Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Assessment”

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 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Rapid Evaluation Framework for the CMIP7 Assessment Fast Track

As Earth system models (ESMs) grow in complexity and in volume of output data, there is an increasing need for rapid, comprehensive evaluation of their scientific performance. The upcoming Assessment Fast Track for the Seventh Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) will require expeditious response for model analyses designed to inform and drive integrated Earth system assessments. To meet this challenge, the Rapid Evaluation Framework (REF), a community-driven platform for benchmarking and performance assessment of ESMs, was designed and developed. The initial implementation of the REF, constructed to meet the near-term needs of the CMIP7 Assessment Fast Track, builds upon four disparate community evaluation and benchmarking tools that are coupled together using the Coordinated Model Evaluation Capabilities (CMEC) framework. The REF runs within a containerized workflow for portability and reproducibility and is aimed at generating and organizing diagnostics covering a variety of model variables. The REF leverages well documented observational datasets to provide assessments of model fidelity across a collection of diagnostics. All diagnostics were identified and selected with community involvement and consultation. Operational integration with the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) will permit automated execution of the REF for selected diagnostics as soon as model output data are published on ESGF by the originating modeling centers. The REF is designed to be portable across a range of current computational platforms to facilitate use by modeling centers for assessing the evolution of model versions or gauging the relative performance of CMIP simulations before being published on ESGF. When integrated into production simulation workflows, results from the REF provide immediate quantitative feedback that allows model developers and scientists to quickly identify model biases and performance issues. After the REF is released to the community, its subsequent development and support will be prioritized by an international consortium of scientists and engineers, enabling a broader impact across Earth science disciplines. For instance, the REF will facilitate improvements to models and will enhance confidence in model projections through process-based selection of models based on their performance with respect to observations. Production of reproducible diagnostics and community-based assessments are key features of the REF. Furthermore, providing interoperability with existing evaluation packages assures that contributions from previous community efforts will be available for use in future model intercomparison projects.

Hoffman, Forrest [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000158024134)↗
NASA NTRS1974

The southern regional conference on technology assessment: Summary

The proceedings of a conference on technology assessment are presented. A survey of recent Federal activity in technology assessment was discussed initially. Emphasis was placed on state and local activities with respect to technology assessment to include the following subjects: (1) the technology assessment desired by states, (2) organization of technology assessment activities, (3) how to perform technology assessments for less than $5,000, and (4) the preparation of environmental impact statements. Specific application of technology assessment to solid waste management in Connecticut is reported.

Coates, V. T.↗
NASA NTRS1999

NASA Occupational Health Program FY98 Self-Assessment

The NASA Functional Management Review process requires that each NASA Center conduct self-assessments of each functional area. Self-Assessments were completed in June 1998 and results were presented during this conference session. During FY 97 NASA Occupational Health Assessment Team activities, a decision was made to refine the NASA Self-Assessment Process. NASA Centers were involved in the ISO registration process at that time and wanted to use the management systems approach to evaluate their occupational health programs. This approach appeared to be more consistent with NASA's management philosophy and would likely confer status needed by Senior Agency Management for the program. During FY 98 the Agency Occupational Health Program Office developed a revised self-assessment methodology based on the Occupational Health and Safety Management System developed by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. This process was distributed to NASA Centers in March 1998 and completed in June 1998. The Center Self Assessment data will provide an essential baseline on the status of OHP management processes at NASA Centers. That baseline will be presented to Enterprise Associate Administrators and DASHO on September 22, 1998 and used as a basis for discussion during FY 99 visits to NASA Centers. The process surfaced several key management system elements warranting further support from the Lead Center. Input and feedback from NASA Centers will be essential to defining and refining future self assessment efforts.

Brisbin, Steven G.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Spaceliner Class Operability Gains Via Combined Airbreathing/ Rocket Propulsion: Summarizing an Operational Assessment of Highly Reusable Space Transports

In discussing a new NASA initiative in advanced space transportation systems and technologies, the Director of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Arthur G. Stephenson, noted that, "It would use new propulsion technology, air-breathing engine so you don't have to carry liquid oxygen, at least while your flying through the atmosphere. We are calling it Spaceliner 100 because it would be 100 times cheaper, costing $ 100 dollars a pound to orbit." While airbreathing propulsion is directly named, rocket propulsion is also implied by, "... while you are flying through the atmosphere." In-space final acceleration to orbital speed mandates rocket capabilities. Thus, in this informed view, Spaceliner 100 will be predicated on combined airbreathing/rocket propulsion, the technical subject of this paper. Interestingly, NASA's recently concluded Highly Reusable Space Transportation (HRST) study focused on the same affordability goal as that of the Spaceliner 100 initiative and reflected the decisive contribution of combined propulsion as a way of expanding operability and increasing the design robustness of future space transports, toward "aircraft like" capabilities. The HRST study built on the Access to Space Study and the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) development activities to identify and characterize space transportation concepts, infrastructure and technologies that have the greatest potential for reducing delivery cost by another order of magnitude, from $1,000 to $100-$200 per pound for 20,000 lb. - 40.000 lb. payloads to low earth orbit (LEO). The HRST study investigated a number of near-term, far-term, and very far-term launch vehicle concepts including all-rocket single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) concepts, two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) concepts, concepts with launch assist, rocket-based combined cycle (RBCC) concepts, advanced expendable vehicles, and more far term ground-based laser powered launchers. The HRST study consisted of preliminary concept studies, assessments and analysis tool development for advanced space transportation systems, followed by end-to-end system concept definitions and trade analyses, specific system concept definition and analysis, specific key technology and topic analysis, system, operational and economics model development, analysis, and integrated assessments. The HRST Integration Task Force (HITF) was formed to synthesize study results in several specific topic areas and support the development of conclusions from the study: Systems Concepts Definitions, Technology Assessment, Operations Assessment, and Cost Assessment. This paper summarizes the work of the Operations Assessment Team: the six approaches used, the analytical tools and methodologies developed and employed, the issues and concerns, and the results of the assessment. The approaches were deliberately varied in measures of merit and procedure to compensate for the uncertainty inherent in operations data in this early phase of concept exploration. In general, rocket based combined cycle (RBCC) concepts appear to have significantly greater potential than all-rocket concepts for reducing operations costs.

Nix, Michael B.↗
NASA NTRS1995

Traffic Management Advisor: Iterative Field Development and Assessment at Multiple Sites

Previous studies have demonstrated the necessity of involving users in the development of automation aids, especially for complex domains such as air traffic control (ATC). Traditional development only demanded a single field test to validate a completed system, but a more iterative combination of development and assessment ensures that the technology meets the requirements of its application domain. Exposure across an adequate spectrum of field users is also required during development, and the use of multiple development sites provides an opportunity to consider individual facility cultures as they relate to implementation strategies. The development of the Center/TRACON Automation System (CTAS) Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) at the Denver and Dallas ATC facilities demonstrates successful iterative development and assessment at multiple field sites. The use of field development changes the nature of assessment. As development progresses, periodic assessments are required to validate that system development is progressing along an appropriate track. In the development of the TMA, assessments were performed based on software in the field, and input from traffic managers was analyzed and incorporated into subsequent releases of the TMA, to be reassessed in the field. This has led to a tool with operational suitability and broad user acceptance. Assessment at multiple sites provides a more generalizable perspective that allows the production of a system that is both generic enough to be used at different sites and tailored enough to be of use at any site. In addition to providing a better understanding of specific facility requirements, the use of multiple assessment sites in the development of TMA has provided an opportunity to consider individual facility operations, procedures and cultures as they relate to development and implementation strategies.

Sanford, Beverly D.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Nutritional Status Assessment (SMO 016E)

Until 2006, it was not been possible to assess nutritional status of crewmembers on the ISS during flight because blood and urine could not be collected during ISS missions. Postflight observations of alterations in status of several nutrients are troubling, and we require the ability to monitor the status of these nutrients during flight to determine if there is a specific impetus or timeframe for these changes. In addition to the monitoring of crew nutritional status during flight, in-flight sample collection would allow better assessment of countermeasure effectiveness. Collecting samples during flight is one of the objectives of SMO 016E, and it is also designed to expand the current medical requirement for nutritional assessment (MR016L) to include additional normative markers for assessing crew health and countermeasure effectiveness. Additional markers of bone metabolism will be measured to better monitor bone health and the effectiveness of countermeasures to prevent bone resorption. New markers of oxidative damage will be measured to better assess the type of oxidative insults that occur during space flight. The array of nutritional assessment variables will be expanded to include ones that will allow us to better understand changes in folate, vitamin K, and vitamin B6 status, as well as risk factors for cardiovascular and oxidative damage during and after flight. Stress hormones and hormones that affect bone and muscle metabolism will also be measured. Measuring these additional variables will allow us to better monitor the health of crewmembers and make more accurate recommendations for their rehabilitation. Several nutritional assessment variables are altered at landing, but it is not known how long these changes persist. We extended the original protocol to include an additional postflight blood and urine sample collection 30 days after landing. Data are being collected before, during, and after flight. These data will provide a complete survey of how nutritional status and related systems are affected by space flight. Analyzing the data will help us to define nutritional requirements for long-duration missions. This expanded set of measurements will also aid in the identification of nutritional countermeasures to counteract, for example, the deleterious effects of microgravity on bone and muscle and the effects of space radiation.

Smith, S. M.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Hybrid Wing Body Aircraft System Noise Assessment with Propulsion Airframe Aeroacoustic Experiments

A system noise assessment of a hybrid wing body configuration was performed using NASA s best available aircraft models, engine model, and system noise assessment method. A propulsion airframe aeroacoustic effects experimental database for key noise sources and interaction effects was used to provide data directly in the noise assessment where prediction methods are inadequate. NASA engine and aircraft system models were created to define the hybrid wing body aircraft concept as a twin engine aircraft with a 7500 nautical mile mission. The engines were modeled as existing technology high bypass ratio turbofans. The baseline hybrid wing body aircraft was assessed at 22 dB cumulative below the FAA Stage 4 certification level. To determine the potential for noise reduction with relatively near term technologies, seven other configurations were assessed beginning with moving the engines two fan nozzle diameters upstream of the trailing edge and then adding technologies for reduction of the highest noise sources. Aft radiated noise was expected to be the most challenging to reduce and, therefore, the experimental database focused on jet nozzle and pylon configurations that could reduce jet noise through a combination of source reduction and shielding effectiveness. The best configuration for reduction of jet noise used state-of-the-art technology chevrons with a pylon above the engine in the crown position. This configuration resulted in jet source noise reduction, favorable azimuthal directivity, and noise source relocation upstream where it is more effectively shielded by the limited airframe surface, and additional fan noise attenuation from acoustic liner on the crown pylon internal surfaces. Vertical and elevon surfaces were also assessed to add shielding area. The elevon deflection above the trailing edge showed some small additional noise reduction whereas vertical surfaces resulted in a slight noise increase. With the effects of the configurations from the database included, the best available noise reduction was 40 dB cumulative. Projected effects from additional technologies were assessed for an advanced noise reduction configuration including landing gear fairings and advanced pylon and chevron nozzles. Incorporating the three additional technology improvements, an aircraft noise is projected of 42.4 dB cumulative below the Stage 4 level.

Thomas, Russell H.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Analyzing Discrepancies in a Software Development Project Change Request (CR) Assessment Process and Recommendations for Process Improvements

The Change Request (CR) assessment process is essential in the display development cycle. The assessment process is performed to ensure that the changes stated in the description of the CR match the changes in the actual display requirements. If a discrepancy is found between the CR and the requirements, the CR must be returned to the originator for corrections. Data was gathered from each of the developers to determine the type of discrepancies and the amount of time spent assessing each CR. This study sought to determine the most common types of discrepancies, and the amount of time required to assessing those issues. The study found that even though removing discrepancy before an assessment would save half the time needed to assess an CR with a discrepancy, the number of CR's found to have a discrepancy was very small compared to the total number of CR's assessed during the data gathering period.

Cunningham, Kenneth James↗
NASA NTRS2015

Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment - How They Play Together

Since the Space Shuttle Challenger accident in 1986, NASA has extensively used probabilistic analysis methods to assess, understand, and communicate the risk of space launch vehicles. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), used in the nuclear industry, is one of the probabilistic analysis methods NASA utilizes to assess Loss of Mission (LOM) and Loss of Crew (LOC) risk for launch vehicles. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment that uses a combination of fault trees, event trees, event sequence diagrams, and probability distributions to analyze the risk of a system, a process, or an activity. It is a process designed to answer three basic questions: 1) what can go wrong that would lead to loss or degraded performance (i.e., scenarios involving undesired consequences of interest), 2) how likely is it (probabilities), and 3) what is the severity of the degradation (consequences). Since the Challenger accident, PRA has been used in supporting decisions regarding safety upgrades for launch vehicles. Another area that was given a lot of emphasis at NASA after the Challenger accident is reliability engineering. Reliability engineering has been a critical design function at NASA since the early Apollo days. However, after the Challenger accident, quantitative reliability analysis and reliability predictions were given more scrutiny because of their importance in understanding failure mechanism and quantifying the probability of failure, which are key elements in resolving technical issues, performing design trades, and implementing design improvements. Although PRA and reliability are both probabilistic in nature and, in some cases, use the same tools, they are two different activities. Specifically, reliability engineering is a broad design discipline that deals with loss of function and helps understand failure mechanism and improve component and system design. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment process intended to assess the risk scenarios that could lead to a major/top undesirable system event, and to identify those scenarios that are high-risk drivers. PRA output is critical to support risk informed decisions concerning system design. This paper describes the PRA process and the reliability engineering discipline in detail. It discusses their differences and similarities and how they work together as complementary analyses to support the design and risk assessment processes. Lessons learned, applications, and case studies in both areas are also discussed in the paper to demonstrate and explain these differences and similarities.

Safie, Fayssal↗
NASA NTRS2017

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (ORION)

NASA uses two HRA assessment methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is still expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a PRA model that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more problematic. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana↗
NASA NTRS2017

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. To determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators, and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules, and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Behavioral Assessment of Spaceflight Effects on Neurocognitive Performance: Extent and Longevity

Exposure to the microgravity environment during spaceflight missions impacts crewmembers' sensorimotor function. Bock et al. [1] studied the cognitive demands of human sensorimotor performance and dual tasking during long duration missions and concluded that both stress and scarcity of cognitive resources required for sensorimotor adaptation may be responsible for these deficits during spaceflight. Therefore, in consideration of the health and performance of crewmembers in- and post-flight, we are conducting this study to investigate the effects of spaceflight on the extent, longevity and neural bases of sensorimotor, cognitive, and neural changes. The data presented will focus on the behavioral measures that were collected pre-, in- and post-flight including spatial cognition, processing speed, bimanual coordination, functional mobility, computerized dynamic posturography (CDP), and vibrotactile induced vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP). To date, data were collected over the course of two pre-flight sessions and four post-flight sessions on five crewmembers (n=13) using the protocol described in Koppelmans et al. [2]. Balance control was assessed using CDP, with eyes closed and a sway-referenced base of support (Sensory Organization Test 5), with and without head movements in the pitch plane. Spatial working memory was assessed using Thurston's Card Rotation Test and a Mental Rotation Test. The Rod and Frame Test was performed to test visual dependence. The Digit Symbol Substitution Test was performed to evaluate processing speed, and the Purdue Pegboard Task was performed to test bimanual coordination. Vestibular function was assessed by eliciting ocular VEMP via a hand held striker on the side of the head as subjects lay supine on a gurney. Subjects also performed the Functional Mobility Test of walking through an obstacle course to assess rate of early motor learning. Data were also collected on the same crewmembers during three in-flight sessions on the International Space Station (ISS). In-flight, spatial working memory was assessed using the Mental Rotation Test, adaptation to visuo-motor transformation in manual control was assessed using the Sensorimotor Adaptation Test, and multi-tasking ability was assessed using the Dual Task Test. These three tests were performed in a strapped-in configuration mimicking a seated position - waist bungees pulled the crewmember toward the "floor" with feet secured in foot loops. The Mental Rotation Test was also performed in a free-floating configuration while the crewmember floated while holding on to the gamepad controller used to provide input that was secured to the equipment rack on the ISS. Preliminary findings from data collected to date, will be included in the presentation. Eventual comparison to results from supporting bed rest and longitudinal studies will enable the parsing out of the multiple mechanisms contributing to any observed spaceflight-induced sensorimotor and cognitive behavioral changes.

De Dios, Y. E.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Assessing Alternatives in the Systems Engineering Process: Case Study of an Earth Observing Satellite Concept

Defining design alternatives constitutes one of the critical initial steps of the systems engineering process. Once these design alternatives have been identified, assessing which alternatives best satisfy the project’s objectives can prove to be challenging when dealing with complex decision frameworks. Complex systems often involve the participation of different interest groups, who have different value systems and are focused on distinct aspects of the project. For example, design alternatives might be assessed predominantly for their technical merit by one group of stakeholders, while a different group might be more inclined to assess the design alternatives primarily based on programmatic values. MESCAL (Monitoring the Evolving State of Clouds and Aerosol Layers) is an ongoing NASA / CNES (Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales) joint study for an active remote sensing Earth observing satellite. Several design alternatives have been identified and the assessment of these alternatives requires consideration of a variety of factors. This paper presents the approach that was used to support a global assessment of the MESCAL design alternatives. A mapping of the interactions between mission, instrument, and science requirements was modeled to support the assessment of the trade space. In addition, a set of metrics was developed to structure the assessment that was conducted. Finally, this paper also discusses the general applicability of these metrics to other science mission concepts in the formulation phase.

Ivanco, Marie L.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Assessing Reliability of NDE Flaw Detection Using Smaller Number of Demonstration Data Points

The paper provides an engineering analysis approach for assessing reliability of NDE flaw detection using smaller number of demonstration data points. It explores dependence of probability of detection (POD), probability of false positive (POF), on contrast-to-noise ratio, and net decision threshold-to-noise ratio in a simulated data; and draws some generically applicable inferences to devise the approach. ASTM nondestructive evaluation standards provide requirements on signal-to-noise ratio and/or contrast-to-noise ratio in order to provide reliable flaw detection and limit false positive calls. POD analysis of inspection test data results in an estimated flaw size, denoted by 𝑎90/95. This flaw size has 90% POD and minimum 95% confidence. POF is also estimated in the analysis. POD demonstration requires specimens with flaws of known size. In many situations, it is very expensive to produce the large number of flaws required for the POD analysis. In some situations, only real flaws can truly represent the flaws for demonstration. Real flaws of correct size and location in part configuration specimen may be difficult to produce, if not impossible. Here, an engineering analysis approach is devised using simulation to assess reliability of NDE technique when a limited number of flaws are available for demonstration. In this simulation, a technique is considered reliable, if it provides flaw detectability size equal to or better than the theoretical 𝑎90𝑡ℎ used in simulation and also provides a POF less than or equal to a chosen value. The paper uses simulated signal response versus flaw size data to devise the approach. Linear correlation is used between the signal response data and flaw size. POD software mh1823 uses generalized linear model (GLM) in POD analysis after transforming the flaw size and signal response, if needed, using logarithm. Therefore, this approach is in agreement with the linear signal correlation used in mh1823. Using the POD analysis of data, generic conditions on contrast-to-noise ratio and net decision threshold-to-noise ratio are derived for reliable flaw detection. In order to assess technique reliability using the engineering approach, signal response-to-flaw size correlation about the flaw size of concern is needed. In addition, measurement of noise is also needed. If the technique meets the above requirements, assumption of linear signal-to-flaw size correlation and conditions on noise, then the technique can be assessed using this analysis as it fits the underlying POD model used here. The approach is conservative and is designed to provide a larger flaw size compared to the POD approach. Such NDE technique assessment approach, although, not as rigorous as POD, can be cost effective if the larger flaw size can be tolerated. Typically, this is a situation for all quality control NDE inspections. Here, an NDE technique needs to be reliable and 𝑎90/95 is not estimated, but the assessed flaw size is assumed to be larger than the unknown a90 due to conservative factors or margins. Applicability of the approach for assessing reliability of flaw detection in x-ray radiography and 2D imaging in general is also explored.

Koshti, Ajay M.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Assessment of Terra MODIS Thermal Emissive Band Calibration Using Cold Targets and Measurements in Lunar Roll Events

Terra MODIS has provided continuous global observations for science research and applications for more than 18 years. The MODIS Thermal emissive bands (TEB) radiometric calibration uses a quadratic function for instrument response. The calibration coefficients are updated using the response of an on-board blackbody (BB) in quarterly warm-up and cool-down (WUCD) events. As instrument degradation and electronic crosstalk of long-wave infrared (LWIR) bands 27 to 30 developed substantial issues, accurate calibration is crucial for a high-quality L1B product. The on-board BB WUCD temperature ranges from 270 K to 315 K and the derived nonlinear response has a relatively large uncertainty for the offset, especially for these LWIR bands, which affects the measurements of low brightness temperature (BT) scenes. In this study, the TEB radiometric calibration impact on the L1B product is assessed using selected cold targets and the measurements during regular lunar rolls. The cold targets include Antarctic Dome Concordia (Dome-C) and deep convective clouds (DCC) for the calibration assessment, focusing on bands 27 to 30. Dome-C area is covered with uniformly-distributed permanent snow, and the atmospheric effect is small and relatively constant. Usually the DCC is treated as an invariant earth target to evaluate the reflective solar band calibration. The DCC can also be treated as a stable target to assess the performance of TEB calibration. During a scheduled lunar observation event with a spacecraft roll maneuver to view the moon through the space view port, the instrument cavity provides a stable reference for calibration assessment. The long-term trending of BT measurements and the relative difference between scan mirror sides and detectors are used for the assessment of the calibration consistency and stability. The comparison of L1B products over the selected targets before and after the calibration coefficients update can be used to assess the impact of a calibration look-up table (LUT) update. This assessment is beneficial for future calibration algorithm and LUT update procedure improvements for enhancing the L1B product quality.

Chang, Tiejun↗
NASA NTRS2019

Quantitative Technology Assessment in Space Mission Analysis

New technologies will need to be developed to create feasible concepts for NASA's ambitious missions of the future, but quantitative assessments of the impacts that technologies have on systems or architectures are sporadic and often inadequate. The Space Mission Analysis Branch at NASA's Langley Research Center is developing a quantitative technology assessment framework to address this issue with a vision of being able to understand the mission and system architecture impacts of technology development activities. A phased approach is being pursued to answer technology needs assessment and technology forecasting questions. First, the integration of subject matter experts, data collection, and data analysis techniques ensures that the framework is accessible and analyzable. Second, systems analysis determines the impact of key technologies from the first phase on systems, architectures, and campaigns. The goal of a quantitative technology assessment framework is to accelerate technology assessments, to improve the accuracy of those assessments, and to provide deeper insights into the impact of new technologies. Keywords: technology assessment, data analysis, systems analysis.

Arney, Dale C.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Guidelines for Assessing the Toxic Hazard of Spacecraft Chemicals and Test Materials

This document describes the criteria and procedural guidelines used by the NASA/JSC Toxicology Office (JSCSTO), to perform toxicological evaluations. The JSCSTO is responsible for conducting toxicological assessments and assigning toxic hazard levels (THLs) for essentially all chemicals and test materials to be used in or transported to the habitable areas of U.S. spacecraft, non‐U.S. spacecraft inhabitaed by U.S. crew members or habitable areas of off‐Earth habitats where U.S. crew members would be present, including chemicals carried by visiting spacecraft(visiting vehicles) to and from the International Space Station (ISS). Biohazard assessments for biological materials used in payload experiments are performed by the NASA Biosafety Review Board. Radioactive materials are assessed by the Space Radiation Analysis Group for radiation hazards; the flammability rating on flammable materials is assessed by the JSC Materials and Processes Branch, ES4. This document will focus on the assessment of chemically‐induced toxicity hazards. The toxicological assessments, together with assessments on radioactive, biological, physical, and flammability hazards, are incorporated into a mission‐specific Hazardous Materials Summary Table (HMST).

Valerie Elizabeth Ryder↗