Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Earth surface”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,009 records · Page 56
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Sensitivity of Simulated Polar Climate to Improved Partitioning of Spectral Solar Irradiance Between Visible and Near‐Infrared Bands

The solar radiative processes that contribute to Earth's surface and atmospheric energy budgets are strongly dependent on wavelength. For example, snow and water vapor become more absorptive as incident radiation shifts from visible (VIS) to near-infrared (NIR) wavelengths. Some earth system models (ESMs) aggregate solar radiation into just two bands (VIS and NIR) partitioned at 0.7 μm for transmission between the atmospheric and surface components. In the widely used radiative transfer model RRTMG_SW this partition is near the center of the overlap spectral band spanning 0.625–0.778 μm, whose flux is often approximated as being evenly divided between the VIS and NIR surface bands. Using a hyperspectral radiative transfer model, we show that the fractional downwelling surface flux within the overlap band is usually distributed about 55.5%:44.5% VIS:NIR. This improved approximation shifts as much as 4.27 W m −2 from the NIR to the VIS band, leading to an instantaneous decrease in surface absorption of up to 0.91 W m −2 over snow-covered surfaces. Century-long fully coupled ESM simulations show surface absorption over snow decreases by over 1.6 W m −2 . The coupled response in sea ice regions amplifies the initial forcing ten-fold, and increases seasonal sea ice area by up to 4.9%. These results highlight the importance of accurately representing the spectral distribution of solar radiation in the cryosphere.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1972

Microwave emission measurements of sea surface roughness, soil moisture, and sea ice structure

In order to demonstrate the feasibility of the microwave radiometers to be carried aboard the Nimbus 5 and 6 satellites and proposed for one of the earth observatory satellites, remote measurements of microwave radiation at wavelengths ranging from 0.8 to 21 cm have been made of a variety of the earth's surfaces from the NASA CV-990 A/C. Brightness temperatures of sea water surfaces of varying roughness, of terrain with varying soil moisture, and of sea ice of varying structure were observed. In each case, around truth information was available for correlation with the microwave brightness temperature. The utility of passive microwave radiometry in determining ocean surface wind speeds, at least for values higher than 7 meters/second has been demonstrated. In addition, it was shown that radiometric signatures can be used to determine soil moisture in unvegetated terrain to within five percentage points by weight. Finally, it was demonstrated that first year thick, multi-year, and first year thin sea ice can be distinguished by observing their differing microwave emissivities at various wavelengths.

Gloersen, P.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Geographic information system for fusion and analysis of high-resolution remote sensing and ground truth data

We seek to combine high-resolution remotely sensed data with models and ground truth measurements, in the context of a Geographical Information System, integrated with specialized image processing software. We will use this integrated system to analyze the data from two Case Studies, one at a bore Al forest site, the other a tropical forest site. We will assess the information content of the different components of the data, determine the optimum data combinations to study biogeophysical changes in the forest, assess the best way to visualize the results, and validate the models for the forest response to different radar wavelengths/polarizations. During the 1990's, unprecedented amounts of high-resolution images from space of the Earth's surface will become available to the applications scientist from the LANDSAT/TM series, European and Japanese ERS-1 satellites, RADARSAT and SIR-C missions. When the Earth Observation Systems (EOS) program is operational, the amount of data available for a particular site can only increase. The interdisciplinary scientist, seeking to use data from various sensors to study his site of interest, may be faced with massive difficulties in manipulating such large data sets, assessing their information content, determining the optimum combinations of data to study a particular parameter, visualizing his results and validating his model of the surface. The techniques to deal with these problems are also needed to support the analysis of data from NASA's current program of Multi-sensor Airborne Campaigns, which will also generate large volumes of data. In the Case Studies outlined in this proposal, we will have somewhat unique data sets. For the Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest (Case I) calibrated DC-8 SAR data and extensive ground truth measurement are already at our disposal. The data set shows documented evidence to temporal change. The Belize Forest Experiment (Case II) will produce calibrated DC-8 SAR and AVIRIS data, together with extensive measurements on the tropical rain forest itself. The extreme range of these sites, one an Arctic forest, the other a tropical rain forest, has been deliberately chosen to find common problems which can lead to generalized observations and unique problems with data which raise issues for the EOS System.

Freeman, Anthony↗
NASA NTRS1993

Geographic information system for fusion and analysis of high-resolution remote sensing and ground data

We seek to combine high-resolution remotely sensed data with models and ground truth measurements, in the context of a Geographical Information System (GIS), integrated with specialized image processing software. We will use this integrated system to analyze the data from two Case Studies, one at a boreal forest site, the other a tropical forest site. We will assess the information content of the different components of the data, determine the optimum data combinations to study biogeophysical changes in the forest, assess the best way to visualize the results, and validate the models for the forest response to different radar wavelengths/polarizations. During the 1990's, unprecedented amounts of high-resolution images from space of the Earth's surface will become available to the applications scientist from the LANDSAT/TM series, European and Japanese ERS-1 satellites, RADARSAT and SIR-C missions. When the Earth Observation Systems (EOS) program is operational, the amount of data available for a particular site can only increase. The interdisciplinary scientist, seeking to use data from various sensors to study his site of interest, may be faced with massive difficulties in manipulating such large data sets, assessing their information content, determining the optimum combinations of data to study a particular parameter, visualizing his results and validating his model of the surface. The techniques to deal with these problems are also needed to support the analysis of data from NASA's current program of Multi-sensor Airborne Campaigns, which will also generate large volumes of data. In the Case Studies outlined in this proposal, we will have somewhat unique data sets. For the Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest (Case 1) calibrated DC-8 SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) data and extensive ground truth measurement are already at our disposal. The data set shows documented evidence to temporal change. The Belize Forest Experiment (Case 2) will produce calibrated DC-8 SAR and AVIRIS data, together with extensive measurements on the tropical rain forest itself. The extreme range of these sites, one an Arctic forest, the other a tropical rain forest, has been deliberately chosen to find common problems which can lead to generalized observations and unique problems with data which raise issues for the EOS System.

Freeman, Anthony↗
NASA NTRS1978

Comparative planetology: Significance for terrestrial geology

The crustal evolution of the terrestrial planets increase in complexity and duration with increasing size and mass of the planet. The lunar and mercurian surfaces are largely the result of intense, post-differentiation impact bombardment and subsequent volcanic filling of major impact basins. Mars, being larger, has evolved further: crustal uplifts, rifting, and shield volcanoes have begun to modify its largely Moon-like surface. The Earth is the large end-number of this sequence, where modern plate tectonic processes have erased the earlier lunar and martian type of surfaces. Fundamental problems of the origin of terrestrial continents, ocean basins, and plate tectonics are now addressed within the context of the evolutionary pattern of the terrestrial planets.

Frey, H. V.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Earth Survey Applications Division

Accomplishments of research and data analysis conducted to study physical parameters and processes inside the Earth and on the Earth's surface, to define techniques and systems for remotely sensing the processes and measuring the parameters of scientific and applications interest, and the transfer of promising operational applications techniques to the user community of Earth resources monitors, managers, and decision makers are described. Research areas covered include: geobotany, magnetic field modeling, crustal studies, crustal dynamics, sea surface topography, land resources, remote sensing of vegetation and soils, and hydrological sciences. Major accomplishments include: production of global maps of magnetic anomalies using Magsat data; computation of the global mean sea surface using GEOS-3 and Seasat altimetry data; delineation of the effects of topography on the interpretation of remotely-sensed data; application of snowmelt runoff models to water resources management; and mapping of snow depth over wheat growing areas using Nimbus microwave data.

Carpenter, L.↗
NASA NTRS1986

Mysterious iodine-overabundance in Antarctic meteorites

Halogen as well as other trace element concentrations in meteorite finds can be influenced by alteration processes on the Earth's surface. The discovery of Antarctic meteorites offered the opportunity to study meteorites which were kept in one of the most sterile environment of the Earth. Halogen determination in Antartic meteorites was compared with non-Antarctic meteorites. No correlation was found between iodine concentration and the weathering index, or terrestrial age. The halogen measurements indicate a contaminating phase rich in iodine and also containing chlorine. Possible sources for this contamination are discussed.

Dreibus, G.↗
NASA NTRS2014

OMMYDCLD: a New A-train Cloud Product that Co-locates OMI and MODIS Cloud and Radiance Parameters onto the OMI Footprint

Clouds cover approximately 60% of the earth's surface. When obscuring the satellite's field of view (FOV), clouds complicate the retrieval of ozone, trace gases and aerosols from data collected by earth observing satellites. Cloud properties associated with optical thickness, cloud pressure, water phase, drop size distribution (DSD), cloud fraction, vertical and areal extent can also change significantly over short spatio-temporal scales. The radiative transfer models used to retrieve column estimates of atmospheric constituents typically do not account for all these properties and their variations. The OMI science team is preparing to release a new data product, OMMYDCLD, which combines the cloud information from sensors on board two earth observing satellites in the NASA A-Train: Aura/OMI and Aqua/MODIS. OMMYDCLD co-locates high resolution cloud and radiance information from MODIS onto the much larger OMI pixel and combines it with parameters derived from the two other OMI cloud products: OMCLDRR and OMCLDO2. The product includes histograms for MODIS scientific data sets (SDS) provided at 1 km resolution. The statistics of key data fields - such as effective particle radius, cloud optical thickness and cloud water path - are further separated into liquid and ice categories using the optical and IR phase information. OMMYDCLD offers users of OMI data cloud information that will be useful for carrying out OMI calibration work, multi-year studies of cloud vertical structure and in the identification and classification of multi-layer clouds.

OMMYDCLD↗
NASA NTRS2019

Forearc Carbon Sink Reduces Long-Term Volatile Recycling Into the Mantle

Carbon and other volatiles are transported from Earth’s surface into the mantle at subduction margins. The efficiency of this transfer has profound implications for the nature and scale of geochemical heterogeneities in Earth’s deep (mantle) and shallow (crustal) reservoirs, as well as Earth’s oxidation state. However, the proportion of volatiles released in the forearc and backarc are not well constrained compared to fluxes from the volcanic front. Here, we use helium and carbon isotope data from deeply sourced springs along two cross-arc transects to show that ~91% of carbon released from the slab/mantle beneath the Costa Rica forearc is sequestered within the crust by calcite deposition, and an additional ~3% is incorporated into biomass through microbial chemolithoautotrophy. We estimate that ~1.2 × 10(exp 8) to 1.3 × 10(exp 10) mol CO2/yr are released from the slab beneath the forearc, resulting in up to ~19% less carbon being transferred to Earth’s deep mantle than previously estimated.

Carbon cycle↗
NASA NTRS1991

Mars sample return mission: Two alternate scenarios

Two scenarios for accomplishing a Mars Sample Return mission are presented. Mission A is a low-cost, low-mass scenario, while Mission B is a high-technology, high-science alternative. Mission A begins with the launch of one Titan 4 rocket with a Centaur G' upper stage. The Centaur performs the trans-Mars injection burn and is then released. The payload consists of two lander packages and the orbital transfer vehicle, which is responsible for supporting the landers during launch and interplanetary cruise. Near Mars, the landers separate - one bound for a polar site and the other for an equatorial site. After descending to the surface, the landers deploy small, local rovers to collect samples. The rovers return these samples to the landers for loading on the direct return rockets, which return the samples directly to the Earth's surface. Mission B starts with four Titan 4 launches, used to place the components of the planetary transfer vehicle (PTV) into orbit. The fourth launch payload is able to move to assemble the entire vehicle by simple docking routines. Once complete, the PTV begins a low-thrust trajectory out from low Earth orbit, through interplanetary space, and into low Mars orbit. It deploys a communications satellite into a one half sol orbit and then releases the lander pad cage at 500 km altitude. The lander package contains the lander, the Mars ascent vehicle (MAV), two lighter-than-air rovers (called Aereons), and one conventional land rover. The entire package is contained within a biconic aeroshell. After release from the PTV the lander package descends to the surface, where all three rovers are released to collect samples and map the terrain. The Aereons attempt to circumnavigate Mars and collect samples from a wide variety of sites, while the land rover examines a local area more thoroughly. The Aereons are equipped with small sample return rockets that can return their samples to the lander in the event that an Aereon is incapable of returning to the lander itself. Once all samples have been collected they are loaded onto the MAV and launched into orbit. The PTV then collects the samples and returns them to Earth orbit for recovery.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2023

Design and Comparison of Surface Inset Permanent Magnet Machine and Surface Permanent Magnet Machine without Heavy Rare Earth Magnets for Traction Applications

This paper presents two machine designs: a surface inset permanent magnet (SIPM) machine and a surface permanent magnet (SPM) machine, both without heavy rare-earth magnets, that achieve 50 kW/L active power density and a constant-power speed ratio of 3 for EV traction applications. Compared to surface PM machines, SIPM machines do not require a special containment sleeve to hold the magnets in place at high speeds, provided that the rotor laminations are carefully designed together with the magnet mounting configuration to ensure the rotor’s structural integrity. Comparisons between the SPM and SIPM machines sharing the same stator, same current level, and same power speed envelope are presented. Both deliver very similar performance characteristics, but the SIPM machine’s simpler magnet containment configuration may give it an advantage in terms of reduced material and manufacturing costs.

42 ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRS2006

Long-Term Validation and Variability of the Shortwave and Longwave Radiation Data of the GEWEX Surface Radiation Budget (SRB) Project

In this investigation, we make systematic Surface Radiation Budget-Baseline Surface Radiation Network (SRB-BSRN), Surface Radiation Data Centre (SRB-WRDC) and Surface Radiation Budget-Global Energy Balance Archive (SRB-GEBA) comparisons for both shortwave and longwave daily and monthly mean radiation fluxes at the Earth's surface. We first have an overview of all the comparable pairs of data in scatter or scatter density plots. Then we show the time series of the SRB data at grids in which there are ground sites where longterm records of data are available for comparison. An overall very good agreement between the SRB data and ground observations is found. To see the variability of the SRB data during the 21.5 years, we computed the global mean and its linear trend. No appreciable trend is detected at the 5% level. The empirical orthogonal functions (EOF) of the SRB deseasonalized shortwave downward flux are computed over the Pacific region, and the first EOF coefficient is found to be correlated with the ENSO Index at a high value of coefficient of 0.7083.

Zhang, Taiping↗
NASA NTRS2006

Annual Cycles of Surface Shortwave Radiative Fluxes

The annual cycles of surface shortwave flux are investigated using the 8-yr dataset of the surface radiation budget (SRB) components for the period July 1983-June 1991. These components include the downward, upward, and net shortwave radiant fluxes at the earth's surface. The seasonal cycles are quantified in terms of principal components that describe the temporal variations and empirical orthogonal functions (EOFs) that describe the spatial patterns. The major part of the variation is simply due to the variation of the insolation at the top of the atmosphere, especially for the first term, which describes 92.4% of the variance for the downward shortwave flux. However, for the second term, which describes 4.1% of the variance, the effect of clouds is quite important and the effect of clouds dominates the third term, which describes 2.4% of the variance. To a large degree the second and third terms are due to the response of clouds to the annual cycle of solar forcing. For net shortwave flux at the surface, similar variances are described by each term. The regional values of the EOFs are related to climate classes, thereby defining the range of annual cycles of shortwave radiation for each climate class.

Wilber, Anne C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Tropical Convection Through the Lens of the INCUS Mission

The overarching goal of the recently selected NASA INvestigation of Convective UpdraftS (INCUS) mission is to enhance our understanding of why, when and where tropical convective storms form, and why only some of these storms produce extreme weather. Convective storms provide an important pathway for the transport of air and water between Earth’s surface and the upper troposphere. This vertical transport of air and water, often referred to as convective mass flux (CMF), plays a critical role in Earth’s weather and climate system through its impacts on microphysical and precipitation rates, detrainment and upper tropospheric moistening, high cloud feedbacks, and the large-scale circulation. Potential changes to the CMF as a function of the local environment or with changing climates may also have significant implications for severe weather such as flood-producing rainfall, damaging hail and lightning. In spite of the critical role of this vertical transport of water and air, representation of CMF remains a major source of error in weather and climate models, thereby limiting our ability to accurately predict convective storms and their impacts. The tropics-wide observations from INCUS will enhance our understanding of tropical convective storm processes and will provide guidance for representing these processes in numerical models across scales. INCUS is comprised of three SmallSat platforms each carrying a RainCube-heritage Ka-band 7-beam scanning radar. The satellite platforms will be 30 and 90 seconds apart, thus providing three time intervals (30, 90 and 120 seconds) over which observations will be made. INCUS will investigate CMF using a novel time-differenced radar reflectivity profile approach. In addition to the Ka-band radar, a single TEMPEST-D-heritage cross-track-scanning passive microwave radiometer will be housed on the middle SmallSat. The radiometer will provide extensive storm context for the radar observations, as well as observations of the convective anvils. The combination of the radars and radiometer on INCUS will deliver unprecedented three-dimensional views of tropical convective storms. INCUS is the first systematic investigation of the rapidly evolving CMF within tropical convective storms, the observations of which are expected to significantly enhance both our understanding and prediction of storm structure, their dynamics and microphysical processes, and the ways in which these evolve over storm lifetimes. This presentation will highlight the observational capabilities and scientific approach of the INCUS mission.

Susan C. van den Heever↗
NASA NTRS2010

Satellite Gravimetry Applied to Drought Monitoring

Near-surface wetness conditions change rapidly with the weather, which limits their usefulness as drought indicators. Deeper stores of water, including root-zone soil wetness and groundwater, portend longer-term weather trends and climate variations, thus they are well suited for quantifying droughts. However, the existing in situ networks for monitoring these variables suffer from significant discontinuities (short records and spatial undersampling), as well as the inherent human and mechanical errors associated with the soil moisture and groundwater observation. Remote sensing is a promising alternative, but standard remote sensors, which measure various wavelengths of light emitted or reflected from Earth's surface and atmosphere, can only directly detect wetness conditions within the first few centimeters of the land s surface. Such sensors include the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer - Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) C-band passive microwave measurement system on the National Aeronautic and Space Administration's (NASA) Aqua satellite, and the combined active and passive L-band microwave system currently under development for NASA's planned Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) satellite mission. These instruments are sensitive to water as deep as the top 2 cm and 5 cm of the soil column, respectively, with the specific depth depending on vegetation cover. Thermal infrared (TIR) imaging has been used to infer water stored in the full root zone, with limitations: auxiliary information including soil grain size is required, the TIR temperature versus soil water content curve becomes flat as wetness increases, and dense vegetation and cloud cover impede measurement. Numerical models of land surface hydrology are another potential solution, but the quality of output from such models is limited by errors in the input data and tradeoffs between model realism and computational efficiency. This chapter is divided into eight sections, the next of which describes the theory behind satellite gravimetry. Following that is a summary of the GRACE mission and how hydrological information is gleaned from its gravity products. The fourth section provides examples of hydrological science enabled by GRACE. The fifth and sixth sections list the challenging aspects of GRACE derived hydrology data and how they are being overcome, including the use of data assimilation. The seventh section describes recent progress in applying GRACE for drought monitoring, including the development of new soil moisture and drought indicator products, and that is followed by a discussion of future prospects in satellite gravimetry based drought monitoring.

Rodell, Matthew↗