Results for “request for proposals” — Page 9

NASA NTRS2014

Evaluation of Agency Non-Code Layered Pressure Vessels (LPVs)

In coordination with the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance and the respective Center Pressure System Managers (PSMs), the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) was requested to formulate a consensus draft proposal for the development of additional testing and analysis methods to establish the technical validity, and any limitation thereof, for the continued safe operation of facility non-code layered pressure vessels. The PSMs from each NASA Center were asked to participate as part of the assessment team by providing, collecting, and reviewing data regarding current operations of these vessels. This report contains the outcome of the assessment and the findings, observations, and NESC recommendations to the Agency and individual NASA Centers.

Prosser, William H.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Evaluation of Agency Non-Code Layered Pressure Vessels (LPVs) : Appendices - Volume 2

In coordination with the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance and the respective Center Pressure System Managers (PSMs), the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) was requested to formulate a consensus draft proposal for the development of additional testing and analysis methods to establish the technical validity, and any limitation thereof, for the continued safe operation of facility non-code layered pressure vessels. The PSMs from each NASA Center were asked to participate as part of the assessment team by providing, collecting, and reviewing data regarding current operations of these vessels. This document contains the appendices to the main report.

Prosser, William H.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Evaluation of Agency Non-Code Layered Pressure Vessels (LPVs)

In coordination with the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance and the respective Center Pressure System Managers (PSMs), the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) was requested to formulate a consensus draft proposal for the development of additional testing and analysis methods to establish the technical validity, and any limitation thereof, for the continued safe operation of facility non-code layered pressure vessels. The PSMs from each NASA Center were asked to participate as part of the assessment team by providing, collecting, and reviewing data regarding current operations of these vessels. This report contains the outcome of the assessment and the findings, observations, and NESC recommendations to the Agency and individual NASA Centers.

Prosser, William H.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Collection, Usage, and Preliminary Examination of the Apollo Sample Suite: Lessons for Artemis

Apollo Sample Collection and Usage: From 1969 to 1972 there were six Apollo missions to the surface of the Moon during which the astronauts collected 382 kg of rock and regolith (~2200 samples). The samples collected fall into these general categories: rocks (~66% by mass), rake samples (~4%), bulk regolith (~24%), and specialty regolith (deep drill cores, drive tubes, sealed bulk regolith) samples (~6%). In each category there are a variety of different subtypes available for study, e.g., among the bulk regolith samples there are also skim, trench, and (partially) shaded regolith samples each sampling unique types or depths of regolith. This variety of subsamples has enabled a multitude of different studies over the past 55 years (>3400 individual requests). We are still averaging ~50 unique requests and have allocated >500 individual Apollo samples annually for the past 10 years (2020 excepted). Looking at the 4,675 non-ANGSA (Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis) samples allocated over the past 10 years, the proportions of allocated samples do not precisely align with the abundance (by mass) of those samples withing the collection: Rock (69.4 %); Rake (10.8 %); Bulk Regolith (15.5 %); Drive Tube (3.3 %); Core/Specialty (1.0 %). Apollo Preliminary Examination (PE): The PE process differs significantly for the various sample types enumerated above; we focus on regolith and rock samples here. During the Apollo mission era, the PE process evolved over the course of the missions; below is what was done for the Apollo 17 mission. For regolith samples, the PE process was: (1) documented bags containing regolith are opened, photographed, and described; (2) large rocks are removed and treated separately; (3) 25% to 33% of the bulk soil is scooped out, weighed, and stored in reserve; (4) the remaining sample is sieved to produce the size fractions <1, 1- 2, 2-4, and 4-10 mm, all of which are weighed. For rock samples, the process is: (1) removing rocks from the container(s) it came back from the Moon in; (2) rematching any materials that spalled off the rock to their original location; (3) numbering, weighing, and basic photographic documentation; (4) dusting with a gentle N2 gas jet; (5) Orthogonal photography; (6) detailed description of the textures and features of the rock; (7) rock modelling and measurement; (8) stereophotography; (9) determination of the orientation of the rock on the lunar surface. Drive tubes and deep drill cores were not characterized during PE beyond an initial weight and a sketch of the interior tube materials derived from 2D medical X-ray images. Catalogs: The ongoing utility of the Apollo samples is enabled by the robust cataloguing process for the samples [3-5], which allows the scientific community to accurately request samples uniquely suited to their proposed studies. A common misconception, however, is the amount of detail that goes into the initial catalog (e.g., [6]) for a collection from the preliminary examination (PE) period, versus what goes into the catalogs that come later in the life cycle of the samples from that mission (e.g., [7]). The only required data for a PE catalog is a weight, a basic photograph, and a description of the nature of the sample. Artemis PE: Over the past few years, the ongoing ANGSA project studied previously unopened Apollo 17 double drive tube samples 73001/2 [1], and a PE of the drive tubes was done. The PE took the existing core dissection process (developed during PE of Apollo cores in the 1970s, 1980s), and modernized it [7]. The main lesson from the ANGSA PE relative to future missions was that the physical work done during PE of lunar samples has not changed much over the past 5 decades. The use of “modern” technology during PE (e.g., XCT; multispectral analyses) resulted in an enhanced initial understanding of the 73001 and 73002 drive tubes, but greatly increased the time required. The lessons learned from recent astromaterial PEs (e.g., ANGSA and OREx) are important to consider when planning for Artemis, but the unique nature of the Artemis Campaign means many lessons learned from these mission will not be applicable. Given the time constraints (6 months) and likely number of samples that will be returned by Artemis (>200), the Artemis PE catalog will necessarily look much more like [4] than [6].

J Gross↗

NASA NTRS2009

Human Research Program Human Health Countermeasures Element Sensorimotor Risk Standing Review Panel (SRP) Final Report

The Sensorimotor Risk Standing Review Panel (SRP) met at the NASA Johnson Space Center on October 4-6, 2009 to discuss the areas of future research targeted by the Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) Element of the Human Research Program (HRP). Using evidence-based knowledge as a background for risks, NASA had identified gaps in knowledge to address those risks. Ongoing and proposed tasks were presented to address the gaps. The charge to the Sensorimotor Risk SRP was to review the gaps, evaluate whether the tasks addressed these gaps and to make recommendations to NASA s HRP Science Management Office regarding the SRP's review. The SRP was requested to evaluate the practicality of the proposed efforts in light of the realistic demands placed on the HRP. In short, all tasks presented in the Integrated Research Plan (IRP) should address specific risks related to the challenges faced by the astronauts as a result of prolonged exposure to microgravity. All tasks proposed to fill the gaps in knowledge should provide applied, translational data necessary to address the specific risks. Several presentations were made to the SRP during the site visit and the SRP spent sufficient time to address the panel charge, either as a group or in separate sessions. The SRP made a final debriefing to the HRP Program Scientist. Taking the evidence and the risk as givens, the SRP reached the following conclusions: 1) the panel is very supportive of and endorses the present activities of the Sensorimotor Risk; and the panel is likewise supportive of the gaps and associated tasks in the IRP; 2) overall, the tasks addressed the gaps in the IRP; 3) there were some gaps and tasks that merit further enhancement and some new gaps/tasks that the SRP recommends.

Peterson, Barry↗

NASA NTRS2010

Human Research Program Space Radiation Standing Review Panel (SRP)

The Space Radiation Standing Review Panel (SRP) met at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) on December 9-11, 2009 to discuss the areas of current and future research targeted by the Space Radiation Program Element (SRPE) of the Human Research Program (HRP). Using evidence-based knowledge as a background for identified risks to astronaut health and performance, NASA had identified gaps in knowledge to address those risks. Ongoing and proposed tasks were presented to address the gaps. The charge to the Space Radiation SRP was to review the gaps, evaluate whether the tasks addressed these gaps and to make recommendations to NASA s HRP Science Management Office regarding the SRP's review. The SRP was requested to evaluate the practicality of the proposed efforts in light of the demands placed on the HRP. Several presentations were made to the SRP during the site visit and the SRP spent sufficient time to address the SRP charge. The SRP made a final debriefing to the HRP Program Scientist, Dr. John B. Charles, on December 11, 2009. The SRP noted that current SRPE strategy is properly science-based and views this as the best assurance of the likelihood that answers to the questions posed as gaps in knowledge can be found, that the uncertainty in risk estimates can be reduced, and that a solid, cost-effective approach to risk reduction solutions is being developed. The current approach of the SRPE, based on the use of carefully focused research solicitations, requiring thorough peer-review and approaches demonstrated to be on the path to answering the NASA strategic questions, addressed to a broad extramural community of qualified scientists, optimally positioned to take advantage of serendipitous discoveries and to leverage scientific advances made elsewhere, is sound and appropriate. The SRP viewed with concern statements by HRP implying that the only science legitimately deserving support should be "applied" or, in some instances that the very term "research" might be frowned upon. We understand the desire of management to ensure that research stay focused on mission objectives, but the terms used are code words fraught with different meaning for scientists. Such expressions, taken at face value, convey a profoundly flawed view of science, can easily lead down counterproductive paths, and have the potential to irretrievably corrupt NASA requirements. The SRP understands and endorses the mandate to keep research efforts focused on the mission needs. However, thoughtful application of knowledge gained by understanding the mechanisms and pathways of biological effects cannot be replaced.

Woloschak, Gayle↗

NASA NTRS2009

Human Research Program Human Health Countermeasures Element Bone and Muscle Risk Standing Review Panel (SRP)

The Bone and Muscle Risk Standing Review Panel (SRP) met at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) on October 4-6, 2009 to discuss the areas of current and future research targeted by the Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) Element of the Human Research Program (HRP). Using evidence-based knowledge as a background for identified risks to astronaut health and performance, NASA had identified gaps in knowledge to address those risks. Ongoing and proposed tasks were presented to address the gaps. The charge to the Bone and Muscle Risk SRP was to review the gaps, evaluate whether the tasks addressed these gaps and to make recommendations to NASA s HRP Science Management Office regarding the Panel's review. The Bone and Muscle Risk SRP consisted of scientists who are experts in muscle, bone, or both and could evaluate the existing evidence with sufficient knowledge of the potential effects of long duration exposure to microgravity. More important, although expertise in basic science is important, the SRP was requested to evaluate the practicality of the proposed efforts in light of the realistic demands placed on the HRP. In short, all tasks presented in the Integrated Research Plan (IRP) should address specific questions related to the challenges faced by the astronauts as a result of prolonged exposure to microgravity. All tasks proposed to fill the gaps in knowledge should provide applied, translational data necessary to answer the specific questions. Several presentations were made to the SRP during the site visit and the SRP spent sufficient time to address the panel charge, either as a group or in separate sessions for the Bone and Muscle Risk subgroups. The SRP made a final debriefing to the HRP Program Scientist, Dr. John B. Charles, on October 6, 2009. Taking the evidence and identified risks as givens, the SRP concluded that 1) integration of information should lead to a more comprehensive approach to identifying the gaps, 2) not all tasks addressed the gaps as stated in the IRP, 3) better access should be given to the SRP to existing data to include in its review, and 4) there were some missing gaps and tasks. As a result the SRP recommended 1) combining certain gaps, which in some cases were addressed with identical tasks, 2) additional gaps and tasks to address some of the gaps, 3) deleting some gaps and tasks to better focus the efforts of NASA s HRP in prioritizing their efforts, and 4) prioritizing gaps to address significant issues needing resolution in the short term while maintaining an awareness of long-term goals. The SRP commended the efforts by the HHC Element to integrate knowledge gaps and design tasks to address the higher order questions. This integration did not apply to the Bone and Muscle Risk alone, but the musculoskeletal system as its functions integrate with issues in

Glowacki, Julie↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hazards of Lunar Surface Exploration: Determining the Immunogenicity/Allergenicity of Lunar Dust

Although infrequent, there have been Apollo program reports of lunar dust (LD) exposure leading to notable upper respiratory symptoms in select crewmembers. Possible mechanisms include particulate irritation, oxidization and release of noxious gas, or legitimate adaptive immune-mediated response. Although sterile non-protein matter would not be expected to be an allergen, one Apollo flight surgeon reported increasing symptoms upon repeated exposure with associated eosinophilia, indicative of allergy (*Acta Astronautica. 2008 63 (7–10): 980–987). Many ISS crews display a pattern of persistent immune system dysregulation and latent virus reactivation (NPJ Microgravity. 2015 Sep 3; 1:15013; NPJ Microgravity. 2017 Apr 12; 3:11). Some ISS crews manifest atypical respiratory and/or dermatitis symptoms which could have an allergic pathogenesis (J Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2016 Jul-Aug; 4(4):759-762.e8). It is logical to anticipate crew immune dysregulation would worsen during prolonged deep space missions. Planetary surface hazards will only complicate crew health risks. This study with investigate if LD exposure will elicit an IgE mediated allergic response either to the LD itself or concomitant antigen exposure during spaceflight. Allergic reactivity could adversely increase clinical and operational impacts for long-duration lunar astronauts and affect countermeasure requirements for surface vehicles. Specific aims for this study are to answer two questions: (1) Does in vitro LD exposure result in increased histamine from human peripheral blood basophils? (2) Can LD impact the capacity of CD4+ T helper and/or CD19+ B-cell mediated IgE production? To address these questions, after the proposal and selection by NASA, our laboratory has separately requested and been approved for receipt of actual LD samples from the Apollo 16 mission. These samples will be used during the study to complete the proposed set of in vitro cell culture experiments (short and long term), using human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and basophils from both atopic and non-atopic individuals. Cells will be co-cultured with cellular mitogens, common recall antigens (Der p1), fine ground silica quartz (as a possible allergenic component of LD), or LD, to study whether LD exposure for varying time intervals will alter the generation of selective immune responses associated with clinical allergic reactions. Measured outputs include supernatant-derived IgE, tryptase, histamine, and selected cytokine levels. Cellular activation will be monitored by assessing activation markers via flow cytometry. EM/x-ray analysis will be used to determine cellular interactions with dust particles. A series of validation experiments was initiated in FY22 once the delivery of LD was received. Based on initial experimental findings, we are optimizing the culture conditions, LD concentrations, and refining our other protocol stimuli.

Audrie A. Colorado↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hazards of Lunar Surface Exploration: Determining the Immunogenicity/Allergenicity of Lunar Dust

Although infrequent, there have been Apollo program reports of lunar dust (LD) exposure leading to notable upper respiratory symptoms in select crewmembers. Possible mechanisms include particulate irritation, oxidization and release of noxious gas, or legitimate adaptive immune-mediated response. Although sterile non-protein matter would not be expected to be an allergen, one Apollo flight surgeon reported increasing symptoms upon repeated exposure with associated eosinophilia, indicative of allergy (*Acta Astronautica. 2008 63 (7–10): 980–987). Many ISS crews display a pattern of persistent immune system dysregulation and latent virus reactivation (NPJ Microgravity. 2015 Sep 3; 1:15013; NPJ Microgravity. 2017 Apr 12; 3:11). Some ISS crews manifest atypical respiratory and/or dermatitis symptoms which could have an allergic pathogenesis (J Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2016 Jul-Aug; 4(4):759-762.e8). It is logical to anticipate crew immune dysregulation would worsen during prolonged deep space missions. Planetary surface hazards will only complicate crew health risks. This study with investigate if LD exposure will elicit an IgE mediated allergic response either to the LD itself or concomitant antigen exposure during spaceflight. Allergic reactivity could adversely increase clinical and operational impacts for long-duration lunar astronauts and affect countermeasure requirements for surface vehicles. Specific aims for this study are to answer two questions: (1) Does in vitro LD exposure result in increased histamine from human peripheral blood basophils? (2) Can LD impact the capacity of CD4+ T helper and/or CD19+ B-cell mediated IgE production? To address these questions, after the proposal and selection by NASA, our laboratory has separately requested and been approved for receipt of actual LD samples from the Apollo 16 mission. These samples will be used during the study to complete the proposed set of in vitro cell culture experiments (short and long term), using human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and basophils from both atopic and non-atopic individuals. Cells will be co-cultured with cellular mitogens, common recall antigens (Der p1), fine ground silica quartz (as a possible allergenic component of LD), or LD, to study whether LD exposure for varying time intervals will alter the generation of selective immune responses associated with clinical allergic reactions. Measured outputs include supernatant-derived IgE, tryptase, histamine, and selected cytokine levels. Cellular activation will be monitored by assessing activation markers via flow cytometry. EM/x-ray analysis will be used to determine cellular interactions with dust particles. A series of validation experiments was initiated in FY22 once the delivery of LD was received. Based on initial experimental findings, we are optimizing the culture conditions, LD concentrations, and refining our other protocol stimuli.

immunology↗

NASA NTRS1977

A hybrid technique for spacecraft attitude interpolation with arbitrary attitude data gaps

An algorithm for obtaining sufficiently accurate estimates of a system parameter Y, given a data record of the parameter in which at arbitrary times no direct observations of Y exist, and describing the variance of these estimates, is proposed. The method provides estimates at all requested times, and the variance of the estimates is maintained as close to the variance of directly measured data as the quality of input information will allow. Three classes of information are used: (1) the measured data record of Y and the statistical extension of this record into time intervals of no direct measurement, obtained by a modification of standard autocorrelation techniques; (2) an a priori indicator of the behavior of Y; and (3) one or more indirect indicators of Y based on observation of other system parameters. The application of the algorithm to the SEASAT-A attitude determination under conditions of sensor field-of-view limitations and sun occultations is presented.

Treder, A. J.↗

NASA NTRS1982

Aeronautics research and technology. A review of proposed reductions in the FY 1983 NASA program

Reductions in the Fiscal Year 1983 program from the original proposal to the levels of the appropriation request submitted to Congress are reviewed. The request asked for an assessment of the national criticality of the excluded programs and, for each one, the risk (probability of success) associated with achieving the objectives sought and the degree to which it might be assumed by the private sector. Based on this request, a charge comprising an assessment of those aeronautics projects excluded from the FY 1983 budget request to Congress, the likelihood that industry would undertake them, the impact of their not being done, and the more general question of the need for government to bridge the gap between the aeronautics research and technology base and early application was developed. The charge further specifies that the assessment is to encompass considerations of safety, national defense, efficient transport, and the national economy.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1991

Applications of intelligent computer-aided training

Intelligent computer-aided training (ICAT) systems simulate the behavior of an experienced instructor observing a trainee, responding to help requests, diagnosing and remedying trainee errors, and proposing challenging new training scenarios. This paper presents a generic ICAT architecture that supports the efficient development of ICAT systems for varied tasks. In addition, details of ICAT projects, built with this architecture, that deliver specific training for Space Shuttle crew members, ground support personnel, and flight controllers are presented. Concurrently with the creation of specific ICAT applications, a general-purpose software development environment for ICAT systems is being built. The widespread use of such systems for both ground-based and on-orbit training will serve to preserve task and training expertise, support the training of large numbers of personnel in a distributed manner, and ensure the uniformity and verifiability of training experiences.

Loftin, R. B.↗

NASA NTRS1992

End-to-end planning and scheduling systems technology for space operations

Consideration is given to planning and scheduling operations concepts from an end-to-end perspective, through both mission operations and institutional support functions. An operations concept is proposed which is based on a flexible request language used to state resource requirements and mission constraints to a scheduling system. The language has the potential to evolve into an international standard for exchanging service request information on international space networks. The key benefit of the flexible scheduling request concept is the shift of a significant conflict resolution effort from humans to computers, reducing the time for generating a week's worth of schedules to hours instead of days.

Moe, Karen L.↗

NASA NTRS1988

OAST Technology for the Future. Volume 3 - Critical Technologies, Themes 5-8

NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) conducted a workshop on the In-Space Technology Experiments Program IN-STEP) December 6-9, 1988, in Atlanta, Georgia. The purpose of this workshop was to identify and prioritize space technologies which are critical for future national space programs and which require validation in the 5 ace environment. A secondary objective was to review the current NASA (In-Reach and Industry/University (Out-Reach) experiments. Finally, the aerospace community was requested to review and comment on the proposed plans for the continuation of the In-Space Technology Experiments Program. In particular, the review included the proposed process for focusing the next experiment selection on specific, critical technologies and the process for implementing the hardware development and integration on the Space Shuttle vehicle. The product of the workshop was a prioritized listing of the critical space technology needs in each of eight technology disciplines. These listings were the cumulative recommendations of nearly 400 participants, which included researchers, technologists, and managers from aerospace industries, universities, and government organizations.

U2607↗

NASA NTRS1988

OAST Technology for the Future. Volume 2 - Critical Technologies, Themes 1-4

NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) conducted a workshop on the In-Space Technology Experiments Program IN-STEP) December 6-9, 1988, in Atlanta, Georgia. The purpose of this workshop was to identify and prioritize space technologies which are critical for future national space programs and which. require validation in the space environment. A secondary objective was to review the current NASA (InReach) and Industry/University (Out-Reach) experiments. Finally, the aerospace community was requested to review and comment on the proposed plans for the continuation of the In-Space Technology Experiments Program. In particular, the review included the proposed process for focusing the next experiment selection on specific, critical technologies and the process for implementing the hardware development and integration on the Space Shuttle vehicle. The product of the workshop was a prioritized listing of the critical space technology needs in each of eight technology disciplines. These listings were the cumulative recommendations of nearly 400 participants, which included researchers, technologists, and managers from aerospace industries, universities, and government organizations.

OAST (AERONAUTICS AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY)↗

NASA NTRS1988

OAST Technology for the Future. Executive Summary

NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) conducted a workshop on the In-Space Technology Experiments Program (IN-STEP) December 6-9, 1988, in Atlanta, Georgia. The purpose of this workshop was to identify and prioritize space technologies which are critical for future national space programs and which require validation in the space environment. A secondary objective was to review the current NASA (In-Reach) and Industry/University (Out-Reach) experiments. Finally, the aerospace community was requested to review and comment on the proposed plans for the continuation of the In-Space Technology Experiments Program. In particular, the review included the proposed process for focusing the next experiment selection on specific, critical technologies and the process for implementing the hardware development and integration on the Space Shuttle vehicle. The product of the workshop was a prioritized listing of the critical space technology needs in each of eight technology disciplines. These listings were the cumulative recommendations of nearly 400 participants, which included researchers, technologists, and managers from aerospace industries, universities, and government organizations.

BMDO COLLECTION↗

NASA NTRS2009

Review of Alpha-Ketoglutaric Acid (AKGA) Hydrazine and Monomethylhydrazine (MMH) Neutralizing Compound

The Johnson Space Center (JSC) White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) and NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) were requested by NASA Associate Administrator for Space Operations to perform an evaluation of a proposed hydrazine/monomethylhydrazine (MMH) fuel treatment method using alpha-ketoglutaric acid (AKGA). This evaluation request was prompted by preliminary tests at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), suggesting cost and operational benefits to NASA for the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) and other hardware decontamination and decommissioning, in addition to hydrazine and MMH waste treatment activities. This paper provides the team's position on the current KSC and New Mexico Highlands University (NMHU) efforts toward implementing the AKGA treatment technology with flight hardware, ground support equipment (GSE), hydrazine and MMH spills, and vapor control. This evaluation is current to the last data examined (approximately September 2008).

Dibbern, Andreas W.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Coordinating AgMIP Data and Models Across Global and Regional Scales for 1.5°C and 2.0°C Assessments

The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) has developed novel methods for Coordinated Global and Regional Assessments (CGRA) of agriculture and food security in a changing world. The present study aims to perform a proof of concept of the CGRA to demonstrate advantages and challenges of the proposed framework. This effort responds to the request by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for the implications of limiting global temperature increases to 1.5°C and 2.0°C above pre-industrial conditions. The protocols for the 1.5°C/2.0°C assessment establish explicit and testable linkages across disciplines and scales, connecting outputs and inputs from the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs), Representative Agricultural Pathways (RAPs), Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected Impacts (HAPPI) and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) ensemble scenarios, global gridded crop models, global agricultural economics models, site-based crop models and within-country regional economics models. The CGRA consistently links disciplines, models and scales in order to track the complex chain of climate impacts and identify key vulnerabilities, feedbacks and uncertainties in managing future risk. CGRA proof-of-concept results show that, at the global scale, there are mixed areas of positive and negative simulated wheat and maize yield changes, with declines in some bread basket regions, at both 1.5°C and 2.0°C. Declines are especially evident in simulations that do not take into account direct CO2 effects on crops. These projected global yield changes mostly resulted in increases in prices and areas of wheat and maize in two global economics models. Regional simulations for 1.5°C and 2.0°C using site-based crop models had mixed results depending on the region and the crop. In conjunction with price changes from the global economics models, productivity declines in the Punjab, Pakistan, resulted in an increase in vulnerable households and the poverty rate. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels’.

interdisciplinary↗