 measurements constitute the most comprehensive surface description ever compiled. We find wide disagreement across measurements and techniques when the lateral scale of the measurement is ignored. Consensus is established through scale-dependent parameters while removing data that violates an established resolution criterion and deviates from the majority measurements at each length scale. Our findings suggest best practices for characterizing and specifying topography. The public release of the accumulated data and presented analyses enables global reuse for further scientific investigation and benchmarking.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Why Atens Enjoy Enhanced Accessibility For Human Space Flight

In the context of human space flight (HSF), the concept of near-Earth object (NEO) accessibility is highly subjective. Whether or not a particular NEO is accessible critically depends on mass, performance, and reliability of interplanetary HSF systems yet to be designed. Such systems would certainly include propulsion and crew life support with adequate shielding from both solar flares and galactic cosmic radiation. Equally critical architecture options are relevant to NEO accessibility. These options are also far from being determined and include the number of launches supporting an HSF mission, together with whether or not consumables are to be pre-emplaced at the destination. Until the unknowns of HSF to NEOs come into clearer focus, the notion of relative accessibility is of great utility. Imagine a group of NEOs, each with nearly equal HSF merit determined from their individual characteristics relating to crew safety, scientific return, resource utilization, and planetary defense. The more accessible members of this group are more likely to be explored first. A highly accessible NEO could conceivably be deferred in favor of a less accessible HSF destination because the latter is more accessible during a programmatically desirable launch compliant mission trajectory solutions detected in association with a specific NEO. The known NEO population is then surveyed to illustrate in which regions of heliocentric semi-major axis, eccentricity, and inclination (a, e, i) space NEOs with large n values are mapped. The (a, e, i) mapping is also formatted such that membership in each of four NEO orbit classifications, as defined below, is evident. Amors have orbits everywhere superior to (outside of) Earth's. An Amor is therefore defined to have perihelion between 1.017 astronomical units (AU) and the maximum NEO value of 1.3 AU. As of 0 hrs Universal Time on 1 January 2011 (UT epoch 2011.0), Amors numbered 2855 in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Small-Body Database (SBDB), comprising 37.7% of known NEOs. Apollos have orbits crossing Earth's with periods greater than Earth's. An Apollo is therefore defined to have perihelion less than 1.017 AU and a greater than 1.0 AU. As of 2011.0 UT, Apollos numbered 4080 in the SBDB, comprising 53.9% of known NEOs. Atens have orbits crossing Earth's with periods less than Earth's. An Aten is therefore defined to have aphelion greater than 0.983 AU and a less than 1.0 AU. As of 2011.0 UT, Atens numbered 618 in the SBDB, comprising 8.2% of known NEOs. Atiras have orbits everywhere inferior to (inside of) Earth's. An Atira is therefore defined to have aphelion less than 0.983 AU. As of 2011.0 UT, Atiras numbered 11 in the SBDB, comprising 0.1% of known NEOs. It is no surprise that the largest n values are chiefly associated with Apollos and Atens. Because these orbits cross Earth's, distance to be covered in a given round trip mission time delta-t can be far less than is possible for Amors or Atiras . This delta-t or the sum of mission propulsive impulse magnitudes delta-v can more frequently be minimized to enhance NHATS compliance for Apollos and Atens than is generally the case for Amors and Atiras. A less intuitive trend in NHATS results is that Atens nearly outnumber the more numerous Apollos among the most compliant NEOs as measured by n. This trend is completely out of proportion to the degree Atens are represented among the known NEO population. A theory based on geocentric NEO dynamics is presented by this paper to explain why Atens enjoy inherently greater accessibility than do Apollos. Another trend evident from mapping into (a, e, i) space is the dearth of known NEOs at low e when a < 1 AU. Underrepresentation of Atens and Atiras in the NEO catalog is at least in part attributable to observing exclusively from a perspective near Earth. Generally inferior Aten and Atira orbits are rarely, if ever, in Earth's night sky. Until a comprehensive NEO survey is conducted from an appropriateegion remote from Earth, the theory developed in this paper indicates a substantial fraction of the most accessible NEOs will remain unknown. season. Such a season is really yet another undetermined HSF architecture option. A launch season's duration will likely be measured in weeks, and it will be utilized at an indeterminate point almost certainly more than a decade in the future when HSF programmatic maturity is sufficient. Furthermore, current knowledge of the NEO population relevant to HSF is far from complete. In the 100-m-diameter class of greatest interest, only a few percent of the estimated NEO population is known [2, Figure 2.4]. Therefore, any known, lost, or fictitious NEO in a highly accessible orbit is a potential HSF destination of merit. Even if lost, fictitious, small, or hazardous, such a potential target (or another in a similar orbit) may ultimately prove to be an early HSF destination when the pertinent NEO population is more thoroughly catalogued and NEO orbits are more thoroughly maintained at high accuracy. This paper first reviews methodology and pertinent results from NASA-sponsored research performed in late 2010 and dubbed NEO HSF Accessible Targets Study (NHATS, pronounced as "gnats"). A useful accessibility metric developed during this study is n, the tally of NHATS-

Barbee, Brent↗