Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “community eligibility”

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.

4 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2023

Exploration Habitat (X-Hab) 2013-2014 Academic Innovation Challenge

Outreach activities were coordinated with OSU’s NASA Education Office and focused around the Space Habitat Innovation Challenge. Two challenges were developed for this year: the Rapidly Prototyped Tool Challenge (RaPTC) and the Space Habitat Airlock Challenge (SHAC). RaPTC was open to eligible high school student teams while SHAC was open to eligible community college student teams. Teams involved 3-6 students from 12 states across the country and submitted videos or virtual presentations.1 Entries were judged by the OSU XHab students and were provided with feedback on feasibility and design. Three groups in each challenge were selected as finalists for a final virtual presentation and interview with students and professors in the engineering program at Oklahoma State University. Three groups total were selected to present their design to engineers and astronauts at a NASA JSC. Judges included astronauts Joe Acaba, Nicole Stott, and Dottie Metcalf-Lindenburger.

Jamey D Jacob↗
NASA NTRS1996

1997 Graduate Student Researchers Program

In 1980, NASA initiated the Graduate Student Research Program (GSRP) to cultivate additional research ties to the academic community and to support a culturally diverse group of students pursuing advanced degrees in science and engineering. Eligibility requirements for this program are described, and program administrators are listed. Research areas are detailed for NASA Headquarters and all Research and Flight Centers.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2019

Field Evaluations of Sampling, Interviewing, and Flight Tracking of NASA's Low Boom Flight Demonstrator Aircraft

The first year’s effort identified sampling and interviewing as the principal risks to assessment of prompt reactions to overflights producing low-amplitude sonic booms. It also 1) established the utility of geo-information system-based route planning for LBFD flight missions, 2) developed and demonstrated a prototype of a geographically-distributed, Internet-enabled instrumentation system capable of wide-area tracking of LBFD aircraft in near-real time. The latter system permits synchronizing the conduct of interviews in multiple overflown communities with arrival times of shock waves at interviewing sites; and of measuring, archiving, and processing their acoustic signatures. Means were also recommended for constructing representative, telephone-based samples of eligible respondents living in households within carpet boom corridors adjacent to LBFD flight tracks, and for conducting interviews with cross-sectional (independent) samples of such respondents about their prompt reactions to exposure to low-amplitude sonic booms. A detailed study design was prepared and accepted by NASA for a set of single-contact attempt telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of households. The study design focused on testing automated and live agent interview completion rates obtainable without callbacks. A minimal (two monitoring station) version of the aircraft tracking system was built and installed near a civil airport in a successful demonstration of the system’s ability to detect and track aircraft movements. The field exercise also demonstrated the ability of the system to capture the acoustic emissions of departing aircraft, and to serve aircraft position and sound level information to remote, geographically-distributed analysts in near-real time. Upon approval of OMB and IRB of the detailed study plan, a stratified, nationally representative sample of landline and wireless telephone-subscribing households was constructed. A total of 12,734 telephone interview contact attempts of the sort required by a straightforward cross-sectional study design were then made. These contact attempts demonstrated the impracticality of conducting a time-critical, cross-sectional study of prompt community response to low-amplitude sonic booms by means of “independent” (single contact attempt per respondent for each LBFD flight mission) telephone samples of respondents. The observed interview completion rates for these single telephone contact attempts were so low (~ 1% to 3% for automated and live agent interviews, respectively) that: 1) the representativeness of collected opinions would be susceptible to intuitive challenge as inadequate, even absent conclusive evidence of non-representativeness. Refuting challenges to representativeness would have to demonstrate that the composition of the actual sample did not differ from that of the target population, a task that is tantamount to proving a negative; 2) the information required to refute allegations of non-representativeness would require a questionnaire considerably lengthier than that required simply to determine the prevalence of boom-induced startle and annoyance. Such a questionnaire would have to inquire about potentially sensitive and intrusive matters, including respondents’ age, gender, education, employment, home ownership, income, ethnicity, family size, and other demographic factors; and 3) unreasonable numbers of attempts would be required to re-contact households with unsuccessful initial contact attempts, given the limited time available for doing so. For example, if about 500 completed interviews were desired in a supersonically overflown community, approximately 50,000 automated interview attempts would have to be made within ten to fifteen minutes of each LBFD overflight. Such large numbers of contact attempts could well exceed the numbers of households available for interview in areas of similar boom exposure levels in some communities near LBFD flight tracks. Such large numbers of interviews could be cost-effectively undertaken only by means of automated (i.e., outgoing interactive voice response) interviewing, a data collection method ill-suited for complex and sensitive questionnaire items. The infeasibility of independent sampling for evaluating prompt responses to LBFD overflights in a cross-sectional study is due in large part to simple non-response: that is, potential respondents – particularly those contacted on wireless telephones – refusing to answer calls with unfamiliar caller IDs. It is also due in part, however, to 1) the lack of time to attempt to contact the same respondent more than once within a few minutes after the arrival of a shock wave at the respondent’s location; and 2) the need to place calls during weekday/daytime hours, when response rates are notably lower than during evenings and weekends. Despite the poor interview completion rates achieved under the above constraints, cross sectional assessments of delayed reactions to LBFD overflights could still be feasible, if multiple attempts could be made to contact respondents during evening and weekend time periods, over extended time periods. Detailed plans for a longitudinal (panel) sample were developed as an alternative to a cross sectional sample design.

Fidell, Sanford↗
NASA NTRS2004

A Summer Research Program of NASA/Faculty Fellowships at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory

The NASA Faculty Fellowship Program (NFFP) is designed to give college and university faculty members a rewarding personal as well as enriching professional experience. Fellowships are awarded to engineering and science faculty for work on collaborative research projects of mutual interest to the fellow and his or her JPL host colleague. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have participated in the NASA Faculty Fellowship Program for more than 25 years. Administrative offices are maintained both at the Caltech Campus and at JPL; however, most of the activity takes place at JPL. The Campus handles all fiscal matters. The duration of the program is ten continuous weeks. Fellows are required to conduct their research on-site. To be eligible to participate in the program, fellows must be a U.S. citizen and hold a teaching or research appointment at a U.S. university or college. The American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) contracts with NASA and manages program recruitment. Over the past several years, we have made attempts to increase the diversity of the participants in the NFFP Program. A great deal of attention has been given to candidates from minority-serving institutions. There were approximately 100 applicants for the 34 positions in 2002. JPL was the first-choice location for more than half of them. Faculty from 16 minority-serving institutions participated as well as four women. The summer began with an orientation meeting that included introduction of key program personnel, and introduction of the fellows to each other. During this welcome, the fellows were briefed on their obligations to the program and to their JPL colleagues. They were also given a short historical perspective on JPL and its relationship to Caltech and NASA. All fellows received a package, which included information on administrative procedures, roster of fellows, seminar program, housing questionnaire, directions to JPL, maps of the local area, and a copy of the JPL Universe (a JPL newsletter). A calendar of events for the 2002 NFFP Program was designed to expose the fellows to the full range of JPL activities, seminars, tours, and trips to NASA Dryden, Goldstone, and Palomar Observatory. Weekly brown-bag lunches were also scheduled. The lunches provided a time for airing problems that may have arisen during the previous week, soliciting suggestions for program enhancement, announcements, and general socializing. Professor and Mrs. Albee also hosted the annual Summer Faculty Welcome Party at their home. During their ten-week tenure at JPL, the visiting faculty carried out projects in a wide variety of JPL's science, engineering, and technology disciplines, including communication, planetary science, materials research, reliability and quality assurance, astronomy, guidance and control, and micro-sensors. At the end of the NFFP Program, all fellows were required to complete a one-page summary of their summer s work. This was in addition to any documentation required by their host organization. Distribution of the final paycheck was dependent upon submission of this one-page summary and completion of NASA's NFFP evaluation in the EdCATS system. Fellows were also asked to complete a questionnaire for JPL, which enables the program administrators to make any appropriate changes to make the program more beneficial and effective for all involved. The 2002 NFFP Program at JPUCaltech was considered unanimously highly successful by both fellows and JPL colleagues. It provided a significant experience to most faculty members and fresh ideas to JPL researchers. Each year, suggestions for improvement include expansion of the program, longer terms, larger stipends, funds to support graduate students, and funds to continue collaborative research. The NASA Faculty Fellowship Program continues to occupy a significant place in JPL programs and serves to strengthen the ties between NASA, JPL, Caltech, and t academic community. This program is an important part of NASA's commitment to education. No inventions or patents were created during this program.

Albee, Arden↗