Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Collective Defense”

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.

126 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1995

Earth observations from space: History, promise, and reality. Executive summary

In this report the Committee on Earth Studies (CES), a standing committee of the Space Studies Board (SSB) within the National Research Council (NRC), reviews the recent history (nominally from 1981 to 1995) of the U.S. earth observations programs that serve civilian needs. The principal observations programs examined are those of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Air Force' s Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) is discussed, but only from the perspective of its relationship to civil needs and the planned merger with the NOAA polar-orbiting system. The report also reviews the interfaces between the earth observations satellite programs and the major national and international environmental monitoring and research programs. The monitoring and research programs discussed are the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP), the World Climate Research Program (WCRP), related international scientific campaigns, and operational programs for the sharing and application of environmental data. The purpose of this report is to provide a broad historical review and commentary based on the views of the CES members, with particular emphasis on tracing the lengthy record of advisory committee recommendations. Any individual topic could be the subject of an extended report in its own right. Indeed, extensive further reviews are already under way to that end. If the CES has succeeded in the task it has undertaken. This report will serve as a useful starting point for any such more intensive study. The report is divided into eight chapters: ( I ) an introduction, (2) the evolution of the MTPE, (3) its relationship to the USGCRP, (4) applications of earth observations data, (5) the role that smaller satellites can play in research and operational remote sensing, (6) earth system modeling and information systems, (7) a number of associated activities that contribute to the MTPE and the USGCRP, and (8) organizational issues in the conduct of civil earth observations programs. Following the body of the report is a series of appendixes: after a list of acronyms and abbreviations and collected short biographies of CES members, six brief tutorials discuss several scientific topics important to the science and applications of earth observations. Highlights from the eight chapters follow.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2016

Effects of Acute Exposures to Carbon Dioxide Upon Cognitive Functions

Large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) originate from human metabolism and typically, within spacecraft, remain about 10-fold higher in concentration than at the earth's surface. There have been recurring complaints by crew members of episodes of "mental viscosity" adversely affecting their performance, and there is evidence from the International Space Station (ISS) that associates CO2 levels with reports of headaches by crewmembers. Additionally, there is concern that CO2 may contribute to vision impairment and intracranial pressure that has been observed in some crewmembers. Consequently, flight rules have been employed to control the level of CO2 below 4 mm Hg, which is well below the existing Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentration (SMAC) of 10 mm Hg for 24-hour exposures, and 5.3 mm Hg for exposures of 7 to 180 days. However, the flight rule imposed limit, which places additional demands upon resources and current technology, still exceeds the lower bound of the threshold range for reportable headaches (2 - 5 mm Hg). Headaches, while sometime debilitating themselves, are also symptoms that can provide evidence that physiological defense mechanisms have been breached. The causes of the headaches may elicit other subtle adverse effects that occur at CO2 levels well below that for headaches. The concern that CO2 may have effects at levels below the threshold for headaches appears to be substantiated in unexpected findings that CO2 at concentrations below 2 mm Hg substantially reduced some cognitive functions that are associated with the ability to make complex decisions in conditions that are characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity, and delayed feedback. These are conditions that could be encountered by crews in off-nominal situations or during the first missions beyond low earth orbit. If findings of the earlier study are confirmed in crew-like subjects, our findings would provide additional evidence that CO2 may need to be controlled at levels that are well below current spacecraft limits. Our study will extend the earlier study to determine if crew-like subjects are similarly effected by CO2. In addition to employing the Strategic Management Simulation tool, we will use the Cognition battery of psychometric measures that are being utilized aboard the ISS. It will be important to learn, by using Cognition, if additional cognitive domains are sensitive to concentrations of CO2 at or below limits currently controlled by flight rules. While spaceflight Cognition data will greatly enhance the knowledge base related to inflight behavioral health and performance, some of the measures may be influenced by fatigue (related to sleep deprivation and or workload) and changes in circadian rhythms. Therefore our use of this battery of tests in a well-controlled, ground-based study that is free of these potential confounding influences will establish a baseline terrestrial data set against which Cognition data collected in flight may be assessed. The findings from this study will be useful to the NASA Toxicology Office and the National Research Council Committee on Toxicology, which assists NASA in setting environmental standards, for revision of the SMAC for CO2, and for designing further studies on effects of CO2 upon cognitive functions.

Scully, R. R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cleanroom Microbes Survive Drying, Vacuum, and Proton Irradiation

Introduction : The goal of planetary protection at NASA is to mitigate the risk of contaminating sensitive target bodies with biological life. While many cleaning procedures have been put in place to reduce bioburden on spacecraft, microbes are experts at evolving to survive harsh conditions. Specifically, the dry, low-nutrient environment of a cleanroom (commonly used for assembly of spacecraft) can represent an environment where extremophiles can survive. Methods : Scientists at NASA MSFC wished to gather a snapshot of the microbial population within a variety of cleanrooms on site. A study was undertaken to collect air, surface, and floor samples from clean-rooms and isolate unique morphologies. From this study, 95 isolates were collected and saved in a microbial library. About 86% of these were identified at least to a genus level. Following identification, 24 microbes were selected, based on a literature review, as potential extremophiles. These were grown in liquid cultures, diluted to a set optical density, washed with water, and then applied to a sterilized Kapton coupon. Droplets were allowed to dry overnight in a biosafety cabinet. Coupons were then installed in a pelletron and pumped down to high vacuum (~1E-6 Torr). Samples were then subjected 100 keV protons at a fluence of 2x10 15 p+/cm 2 up to 4x10 15 p+/cm 2 . Following exposure, samples were returned to the microbiology lab where they were pro-cessed by submerging in water, vortexing, and then plating either droplets or spread plates. Recovery data collected was qualitative with a ranking or +, minor, or – for growth. Some selected radiotolerant strains were sequenced using the Illumina sequencing platform. The resulting genomes were annotated with the Rapid Annotations using Subsystems Technology (RAST) server and analyzed for conserved and unique stress response relevant genomic signatures to identify clues related to specific tolerances. Results and Discussion : After five rounds of proton radiation, we narrowed our isolates to five, non-spore forming bacteria that demonstrated survival: Arthrobacter koreensis, Paenarthrobacter nitroguajacolicus, Mycetocola manganoxydans , and an Erwinia sp. Furthermore, we exposed these four microbes to 254 nm wavelength light at an intensity of 80 W/m 2 at a distance of ~18 cm for 10 minutes. Only A. koreensis demonstrated survival following UV exposure. Finally, we performed whole genome sequencing on the four strains to look for genetic markers of stress resistance. When we compared the genomes of the four strains, we found that genes coding for GGDEF and EAL domains with PAS/PAC sensors were only found in A. koreensis . These domains, modulated by PAS/PAC sensors, are hypothesized to facilitate survival under drying, desiccation, and proton irradiation. Drying and Desiccation : PAS domains sense hydration changes and modulate GGDEF and EAL domain activity to adjust c-di-GMP levels, enhancing resistance to desiccation. For instance, in Pseudomonas aeruginosa , the PAS domain of RbdA modulates activity under varying hydration conditions, affecting stress responses [1]. Proton Irradiation : Proton irradiation causes oxidative stress, leading to ROS generation. PAS domains detect this stress and modulate GGDEF and EAL domains to manage oxidative stress responses. In Shewanella , EAL domain proteins modulated by PAS sensors help bacteria adapt to extreme conditions [2]. These genes upregulate other stress response genes, protecting membrane function, protein stability, DNA repair, and antioxidant defenses. The modulation of c-di-GMP by PAS domains is crucial for bacterial adaptation to stress conditions, enabling dynamic physio-logical adjustments [3]. Understanding these mechanisms provides insights into bacterial stress responses and strategies for controlling bacterial growth [4]. Conclusions : These findings indicate that clean-rooms harbor extremophile microbes that may be able to survive conditions in deep space. Furthermore, while we identified certain stress-response genes that may be at least partly responsible for the phenotypes observed in this study, there are likely unidentified genes or characteristics about A. koreensis , and other bacteria, that may allow them to survive in harsh environments. Future studies will focus on identifying these unknown genes and characteristics, further elucidating the mechanisms of extremophile survival and potentially informing the development of new biotechnologies for space exploration and other extreme environments.

Chelsi Cassilly↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dynamic Assurance of Autonomous Systems through Ground Control Software

Assurance cases are being increasingly acknowledged as a way to build trust in complex systems with autonomous capabilities [1]. An assurance case is a comprehensive, defensible, and valid justification that a system will function as intended for the specific mission and operating environment. Such justifications for systems with autonomous capabilities are often based on various probabilistic quantifications [2]. Due to the dynamic nature of the environmental conditions in which these systems operate, as well as the changing nature of the autonomous systems themselves, these probabilistic quantifications cannot be simply estimated once during design time. Rather, they need to be continually evaluated during systems operations to ensure that the assurance case justifications are valid. We refer to the assurance case that combines both the static and dynamic elements as a Dynamic Assurance Case (DAC). Such complex systems with autonomous capabilities are often deployed with a Ground Control Software (GCS) component to enable remote operation. Whether the system is composed of a single unit or a fleet of units, deployed distributed or in remote environments, GCS acts as a window into the behavior of the deployed system. It receives telemetry from the system, issues commands to the system and provides various functionalities to visualize the system performance. We propose a dynamic assurance framework where the GCS acts as a relay between the autonomous system and its DAC. GCS can be used to measure both unit-specific as well as system-wide probabilistic quantifications using the incoming telemetry. We embed these quantifications throughout the DAC as variables that can be updated by external sources. We use the GCS to periodically update these variables, which allows us to continually evaluate the formally defined assurance case justifications. We demonstrate our dynamic assurance framework in the NASA Ames project Troupe1 that aims at developing a fleet of rovers capable of au- tonomously mapping their environment. The rovers work cooperatively, each collecting data for different parts of the environment. Each rover runs an identical core Flight System (cFS) [4] application. Troupe1 uses OpenC3 Cosmos [5] as the ground system, and AdvoCATE [3] to capture the system DAC. We show how we can measure both rover-specific and system-wide quantifications in Cosmos using its Ruby scripting editor and pass them into the DAC modelled in AdvoCATE. Then, we show how these incoming variables can be embedded in different parts of the DAC and how effects of their updates can be observed

Irfan Sljivo↗
NASA NTRS2019

Development of a Point of Care Technology for Military Medical Applications in Austere Environments

NASA, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and the Department of Defense (DoD) share a common interest in compact medical diagnostic technologies—also known as “point of care testing” (POCT) technologies. For NASA, the need is to take care of astronauts on deep space missions. For LLNL, the focus is on technologies needed to support homeland security applications. For DoD, the need is to support warfighters in military theaters of operation, especially for prolonged field care and en route care. A recently patented technology, “Portable Medical Diagnosis Instrument” (U.S. Patent 9824870), co-invented by NASA and LLNL, is being developed further in a partnership between NASA, LLNL and Travis Air Force Base, with a focus on military applications. This instrument, the NASA-LLNL Medical Tricorder, can be used for a wide range of clinical samples including breath, saliva and blood. One component of the Tricorder is the NASA E-Nose, a carbon nanotube-based chemical sensor, integrated into a hand-held smart phone, that can detect and measure “breath biomarkers” in the gas phase of exhaled breath. The response of the NASA E-Nose is rapid, which makes it possible to detect various gas-phase substances in real time. The NASA E-Nose, with modification, can also be used for breath condensate analysis. Another component of the Tricorder is a miniaturized microfluidic analyzer, under development by LLNL, that does not require any pumps. The microfluidic analyzer can detect and measure biomarkers in liquid samples, such as blood, saliva and breath condensate. This microfluidic system requires small quantities of liquid sample and can perform analysis very rapidly (seconds to minutes), which makes it possible to detect relevant biomarkers in near real time in the field. The Clinical Investigation Facility (CIF) at Travis Air Force Base is currently conducting research with the goal to develop improved field-able technologies and procedures for the emergency response to life threatening injuries soldiers may receive in theater. This work includes experimental large animal systems and comprehensive collection of clinical specimens and physiological data. NASA and LLNL are partnering with Travis to test and further develop the Tricorder technology for high priority military applications, initially focused on lung injury models and traumatic brain injury.

Loftus, David J.↗
NASA NTRS2013

NASA Software Engineering Benchmarking Study

To identify best practices for the improvement of software engineering on projects, NASA's Offices of Chief Engineer (OCE) and Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) formed a team led by Heather Rarick and Sally Godfrey to conduct this benchmarking study. The primary goals of the study are to identify best practices that: Improve the management and technical development of software intensive systems; Have a track record of successful deployment by aerospace industries, universities [including research and development (R&D) laboratories], and defense services, as well as NASA's own component Centers; and Identify candidate solutions for NASA's software issues. Beginning in the late fall of 2010, focus topics were chosen and interview questions were developed, based on the NASA top software challenges. Between February 2011 and November 2011, the Benchmark Team interviewed a total of 18 organizations, consisting of five NASA Centers, five industry organizations, four defense services organizations, and four university or university R and D laboratory organizations. A software assurance representative also participated in each of the interviews to focus on assurance and software safety best practices. Interviewees provided a wealth of information on each topic area that included: software policy, software acquisition, software assurance, testing, training, maintaining rigor in small projects, metrics, and use of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, as well as a number of special topics that came up in the discussions. NASA's software engineering practices compared favorably with the external organizations in most benchmark areas, but in every topic, there were ways in which NASA could improve its practices. Compared to defense services organizations and some of the industry organizations, one of NASA's notable weaknesses involved communication with contractors regarding its policies and requirements for acquired software. One of NASA's strengths was its software assurance practices, which seemed to rate well in comparison to the other organizational groups and also seemed to include a larger scope of activities. An unexpected benefit of the software benchmarking study was the identification of many opportunities for collaboration in areas including metrics, training, sharing of CMMI experiences and resources such as instructors and CMMI Lead Appraisers, and even sharing of assets such as documented processes. A further unexpected benefit of the study was the feedback on NASA practices that was received from some of the organizations interviewed. From that feedback, other potential areas where NASA could improve were highlighted, such as accuracy of software cost estimation and budgetary practices. The detailed report contains discussion of the practices noted in each of the topic areas, as well as a summary of observations and recommendations from each of the topic areas. The resulting 24 recommendations from the topic areas were then consolidated to eliminate duplication and culled into a set of 14 suggested actionable recommendations. This final set of actionable recommendations, listed below, are items that can be implemented to improve NASA's software engineering practices and to help address many of the items that were listed in the NASA top software engineering issues. 1. Develop and implement standard contract language for software procurements. 2. Advance accurate and trusted software cost estimates for both procured and in-house software and improve the capture of actual cost data to facilitate further improvements. 3. Establish a consistent set of objectives and expectations, specifically types of metrics at the Agency level, so key trends and models can be identified and used to continuously improve software processes and each software development effort. 4. Maintain the CMMI Maturity Level requirement for critical NASA projects and use CMMI to measure organizations developing software for NASA. 5.onsolidate, collect and, if needed, develop common processes principles and other assets across the Agency in order to provide more consistency in software development and acquisition practices and to reduce the overall cost of maintaining or increasing current NASA CMMI maturity levels. 6. Provide additional support for small projects that includes: (a) guidance for appropriate tailoring of requirements for small projects, (b) availability of suitable tools, including support tool set-up and training, and (c) training for small project personnel, assurance personnel and technical authorities on the acceptable options for tailoring requirements and performing assurance on small projects. 7. Develop software training classes for the more experienced software engineers using on-line training, videos, or small separate modules of training that can be accommodated as needed throughout a project. 8. Create guidelines to structure non-classroom training opportunities such as mentoring, peer reviews, lessons learned sessions, and on-the-job training. 9. Develop a set of predictive software defect data and a process for assessing software testing metric data against it. 10. Assess Agency-wide licenses for commonly used software tools. 11. Fill the knowledge gap in common software engineering practices for new hires and co-ops.12. Work through the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) program with universities in strengthening education in the use of common software engineering practices and standards. 13. Follow up this benchmark study with a deeper look into what both internal and external organizations perceive as the scope of software assurance, the value they expect to obtain from it, and the shortcomings they experience in the current practice. 14. Continue interactions with external software engineering environment through collaborations, knowledge sharing, and benchmarking.

Rarick, Heather L.↗
NASA NTRS2016

UAS-NAS Flight Test Series 3: Test Environment Report

The desire and ability to fly Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) is of increasing urgency. The application of unmanned aircraft to perform national security, defense, scientific, and emergency management are driving the critical need for less restrictive access by UAS to the NAS. UAS represent a new capability that will provide a variety of services in the government (public) and commercial (civil) aviation sectors. The growth of this potential industry has not yet been realized due to the lack of a common understanding of what is required to safely operate UAS in the NAS. NASA's UAS Integration in the NAS Project is conducting research in the areas of Separation Assurance/Sense and Avoid Interoperability (SSI), Human Systems Integration (HSI), and Communications (Comm), and Certification to support reducing the barriers of UAS access to the NAS. This research is broken into two research themes namely, UAS Integration and Test Infrastructure. UAS Integration focuses on airspace integration procedures and performance standards to enable UAS integration in the air transportation system, covering Detect and Avoid (DAA) performance standards, command and control performance standards, and human systems integration. The focus of Test Infrastructure is to enable development and validation of airspace integration procedures and performance standards, including integrated test and evaluation. In support of the integrated test and evaluation efforts, the Project will develop an adaptable, scalable, and schedulable relevant test environment capable of evaluating concepts and technologies for unmanned aircraft systems to safely operate in the NAS. To accomplish this task, the Project is conducting a series of human-in-the-loop (HITL) and flight test activities that integrate key concepts, technologies and/or procedures in a relevant air traffic environment. Each of the integrated events will build on the technical achievements, fidelity, and complexity of the previous tests and technical simulations, resulting in research findings that support the development of regulations governing the access of UAS into the NAS. The integrated events started with two initial flight test used to develop and test early integrations and components of the test environment. Test subjects and a relevant test environment were brought in for the integrated HITL (or IHITL) conducted in 2014. The IHITL collected data to evaluate the effectiveness of DAA Well Clear (DWC) algorithms and the acceptability of UAS concepts integrated into the NAS. The first integrated flight test (and the subject of this report) followed the IHITL by replacing the simulation components with live aircraft. The project finishes the integrated events with a final flight test to be conducted in 2016 that provides the researchers with an opportunity to collect DWC and Collision Avoidance (CA) interoperability data during flight encounters.

flight test↗
NASA NTRS2015

Physics-Based Modeling of Meteor Entry and Breakup

A new research effort at NASA Ames Research Center has been initiated in Planetary Defense, which integrates the disciplines of planetary science, atmospheric entry physics, and physics-based risk assessment. This paper describes work within the new program and is focused on meteor entry and breakup.Over the last six decades significant effort was expended in the US and in Europe to understand meteor entry including ablation, fragmentation and airburst (if any) for various types of meteors ranging from stony to iron spectral types. These efforts have produced primarily empirical mathematical models based on observations. Weaknesses of these models, apart from their empiricism, are reliance on idealized shapes (spheres, cylinders, etc.) and simplified models for thermal response of meteoritic materials to aerodynamic and radiative heating. Furthermore, the fragmentation and energy release of meteors (airburst) is poorly understood.On the other hand, flight of human-made atmospheric entry capsules is well understood. The capsules and their requisite heatshields are designed and margined to survive entry. However, the highest speed Earth entry for capsules is 13 kms (Stardust). Furthermore, Earth entry capsules have never exceeded diameters of 5 m, nor have their peak aerothermal environments exceeded 0.3 atm and 1 kW/sq cm. The aims of the current work are: (i) to define the aerothermal environments for objects with entry velocities from 13 to 20 kms; (ii) to explore various hypotheses of fragmentation and airburst of stony meteors in the near term; (iii) to explore the possibility of performing relevant ground-based tests to verify candidate hypotheses; and (iv) to quantify the energy released in airbursts. The results of the new simulations will be used to anchor said risk assessment analyses. With these aims in mind, state-of-the-art entry capsule design tools are being extended for meteor entries. We describe: (i) applications of current simulation tools to spherical geometries of diameters ranging from 1 to 100 m for an entry velocity of 20 kms and stagnation pressures ranging from 1 to 100 atm; (ii) the influence of shape and departure of heating environment predictions from those for a simple spherical geometry; (iii) assessment of thermal response models for silica subject to intense radiation; and (iv) results for porosity-driven gross fragmentation of meteors, idealized as a collection of smaller objects. Lessons learned from these simulations will be used to help understand the Chelyabinsk meteor entry up to its first point of fragmentation.

Near-Earth Asteroids↗
NASA NTRS2015

Physics-Based Modeling of Meteor Entry and Breakup

A new research effort at NASA Ames Research Center has been initiated in Planetary Defense, which integrates the disciplines of planetary science, atmospheric entry physics, and physics-based risk assessment. This paper describes work within the new program and is focused on meteor entry and breakup. Over the last six decades significant effort was expended in the US and in Europe to understand meteor entry including ablation, fragmentation and airburst (if any) for various types of meteors ranging from stony to iron spectral types. These efforts have produced primarily empirical mathematical models based on observations. Weaknesses of these models, apart from their empiricism, are reliance on idealized shapes (spheres, cylinders, etc.) and simplified models for thermal response of meteoritic materials to aerodynamic and radiative heating. Furthermore, the fragmentation and energy release of meteors (airburst) is poorly understood. On the other hand, flight of human-made atmospheric entry capsules is well understood. The capsules and their requisite heat shields are designed and margined to survive entry. However, the highest speed Earth entry for capsules is 13 kms (Stardust). Furthermore, Earth entry capsules have never exceeded diameters of 5 m, nor have their peak aerothermal environments exceeded 0.3 atm and 1 kWcm2. The aims of the current work are: (i) to define the aerothermal environments for objects with entry velocities from 13 to 20 kms; (ii) to explore various hypotheses of fragmentation and airburst of stony meteors in the near term; (iii) to explore the possibility of performing relevant ground-based tests to verify candidate hypotheses; and (iv) to quantify the energy released in airbursts. The results of the new simulations will be used to anchor said risk assessment analyses.With these aims in mind, state-of-the-art entry capsule design tools are being extended for meteor entries. We describe: (i) applications of current simulation tools to spherical geometries of diameters ranging from 1 to 100 m for an entry velocity of 20 kms and stagnation pressures ranging from 1 to 100 atm; (ii) the influence of shape and departure of heating environment predictions from those for a simple spherical geometry; (iii) assessment of thermal response models for silica subject to intense radiation; and (iv) results for porosity-driven gross fragmentation of meteors, idealized as a collection of smaller objects. Lessons learned from these simulations will be used to help understand the Chelyabinsk meteor entry up to its first point of fragmentation.

Atmospheric Entry↗
NASA NTRS2015

Physics-Based Modeling of Meteor Entry and Breakup

A new research effort at NASA Ames Research Center has been initiated in Planetary Defense, which integrates the disciplines of planetary science, atmospheric entry physics, and physics-based risk assessment. This paper describes work within the new program and is focused on meteor entry and breakup. Over the last six decades significant effort was expended in the US and in Europe to understand meteor entry including ablation, fragmentation and airburst (if any) for various types of meteors ranging from stony to iron spectral types. These efforts have produced primarily empirical mathematical models based on observations. Weaknesses of these models, apart from their empiricism, are reliance on idealized shapes (spheres, cylinders, etc.) and simplified models for thermal response of meteoritic materials to aerodynamic and radiative heating. Furthermore, the fragmentation and energy release of meteors (airburst) is poorly understood. On the other hand, flight of human-made atmospheric entry capsules is well understood. The capsules and their requisite heatshields are designed and margined to survive entry. However, the highest speed Earth entry for capsules is less than 13 km/s (Stardust). Furthermore, Earth entry capsules have never exceeded diameters of 5 m, nor have their peak aerothermal environments exceeded 0.3 atm and 1 kW/cm2. The aims of the current work are: (i) to define the aerothermal environments for objects with entry velocities from 13 to greater than 20 km/s; (ii) to explore various hypotheses of fragmentation and airburst of stony meteors in the near term; (iii) to explore the possibility of performing relevant ground-based tests to verify candidate hypotheses; and (iv) to quantify the energy released in airbursts. The results of the new simulations will be used to anchor said risk assessment analyses. With these aims in mind, state-of-the-art entry capsule design tools are being extended for meteor entries. We describe: (i) applications of current simulation tools to spherical geometries of diameters ranging from 1 to 100 m for an entry velocity of 20 km/s and stagnation pressures ranging from 1 to 100 atm; (ii) the influence of shape and departure of heating environment predictions from those for a simple spherical geometry; (iii) assessment of thermal response models for silica subject to intense radiation; and (iv) results for porosity-driven gross fragmentation of meteors, idealized as a collection of smaller objects. Lessons learned from these simulations will be used to help understand the Chelyabinsk meteor entry up to its first point of fragmentation.

Aerothermodynamics↗
NASA NTRS2015

Cloud-to-Ground Lightning Estimates Derived from SSMI Microwave Remote Sensing and NLDN

Lightning observations are collected using ground-based and satellite-based sensors. The National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN) in the United States uses multiple ground sensors to triangulate the electromagnetic signals created when lightning strikes the Earth's surface. Satellite-based lightning observations have been made from 1998 to present using the Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS) on the NASA Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite, and from 1995 to 2000 using the Optical Transient Detector (OTD) on the Microlab-1 satellite. Both LIS and OTD are staring imagers that detect lightning as momentary changes in an optical scene. Passive microwave remote sensing (85 and 37 GHz brightness temperatures) from the TRMM Microwave Imager (TMI) has also been used to quantify characteristics of thunderstorms related to lightning. Each lightning detection system has fundamental limitations. TRMM satellite coverage is limited to the tropics and subtropics between 38 deg N and 38 deg S, so lightning at the higher latitudes of the northern and southern hemispheres is not observed. The detection efficiency of NLDN sensors exceeds 95%, but the sensors are only located in the USA. Even if data from other ground-based lightning sensors (World Wide Lightning Location Network, the European Cooperation for Lightning Detection, and Canadian Lightning Detection Network) were combined with TRMM and NLDN, there would be enormous spatial gaps in present-day coverage of lightning. In addition, a globally-complete time history of observed lightning activity is currently not available either, with network coverage and detection efficiencies varying through the years. Previous research using the TRMM LIS and Microwave Imager (TMI) showed that there is a statistically significant correlation between lightning flash rates and passive microwave brightness temperatures. The physical basis for this correlation emerges because lightning in a thunderstorm occurs where ice is first present in the cloud and electric charge separation occurs. These ice particles efficiently scatter the microwave radiation at the 85 and 37 GHz frequencies, thus leading to large brightness temperature depressions. Lightning flash rate is related to the total amount of ice passing through the convective updraft regions of thunderstorms. Confirmation of this relationship using TRMM LIS and TMI data, however, remains constrained to TRMM observational limits of the tropics and subtropics. Satellites from the Defense Meteorology Satellite Program (DMSP) have global coverage and are equipped with passive microwave imagers that, like TMI, observe brightness temperatures at 85 and 37 GHz. Unlike the TRMM satellite, however, DMSP satellites do not have a lightning sensor, and the DMSP microwave data has never been used to derive global lightning. In this presentation, a relationship between DMSP Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSMI) data and ground-based cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning data from NLDN is investigated to derive a spatially complete time history of CG lightning for the USA study area. This relationship is analogous to the established using TRMM LIS and TMI data. NLDN has the most spatially and temporally complete CG lightning data for the USA, and therefore provides the best opportunity to find geospatially coincident observations with SSMI sensors. The strongest thunderstorms generally have minimum 85 GHz Polarized Corrected brightness Temperatures (PCT) less than 150 K. Archived radar data was used to resolve the spatial extent of the individual storms. NLDN data for that storm spatial extent defined by radar data was used to calculate the CG flash rate for the storm. Similar to results using TRMM sensors, a linear model best explained the relationship between storm-specific CG flash rates and minimum 85 GHz PCT. However, the results in this study apply only to CG lightning. To extend the results to weaker storms, the probability of CG lightning (instead of the flash rate) was calculated for storms having 85 GHz PCT greater than 150 K. NLDN data was used to determine if a CG strike occurred for a storm. This probability of CG lightning was plotted as a function of minimum 85 GHz PCT and minimum 37 GHz PCT. These probabilities were used in conjunction with the linear model to estimate the CG flash rate for weaker storms with minimum 85 GHz PCTs greater than 150 K. Results from the investigation of CG lightning and passive microwave radiation signals agree with the previous research investigating total lightning and brightness temperature. Future work will take the established relationships and apply them to the decades of available DMSP data for the USA to derive a map of CG lightning flash rates. Validation of this method and uncertainty analysis will be done by comparing the derived maps of CG lightning flash rates against existing NLDN maps of CG lightning flash rates.

Winesett, Thomas↗
NASA NTRS2014

ARES Biennial Report 2012 Final

Since the return of the first lunar samples, what is now the Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES) Directorate has had curatorial responsibility for all NASA-held extraterrestrial materials. Originating during the Apollo Program (1960s), this capability at Johnson Space Center (JSC) included scientists who were responsible for the science planning and training of astronauts for lunar surface activities as well as experts in the analysis and preservation of the precious returned samples. Today, ARES conducts research in basic and applied space and planetary science, and its scientific staff represents a broad diversity of expertise in the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy), mathematics, and engineering organized into three offices (figure 1): Astromaterials Research (KR), Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation (KT), and Human Exploration Science (KX). Scientists within the Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office preserve, protect, document, and distribute samples of the current astromaterials collections. Since the return of the first lunar samples, ARES has been assigned curatorial responsibility for all NASA-held extraterrestrial materials (Apollo lunar samples, Antarctic meteorites - some of which have been confirmed to have originated on the Moon and on Mars - cosmic dust, solar wind samples, comet and interstellar dust particles, and space-exposed hardware). The responsibilities of curation consist not only of the longterm care of the samples, but also the support and planning for future sample collection missions and research and technology to enable new sample types. Curation provides the foundation for research into the samples. The Lunar Sample Facility and other curation clean rooms, the data center, laboratories, and associated instrumentation are unique NASA resources that, together with our staff's fundamental understanding of the entire collection, provide a service to the external research community, which relies on access to the samples. The curation efforts are greatly enhanced by a strong group of planetary scientists who conduct peerreviewed astromaterials research. Astromaterials Research Office scientists conduct peer-reviewed research as Principal or Co-Investigators in planetary science (e. g., cosmochemistry, origins of solar systems, Mars fundamental research, planetary geology and geophysics) and participate as Co-Investigators or Participating Scientists in many of NASA's robotic planetary missions. Since the last report, ARES has achieved several noteworthy milestones, some of which are documented in detail in the sections that follow. Within the Human Exploration Science Office, ARES is a world leader in orbital debris research, modeling and monitoring the debris environment, designing debris shielding, and developing policy to control and mitigate the orbital debris population. ARES has aggressively pursued refinements in knowledge of the debris environment and the hazard it presents to spacecraft. Additionally, the ARES Image Science and Analysis Group has been recognized as world class as a result of the high quality of near-real-time analysis of ascent and on-orbit inspection imagery to identify debris shedding, anomalies, and associated potential damage during Space Shuttle missions. ARES Earth scientists manage and continuously update the database of astronaut photography that is predominantly from Shuttle and ISS missions, but also includes the results of 40 years of human spaceflight. The Crew Earth Observations Web site (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Education/ESS/crew.htm) continues to receive several million hits per month. ARES scientists are also influencing decisions in the development of the next generation of human and robotic spacecraft and missions through laboratory tests on the optical qualities of materials for windows, micrometeoroid/orbital debris shielding technology, and analog activities to assess surface science operations. ARES serves as host to numerous students and visiting scientists as part of the services provided to the research community and conducts a robust education and outreach program. ARES scientists are recognized nationally and internationally by virtue of their success in publishing in peer-reviewed journals and winning competitive research proposals. ARES scientists have won every major award presented by the Meteoritical Society, including the Leonard Medal, the most prestigious award in planetary science and cosmochemistry; the Barringer Medal, recognizing outstanding work in the field of impact cratering; the Nier Prize for outstanding research by a young scientist; and several recipients of the Nininger Meteorite Award. One of our scientists received the Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Meritorious Civilian Service Award (the highest civilian honor given by the DoD). ARES has established numerous partnerships with other NASA Centers, universities, and national laboratories. ARES scientists serve as journal editors, members of advisory panels and review committees, and society officers, and several scientists have been elected as Fellows in their professional societies. This biennial report summarizes a subset of the accomplishments made by each of the ARES offices and highlights participation in ongoing human and robotic missions, development of new missions, and planning for future human and robotic exploration of the solar system beyond low Earth orbit.

Stansbery, Eileen↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Doppler Wind Temperature Sensor (DWTS) Flight Evaluation and Experiments (TES-16,17)

The Doppler Wind Temperature Sensor instrument (DWTS), developed by Global Atmospheric Technologies and Sciences (GATS), is a powerful yet simple tool with the potential of becoming a new window to upper atmosphere dynamics. Based around a defense-grade infrared camera peering through a static gas cell used as a scanning spectral filter, the DWTS is designed to measure the fingerprints of wind and thermal waves as they propagate to the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. DWTS achieves this scanning by measuring the induced change in the doppler shift of the emission as it passes through the DWTS field of view. DWTS holds promise to aid in more accurate weather determination (Gordley, et al), and the core technology can be easily adapted to study other atmospheres of interest. In partnership with GATS, NOAA, and other collaborators, NASA Ames and the Nano Orbital Workshop group have been working to evaluate the DWTS instrument on orbit and optimize it as a flexible cube satellite payload. The first mission selected for DWTS evaluation is preparing for flight in early 2024, followed by a more capable science mission in 2025, with both missions part of the TES-n/NOW flight series. The first flight, TES-16/DWTS-A, will incorporate a single DWTS instrument in an approximately 2U payload volume with the imaging aperture perpendicular to the flight velocity vector. With an estimated power consumption of 20 watts, supplied via a custom NOW-designed GaN converter, the instrument will maintain the imaging sensor plane at 80K using an integrated pulse-tube cryocooler during instrument evaluation periods. Data from DWTS will be captured via a NOW-designed custom data processor before being transmitted via S-band radio back to select ground stations, with instrument command and control operated via L-band global-coverage radio. After the TES-16/DWTS-A initial demonstration mission, the subsequent TES-17/DWTS-B mission will be a dedicated science mission equipped with three DWTS instruments, each hosting a different gas cell to obtain full altitude coverage from 20 to 200 km both day and night from a single cube satellite. The intention of the flight series, and one of NASA’s interests in the instrument, is to advance a Martian atmospheric instrument (Colaprete, Gordley, et al) which, if successful, would greatly further understanding of Martian atmospheric behavior. The proposed paper will review the flight series in detail, including challenges from the TES-16 flight tests and the projected challenges and application to Mars study. Additional detail regarding the possible applications of a Cognitive Communication technique in current flight development by NOW collaborators at the NASA Glenn Research Center will also be discussed, including the implications of using an automated User Initiated Service (UIS) protocol to maximize the data collected per orbit.

Doppler Wind Temperature Sensor↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Doppler Wind Temperature Sensor (DWTS) Flight Evaluation and Experiments (TES-16, 17)

The Doppler Wind and Temperature Sounder instrument (DWTS), developed by Global Atmospheric Technologies and Sciences (GATS), is a simple but powerful tool that has the potential to become a new window through which to study the dynamics of the upper atmosphere. Based around a defense-grade infrared camera peering through a static gas cell used as a scanning spectral filter, the DWTS instrument infers wind velocities and kinetic temperatures through the stratosphere and lower thermosphere. The DWTS achieves this scanning by measuring the induced Doppler shift and Doppler broadening of emissions as they pass through the DWTS field of view (Gordley, et al., 2011). The DWTS holds promise in improving accuracy in weather determination , and the core technology can be adapted to study other planetary atmospheres. In partnership with GATS, NOAA, and other collaborators, NASA Ames and the Nano Orbital Workshop group have been working to evaluate the DWTS instrument on orbit and optimize it as a flexible nanosatellite payload. The first mission selected for DWTS evaluation is preparing for flight in early 2024, which will be followed by a more capable science mission in 2025, with both missions being part of the TES-n/NOW heritage flight series. The first rapid technology demonstration flight, TES-16/DWTS-A, will demonstrate a single DWTS instrument in an approximately 2U payload volume with the imaging aperture perpendicular to the flight velocity vector. With an estimated power consumption of 50 watts, supplied via a custom NOW-designed DC-DC converter, the instrument will maintain the imaging sensor plane at 80K during instrument evaluation periods using an integrated pulse-tube cryocooler. Data from DWTS will be captured and processed via a NOW-designed custom data interface unit before being transmitted via S-band radio back to select ground stations, with instrument command and control operated via L-band global-coverage radio. The subsequent TES-17/DWTS-B mission will be a dedicated science mission to obtain full altitude coverage from 20 to 200 km during both day and night, all from a single small-satellite equipped with three DWTS instruments, each hosting a different gas cell chemistry. The intention of this flight series, and one of NASA’s interests in this instrument, is to advance a Martian atmospheric instrument (Colaprete, Gordley, et al) which, if successful, would greatly further understanding of Martian atmospheric behavior. The proposed paper will review the flight series in detail, including challenges facing the TES-16 flight tests and the projected challenges and application to Mars study. Additional detail regarding the possible applications of a Cognitive Communication technique in current flight development by NOW collaborators at the NASA Glenn Research Center will also be discussed, including the implications of using an automated User Initiated Service (UIS) protocol to maximize the data collected per orbit.

nanosatellite↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Doppler Wind and Temperature Sounder (DWTS) Flight Evaluation and Experiments (TES-16,17)

The Doppler Wind and Temperature Sounder instrument (DWTS) developed by Global Atmospheric Technologies and Sciences (GATS) is a simple yet powerful tool with the potential to become a new window through which the study of upper atmosphere dynamics can occur. Based around a defense-grade infrared camera peering through a static gas cell used as a scanning spectral filter, a DWTS instrument can infer wind velocities and kinetic temperatures throughout the stratosphere and lower thermosphere. The DWTS achieves this scanning by measuring the induced Doppler shift and Doppler broadening of emissions as they pass through the DWTS field of view (Gordley, Marshall, 2011). The DWTS holds promise in improving accuracy in weather determination among other terrestrial benefits, and the core technology can be easily adapted to study the dynamics of other planetary atmospheres. In partnership with GATS, NOAA, and other collaborators, NASA Ames and the Nano-Orbital Workshop (NOW) group have been working to evaluate the DWTS instrument on orbit and optimize it as a flexible payload for nanosatellites. The first mission selected for DWTS technical evaluation is preparing for flight in early 2024, which will be followed by a more capable science mission in 2025, with both missions being part of the TES-n/NOW heritage flight series. The first rapid technology demonstration flight, TES-16/DWTS-A, will demonstrate a single DWTS instrument in an approximately 2U payload volume. With an estimated power consumption of 50 watts, the instrument will maintain the imaging sensor plane at 80K during instrument performance evaluation periods using an integrated Stirling cryocooler. Data from DWTS will be captured and processed via a NOW-designed custom data interface unit before being transmitted via S-band radio back to select ground stations, with instrument command and control maintained via L-band global-coverage radio. The subsequent TES-17/DWTS-B mission will be a dedicated science mission tasked with validating the instrument’s full altitude coverage capabilities, currently estimated from 20 to 200 km during both day and night. This new atmospheric observational capability will come from a single small satellite equipped with three DWTS imagers, each hosting a different gas cell chemistry, to form a complete instrument. The intention of this flight series, and one of NASA’s interests in this instrument, is not only to advance Earth atmospheric dynamics, but to advance a Martian atmospheric study instrument as well (Colaprete, Gordley, et al) which, if successful, would greatly further understanding of Martian atmospheric dynamics. This document describes the flight series in detail, including challenges facing the TES-16 flight tests and the projected challenges and application of Mars study. Additional detail regarding the possible applications of a Cognitive Communication technique in current flight development by NOW collaborators at the NASA Glenn Research Center is also discussed, including the implications of using an automated User Initiated Service (UIS) protocol to maximize the data collected per orbit.

DWTS Nano-satellite TES-n↗
NASA NTRS2004

Lessons Learned Study Final Report for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate

This report is the final product of a 90-day study performed for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. The study was to assemble lessons NASA has learned from previous programs that could help the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate pursue the Exploration vision. It focuses on those lessons that should have the greatest significance to the Directorate during the formulation of program and mission plans. The study team reviewed a large number of lessons learned reports and data bases, including the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and Rogers Commission reports on the Shuttle accidents, accident reports from robotic space flight systems, and a number of management reviews by the Defense Sciences Board, Government Accountability Office, and others. The consistency of the lessons, findings, and recommendations validate the adequacy of the data set. In addition to reviewing existing databases, a series of workshops was held at each of the NASA centers and headquarters that included senior managers from the current workforce as well as retirees. The full text of the workshop reports is included in Appendix A. A lessons learned website was opened up to permit current and retired NASA personnel and on-site contractors to input additional lessons as they arise. These new lessons, when of appropriate quality and relevance, will be brought to the attention of managers. The report consists of four parts: Part 1 provides a small set of lessons, called the Executive Lessons Learned, that represent critical lessons that the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate should act on immediately. This set of Executive Lessons and their supporting rationale have been reviewed at length and fully endorsed by a team of distinguished NASA alumni; Part 2 contains a larger set of lessons, called the Selected Lessons Learned, which have been chosen from the lessons database and center workshop reports on the basis of their specific significance and relevance to the near-term work of the Exploration Directorate. These lessons frequently support the Executive lessons but are more general in nature; Part 3 consists of the reports of the center workshops that were conducted as part of this activity. These reports are included in their entirety (approximately 200 pages) in Appendix G and have significance for specific managers; Part 4 consists of the remainder of the lessons that have been selected by this effort and assembled into a database for the use of the Explorations Directorate. The database is archived and hosted in the Lessons Learned Knowledge Network, which provides a flexible search capability using a wide variety of search terms. Finally, a spreadsheet lists databases searched and a bibliography identifies reports that have been reviewed as sources of lessons for this task. NASA has been presented with many learning opportunities. We have conducted numerous programs, some extremely successful and others total failures. Most have been documented with a formal lessons learned activity, but we have not always incorporated these learning opportunities into our normal modes of business. For example, the Robbins Report of 2001 clearly indicates that many project failures of the past two decades were the result of violating well documented best practices, often in direct violation of management instructions and directives. An overarching lesson emerges: that disciplined execution in accordance with proven best practices is the greatest single contributor to a successful program. The Lessons Learned task team offers a sincere hope that the lessons presented herein will be helpful to the Exploration Systems Directorate in charting and executing their course. The success of the Directorate and of NASA in general depends on our collective ability to move forward without having to relearn the lessons of those who have gone before.

Van Laak, Jim↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA System Safety Handbook: System Safety Framework and Concepts for Implementation - Volume 1

System safety assessment is defined in NPR 8715.3C, NASA General Safety Program Requirements as a disciplined, systematic approach to the analysis of risks resulting from hazards that can affect humans, the environment, and mission assets. Achievement of the highest practicable degree of system safety is one of NASA's highest priorities. Traditionally, system safety assessment at NASA and elsewhere has focused on the application of a set of safety analysis tools to identify safety risks and formulate effective controls.1 Familiar tools used for this purpose include various forms of hazard analyses, failure modes and effects analyses, and probabilistic safety assessment (commonly also referred to as probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)). In the past, it has been assumed that to show that a system is safe, it is sufficient to provide assurance that the process for identifying the hazards has been as comprehensive as possible and that each identified hazard has one or more associated controls. The NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) has made several statements in its annual reports supporting a more holistic approach. In 2006, it recommended that "... a comprehensive risk assessment, communication and acceptance process be implemented to ensure that overall launch risk is considered in an integrated and consistent manner." In 2009, it advocated for "... a process for using a risk-informed design approach to produce a design that is optimally and sufficiently safe." As a rationale for the latter advocacy, it stated that "... the ASAP applauds switching to a performance-based approach because it emphasizes early risk identification to guide designs, thus enabling creative design approaches that might be more efficient, safer, or both." For purposes of this preface, it is worth mentioning three areas where the handbook emphasizes a more holistic type of thinking. First, the handbook takes the position that it is important to not just focus on risk on an individual basis but to consider measures of aggregate safety risk and to ensure wherever possible that there be quantitative measures for evaluating how effective the controls are in reducing these aggregate risks. The term aggregate risk, when used in this handbook, refers to the accumulation of risks from individual scenarios that lead to a shortfall in safety performance at a high level: e.g., an excessively high probability of loss of crew, loss of mission, planetary contamination, etc. Without aggregated quantitative measures such as these, it is not reasonable to expect that safety has been optimized with respect to other technical and programmatic objectives. At the same time, it is fully recognized that not all sources of risk are amenable to precise quantitative analysis and that the use of qualitative approaches and bounding estimates may be appropriate for those risk sources. Second, the handbook stresses the necessity of developing confidence that the controls derived for the purpose of achieving system safety not only handle risks that have been identified and properly characterized but also provide a general, more holistic means for protecting against unidentified or uncharacterized risks. For example, while it is not possible to be assured that all credible causes of risk have been identified, there are defenses that can provide protection against broad categories of risks and thereby increase the chances that individual causes are contained. Third, the handbook strives at all times to treat uncertainties as an integral aspect of risk and as a part of making decisions. The term "uncertainty" here does not refer to an actuarial type of data analysis, but rather to a characterization of our state of knowledge regarding results from logical and physical models that approximate reality. Uncertainty analysis finds how the output parameters of the models are related to plausible variations in the input parameters and in the modeling assumptions. The evaluation of unrtainties represents a method of probabilistic thinking wherein the analyst and decision makers recognize possible outcomes other than the outcome perceived to be "most likely." Without this type of analysis, it is not possible to determine the worth of an analysis product as a basis for making decisions related to safety and mission success. In line with these considerations the handbook does not take a hazard-analysis-centric approach to system safety. Hazard analysis remains a useful tool to facilitate brainstorming but does not substitute for a more holistic approach geared to a comprehensive identification and understanding of individual risk issues and their contributions to aggregate safety risks. The handbook strives to emphasize the importance of identifying the most critical scenarios that contribute to the risk of not meeting the agreed-upon safety objectives and requirements using all appropriate tools (including but not limited to hazard analysis). Thereafter, emphasis shifts to identifying the risk drivers that cause these scenarios to be critical and ensuring that there are controls directed toward preventing or mitigating the risk drivers. To address these and other areas, the handbook advocates a proactive, analytic-deliberative, risk-informed approach to system safety, enabling the integration of system safety activities with systems engineering and risk management processes. It emphasizes how one can systematically provide the necessary evidence to substantiate the claim that a system is safe to within an acceptable risk tolerance, and that safety has been achieved in a cost-effective manner. The methodology discussed in this handbook is part of a systems engineering process and is intended to be integral to the system safety practices being conducted by the NASA safety and mission assurance and systems engineering organizations. The handbook posits that to conclude that a system is adequately safe, it is necessary to consider a set of safety claims that derive from the safety objectives of the organization. The safety claims are developed from a hierarchy of safety objectives and are therefore hierarchical themselves. Assurance that all the claims are true within acceptable risk tolerance limits implies that all of the safety objectives have been satisfied, and therefore that the system is safe. The acceptable risk tolerance limits are provided by the authority who must make the decision whether or not to proceed to the next step in the life cycle. These tolerances are therefore referred to as the decision maker's risk tolerances. In general, the safety claims address two fundamental facets of safety: 1) whether required safety thresholds or goals have been achieved, and 2) whether the safety risk is as low as possible within reasonable impacts on cost, schedule, and performance. The latter facet includes consideration of controls that are collective in nature (i.e., apply generically to broad categories of risks) and thereby provide protection against unidentified or uncharacterized risks.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗
NASA NTRS2005

Jet Propulsion Laboratory: Annual Report 2004

Once or twice in an age, a year comes along that the historians proclaim as an Annus Mirabilis - a year of wonders. For the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 2004 was just that sort of time. From beginning to end, it was a nonstop experience of wondrous events in space. Imagine that two robot rovers embark on cross-country rambles across Mars, scrutinizing rocks for signs of past water on the now-arid world. A flagship spacecraft brakes into orbit at Saturn to begin longterm surveillance of the ringed world, preparing to drop a sophisticated probe to the surface of its haze-shrouded largest moon. Another craft makes the closest-ever pass by the nucleus of a comet, collecting sample particles as it goes. Two new space telescopes peer into the depths of the universe far beyond our solar system, viewing stars, nebulas and galaxies in invisible light beyond the spectrum our eyes can see. A pair of instruments is lofted on a NASA Earth-orbiting satellite to monitor air quality and the protective layer of ozone blanketing our home planet. A small probe brings samples of the solar wind to Earth for in-depth study. While JPL was absorbed with all of these ventures on other worlds, NASA and the White House unveiled an ambitious new plan of space exploration. The Vision for Space Exploration announced in January foresees a program of robotic and astronaut missions leading to a human return to the Moon by 2020, and eventual crewed expeditions to Mars. The vision also calls for more robotic missions to the moons of the outer planets; spaceborne observatories that will search for Earth-like planets around other stars and explore the formation and evolution of the universe; and continued study of our home planet. In order to accomplish all of this, NASA must perfect many as-yet-uninvented technologies and space transportation capabilities. JPL has a great deal to bring to this vision. Robotic exploration of Mars will lead the way for missions that will carry women and men to the red planet. Our engineers and scientists are formulating spacecraft that could use nuclear power to enable exploration missions of the future. And even now we are designing formations of space telescopes that will capture family portraits of the planets around neighboring stars. Those are only some of the ways that the Laboratory is contributing to NASA's broader goals. During 2004, JPL made a distinctive contribution to agencywide initiatives in areas such as safety, NASA transformation, the agency's Internet portal and NASA's Explorer Schools programs. Years like 2004 pose a special challenge for us. It would be easy to say that this was a once-in-a-decade high point of mission activities, but I believe that this would miss an opportunity. We are fortunate to have many space projects in the works that have the promise of being just as exhilarating as the great mission successes that we celebrated this year. The challenge and opportunity for us now is to make every year like this one.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NAS↗