Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “rest service”

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.

97 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2009

Extreme Programming: Maestro Style

"Extreme Programming: Maestro Style" is the name of a computer programming methodology that has evolved as a custom version of a methodology, called extreme programming that has been practiced in the software industry since the late 1990s. The name of this version reflects its origin in the work of the Maestro team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that develops software for Mars exploration missions. Extreme programming is oriented toward agile development of software resting on values of simplicity, communication, testing, and aggressiveness. Extreme programming involves use of methods of rapidly building and disseminating institutional knowledge among members of a computer-programming team to give all the members a shared view that matches the view of the customers for whom the software system is to be developed. Extreme programming includes frequent planning by programmers in collaboration with customers, continually examining and rewriting code in striving for the simplest workable software designs, a system metaphor (basically, an abstraction of the system that provides easy-to-remember software-naming conventions and insight into the architecture of the system), programmers working in pairs, adherence to a set of coding standards, collaboration of customers and programmers, frequent verbal communication, frequent releases of software in small increments of development, repeated testing of the developmental software by both programmers and customers, and continuous interaction between the team and the customers. The environment in which the Maestro team works requires the team to quickly adapt to changing needs of its customers. In addition, the team cannot afford to accept unnecessary development risk. Extreme programming enables the Maestro team to remain agile and provide high-quality software and service to its customers. However, several factors in the Maestro environment have made it necessary to modify some of the conventional extreme-programming practices. The single most influential of these factors is that continuous interaction between customers and programmers is not feasible.

Norris, Jeffrey↗
DOE OSTI2023

Third-Party Aggregation Rulemaking in MISO and SPP Footprints

The report highlights key considerations for retail regulators in the footprints of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) or Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) in states that previously opted out of allowing third-party aggregation participation under FERC Order 719 and that may want to explore reversing the decision due to a changing policy environment under new FERC orders (i.e., 2222) and/or tightening resource adequacy constraints. Through a document review and a series of 27 interviews with regulators, aggregators, and other industry professionals, this document provides a high-level policy overview of the retail regulator’s role in a selection of processes, rules, and regulations to better understand how states have treated and/or integrated aggregators into wholesale markets. The report summarizes findings in two sections: General Findings and Specific Policy Findings. The General Findings offer high level takeaways such as the fact that 17 of the 20 states in MISO and SPP footprints opted out of third party aggregations following Order 719. Additionally, there is only one state that is fully restructured in the MISO and SPP footprints whereas the rest are vertically integrated, and the majority of third-party aggregations in the U.S. take place in restructured states outside of these footprints. Even so, third-party aggregations do take place in MISO and SPP albeit in small numbers and in an ad hoc regulatory environment. The specific policy findings delve deeper into specific examples of state actions on the topics of jurisdiction, registration and licensing, data governance, dual participation, and dispute resolution. Tables in each category organize state actions into Tiers I-III, which roughly correspond to the possible level of involvement or possible change necessary by state regulators and/or legislators to implement these actions. The tier level does not indicate any value judgement, as each state has respective regulatory limitations and each decision comes with various tradeoffs. One main tradeoff is between simplicity and quick implementation versus comprehensive and prolonged implementation. In many cases, actions in Tier I could be implemented without significant changes by relying on the use of existing processes for an aggregator context. On the other hand, many actions in Tier III are more narrowly designed to address aggregators specifically, but often require more significant changes including the involvement of additional parties through stakeholder engagement or legislative action. In some cases, these tiers are discrete. However, state regulators may also choose to progress through these various tiers sequentially as they phase in aggregators while learning from their experience. With the ability to stack bulk system level services, distributed energy resource aggregations in MISO and SPP could provide various private benefits (e.g., increased value streams to the owner) as well as societally beneficial grid services (e.g., peaking capacity, ancillary services, and other services that increase the grid’s overall operational efficiency). In deciding how to best to enable these benefits, states and retail regulators must weigh various tradeoffs if considering reversing a previous opt out.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
NASA NTRS1996

Four-Dimensional Oceanic and Atmosperic Data Assimilation with Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission Data

An oceanic data assimilation system which allows to utilize the forthcoming Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) data has been developed and applied to the Pacific Ocean to produce the velocity field. The assimilated data will be indispensable to examine the effects of rainfall and its variability on the structure and circulation of the tropical oceans and to assess the impact of global warming due to the increase of carbon dioxide on the ocean circulation system and the marine pollution caused by oil spill and ocean damping of radionuclide. The data will also provide the verification for the oceanic and ocean-atmosphere coupled General Circulation Models (GCM's). The system consists of oceanic GCM, analysis scheme and data. In the system the flow field has been determined to be physically consistent with the observed density field and the sea surface winds derived from the Special Sensor Microwave Imagery (SSM/I) data which drive the ocean current. The time integration has been performed for five years until the flow field near the surface attained the steady state starting from the rest ocean with observed temperature and salinity fields, and the SSM/I surface wind velocity. The resultant flow field showed high producibility of the system. Especially the flow near the ocean surface agreed well with available observed data. The system, for the first time, succeeded to produce the eastward subtropical current which has been discovered in the joint investigation on Kuroshio current (CSK) in the 1960s. To verify the quality of the flow field a trajectory analysis has been carried out and compared with the Algos buoy data. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA ASSIMILATION SYSTEM ## Oceanic GCM and analysis scheme--The basic equations are much the same as used for the GCM's, except for the Newtonian damping terms introduced into the prediction equations for the potential temperature and salinity to maintain these fields as observed. The C grid of 2'lat. by 2'long. in horizontal and the 11 vertical levels are applied to the entire Pacific Ocean. At the east and west ocean boundaries the periodic boundary conditions are applied creating fictitious ocean there. The SMAC Method is used to increase the accuracy of mass conservation. * Data--The JODC temperature and salinity data obtained from 1906 to 1988 are used in the system between Long.100'E. and 60'W. The surface wind data are derived from the SSM/I data by Dr-R. Atlas of NASA/GSFC. The data set contains every 6 hours data from July 1987 to June 1989 on the grid of 2'lat. by 2.5'long. The averaged for the whole period and then interpolated into the 2'lat. by 2'long. grid data are used to force the system. The sea bottom topography data was based on the General Bathymetric Chart of the Ocean (GEBCO) supplied by the Canadian Hydrographic Service under contract with the International Hydrographic Organization and International Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO.

Takano, Kenji↗
DOE OSTI2024

Trends and meteorological drivers of extreme daily reservoir evaporation events in the western United States

Extreme daily evaporation from reservoir surfaces can lead to significant short-term water losses, affecting water quality, water supply, and reservoir operation strategies. Historical trends in daily reservoir evaporation events have eluded the scientific and operational communities, largely due to a lack of long-term, consistent data record. This study quantifies trends in extreme daily reservoir evaporation events at 165 major reservoirs located in the western U.S. Here, we use the place-based energy balance and aerodynamic Daily Lake Evaporation Model (DLEM) driven by multiple meteorological data products (RTMA, gridMET, Daymet) to estimate daily evaporation rates at these reservoirs from 1981 to 2022. The results—while are based on different meteorological forcing datasets—consistently indicate that the California, Lower Colorado, and Rio Grande hydrologic regions are more prone to higher daily evaporation extremes. Compared to the rest of western U.S, these three regions also experience a more pronounced increasing trend in the annual maximum daily evaporation rate, at about 0.3 mm day -1 decade -1 during 1981-2022. The results show that heat and dryness are the main drivers to the increasing trend of extreme evaporation, while extreme wind speed is the primary contributor to exceptionally high daily evaporation events across all regions. This phenomenon is particularly prominent in the arid Lower Colorado region, but less significant in the cold and humid Pacific Northwest region. We also find that the correlation between extreme wind speed and extreme evaporation degrades as the time scale increases from daily, to monthly and seasonal. Our findings have strong implications for the pattern and distribution of extreme evaporation events at the western U.S. reservoirs, and illustrate how various drivers influence extreme evaporation across different time scales.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2008

Standardizing Interfaces for External Access to Data and Processing for the NASA Ozone Product Evaluation and Test Element (PEATE)

NASA's traditional science data processing systems have focused on specific missions, and providing data access, processing and services to the funded science teams of those specific missions. Recently NASA has been modifying this stance, changing the focus from Missions to Measurements. Where a specific Mission has a discrete beginning and end, the Measurement considers long term data continuity across multiple missions. Total Column Ozone, a critical measurement of atmospheric composition, has been monitored for'decades on a series of Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) instruments. Some important European missions also monitor ozone, including the Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME) and SCIAMACHY. With the U.S.IEuropean cooperative launch of the Dutch Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on NASA Aura satellite, and the GOME-2 instrumental on MetOp, the ozone monitoring record has been further extended. In conjunction with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA is now preparing to evaluate data and algorithms for the next generation Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (OMPS) which will launch on the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Preparatory Project (NPP) in 2010. NASA is constructing the Science Data Segment (SDS) which is comprised of several elements to evaluate the various NPP data products and algorithms. The NPP SDS Ozone Product Evaluation and Test Element (PEATE) will build on the heritage of the TOMS and OM1 mission based processing systems. The overall measurement based system that will encompass these efforts is the Atmospheric Composition Processing System (ACPS). We have extended the system to include access to publically available data sets from other instruments where feasible, including non-NASA missions as appropriate. The heritage system was largely monolithic providing a very controlled processing flow from data.ingest of satellite data to the ultimate archive of specific operational data products. The ACPS allows more open access with standard protocols including HTTP, SOAPIXML, RSS and various REST incarnations. External entities can be granted access to various modules within the system, including an extended data archive, metadata searching, production planning and processing. Data access is provided with very fine grained access control. It is possible to easily designate certain datasets as being available to the public, or restricted to groups of researchers, or limited strictly to the originator. This can be used, for example, to release one's best validated data to the public, but restrict the "new version" of data processed with a new, unproven algorithm until it is ready. Similarly, the system can provide access to algorithms, both as modifiable source code (where possible) and fully integrated executable Algorithm Plugin Packages (APPs). This enables researchers to download publically released versions of the processing algorithms and easily reproduce the processing remotely, while interacting with the ACPS. The algorithms can be modified allowing better experimentation and rapid improvement. The modified algorithms can be easily integrated back into the production system for large scale bulk processing to evaluate improvements. The system includes complete provenance tracking of algorithms, data and the entire processing environment. The origin of any data or algorithms is recorded and the entire history of the processing chains are stored such that a researcher can understand the entire data flow. Provenance is captured in a form suitable for the system to guarantee scientific reproducability of any data product it distributes even in cases where the physical data products themselves have been deleted due to space constraints. We are currently working on Semantic Web ontologies for representing the various provenance information. A new web site focusing on consolidating informaon about the measurement, processing system, and data access has been established to encourage interaction with the overall scientific community. We will describe the system, its data processing capabilities, and the methods the community can use to interact with the standard interfaces of the system.

Tilmes, Curt A.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Asteroid Redirect Crewed Mission Space Suit and EVA System Architecture Trade Study

The Asteroid Redirect Crewed Mission (ARCM) requires a Launch/Entry/Abort (LEA) suit capability and short duration Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) capability for Orion. The EVAs will involve a two-person crew for approximately four hours. Currently, two EVAs are planned with one contingency EVA in reserve. Providing this EVA capability is very challenging due to system level constraints and a new and unknown environment. The goal of the EVA architecture for ARCM is one that builds upon previously developed technologies and lessons learned, and that accomplishes the ARCM mission while providing a stepping stone to future missions and destinations. The primary system level constraints are to 1) minimize system mass and volume and 2) minimize the interfacing impacts to the baseline Orion design. In order to minimize the interfacing impacts and to not perturb the baseline Orion schedule, the concept of adding "kits" to the baseline system is proposed. These kits consist of: an EVA kit (converts LEA suit to EVA suit), EVA Servicing and Recharge Kit (provides suit consumables), the EVA Tools, Translation Aids & Sample Container Kit (the tools and mobility aids to complete the tasks), the EVA Communications Kit (interface between the EVA radio and the MPCV), and the Cabin Repress Kit (represses the MPCV between EVAs). This paper will focus on the trade space, analysis, and testing regarding the space suit (pressure garment and life support system). Historical approaches and lessons learned from all past EVA operations were researched. Previous and current, successfully operated EVA hardware and high technology readiness level (TRL) hardware were evaluated, and a trade study was conducted for all possible pressure garment and life support options. Testing and analysis was conducted and a recommended EVA system architecture was proposed. Pressure garment options that were considered for this mission include the currently in-use ISS EVA Mobility Unit (EMU), all variations of the Advanced Crew Escape Suit (ACES), and the Exploration Z-suit. For this mission, the pressure garment that was selected is the Modified ACES (MACES) with EVA enhancements. Life support options that were considered included short closed-loop umbilicals, long open-loop umbilicals, the currently in-use ISS EMU Portable Life Support System (PLSS), and the currently in development Exploration PLSS. For this mission, the life support option that was selected is the Exploration PLSS. The greatest risk in the proposed architecture is viewed to be the comfort and mobility of the baseline MACES and the delicate balance between adding more mobility features while not compromising landing safety. Feasibility testing was accomplished in low fidelity analogs and in the JSC Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) to validate the concept before a final recommendation on the architecture was made. The proposed architecture was found to meet the mission constraints, but much more work is required to determine the details of the required suit upgrades, the integration with the PLSS, and the rest of the tools and equipment required to accomplish the mission. This work and further definition of the remaining kits will be conducted in government fiscal year 14.

Blanco, Raul A.↗
NASA NTRS2009

TRW - Lunar Descent Engine

As we went through the program, what we determined, and what we all agreed on, was that the thrust coefficient (Cf) of the nozzle, after you get past a certain point, is really an engineering parameter. It s not a fundamental parameter that is going to be highly variable. Once we knew what the contour of the nozzle was, and once we knew what its characteristic was out to 2:1, we could calculate what the 48:1 thrust coefficient was going to be. In every case that we made a test, the calculation was precise. We weren't looking for a problem out at 48:1. Once we crushed the nozzle and said, "Yeah, we can land on the boulder," and once we had the thermal profile of that columbium nozzle, we did not require a lot of effort there. The real characterization was done in throttling over the 10:1 with the injector and controlling the mixture ratio on that - the whole head-end assembly - out to 2:1. I think everybody at NASA and Grumman agreed that flying like you test is great, particularly if you are using an aircraft engine. But, in this case, the thrust coefficient of the nozzle was not an issue. We had the tandem configuration of the service module, the command module, and the LEM sitting out there, and we were to fire the LEM. On Apollo 5, we were firing the LEM to show how it would work. There was a problem. I can t remember where the problem was, but something caused a problem before that engine had finished its burn. It was not in the engine, but there was some other problem, and NASA made a controlled shutdown. Then, they came to us and asked, "Hey, we re up there. We want to finish this test program. Is it okay if we restart that engine again in space with this tandem configuration?" We said, "As long as it has been more than forty minutes since you shut down, our analysis says that you will be okay in terms of the thermal characteristics of the inside of that chamber." They restarted it and pushed that system around in orbit on Apollo 5. It turned out, that when it came to Apollo 13, we went back into the record, and said, "Hey, we have pushed this system around up there on Apollo 5, and we have also restarted this tandem configuration." The requirements on Apollo 13 were to put it back into play. The spacecraft was out of free return to the earth at the time of the accident. It would not have come back. NASA said, "Okay, we ll use the descent engine to put the spacecraft in a free trajectory; it will go around the moon and be on free trajectory back to Earth." Then, as it came around the far side of the moon, the guys found out that they had an oxygen problem. As you remember, things were getting pretty bad in there. They said, "We ve got to get it back as fast as we can. Is it okay if we re-fire the engine? Now, we re in a free trajectory, so we want to put as much delta-v (or change in velocity) in as we can. Can we re-fire right now?" We said, "Yes, the data says it has been this period of time." We could re-fire the engine, run the rest of the duty cycle up as far as we needed while preserving enough fluids to make the final correction as the spacecraft got near Earth, and restart the engine. It was pretty fortuitous that we could give them those answers.

Elverum, Gerard W.↗