SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “prioritization”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1994

Applying Costs, Risks and Values Evaluation (CRAVE) methodology to Engineering Support Request (ESR) prioritization

Given limited budget, the problem of prioritization among Engineering Support Requests (ESR's) with varied sizes, shapes, and colors is a difficult one. At the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), the recently developed 4-Matrix (4-M) method represents a step in the right direction as it attempts to combine the traditional criteria of technical merits only with the new concern for cost-effectiveness. However, the 4-M method was not adequately successful in the actual prioritization of ESRs for the fiscal year 1995 (FY95). This research identifies a number of design issues that should help us to develop better methods. It emphasizes that given the variety and diversity of ESR's one should not expect that a single method could help in the assessment of all ESR's. One conclusion is that a methodology such as Costs, Risks, and Values Evaluation (CRAVE) should be adopted. It also is clear that the development of methods such as 4-M requires input not only from engineers with technical expertise in ESR's but also from personnel with adequate background in the theory and practice of cost-effectiveness analysis. At KSC, ESR prioritization is one part of the Ground Support Working Teams (GSWT) Integration Process. It was discovered that the more important barriers to the incorporation of cost-effectiveness considerations in ESR prioritization lie in this process. The culture of integration, and the corresponding structure of review by a committee of peers, is not conducive to the analysis and confrontation necessary in the assessment and prioritization of ESR's. Without assistance from appropriately trained analysts charged with the responsibility to analyze and be confrontational about each ESR, the GSWT steering committee will continue to make its decisions based on incomplete understanding, inconsistent numbers, and at times, colored facts. The current organizational separation of the prioritization and the funding processes is also identified as an important barrier to the pursuit of cost-effectiveness. Perhaps the greatest barrier is that, at the working level, KSC's culture is so preoccupied with technical concerns that it seems almost oblivious to any cost concerns, let alone cost-effectiveness concerns. It is recommended that we must urgently begin to change that culture and seek a better balance between these two concerns.

Joglekar, Prafulla N.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Prioritized LT Codes

The original Luby Transform (LT) coding scheme is extended to account for data transmissions where some information symbols in a message block are more important than others. Prioritized LT codes provide unequal error protection (UEP) of data on an erasure channel by modifying the original LT encoder. The prioritized algorithm improves high-priority data protection without penalizing low-priority data recovery. Moreover, low-latency decoding is also obtained for high-priority data due to fast encoding. Prioritized LT codes only require a slight change in the original encoding algorithm, and no changes at all at the decoder. Hence, with a small complexity increase in the LT encoder, an improved UEP and low-decoding latency performance for high-priority data can be achieved. LT encoding partitions a data stream into fixed-sized message blocks each with a constant number of information symbols. To generate a code symbol from the information symbols in a message, the Robust-Soliton probability distribution is first applied in order to determine the number of information symbols to be used to compute the code symbol. Then, the specific information symbols are chosen uniform randomly from the message block. Finally, the selected information symbols are XORed to form the code symbol. The Prioritized LT code construction includes an additional restriction that code symbols formed by a relatively small number of XORed information symbols select some of these information symbols from the pool of high-priority data. Once high-priority data are fully covered, encoding continues with the conventional LT approach where code symbols are generated by selecting information symbols from the entire message block including all different priorities. Therefore, if code symbols derived from high-priority data experience an unusual high number of erasures, Prioritized LT codes can still reliably recover both high- and low-priority data. This hybrid approach decides not only "how to encode" but also "what to encode" to achieve UEP. Another advantage of the priority encoding process is that the majority of high-priority data can be decoded sooner since only a small number of code symbols are required to reconstruct high-priority data. This approach increases the likelihood that high-priority data is decoded first over low-priority data. The Prioritized LT code scheme achieves an improvement in high-priority data decoding performance as well as overall information recovery without penalizing the decoding of low-priority data, assuming high-priority data is no more than half of a message block. The cost is in the additional complexity required in the encoder. If extra computation resource is available at the transmitter, image, voice, and video transmission quality in terrestrial and space communications can benefit from accurate use of redundancy in protecting data with varying priorities.

Woo, Simon S.↗

DOE OSTI2026

Self-Admitted Technical Debt in Scientific Software: Prioritization, Sentiment, and Propagation Across Artifacts

Self-admitted technical debt (SATD) impairs scientific software (SSW), yet its prioritization, sentiment, persistence, and propagation remains underexplored. Understanding how SSW developers express, and address SATD is crucial for improving SSW maintenance, and tooling. This study investigates how SATD types and artifacts in SSW are prioritized, how sentiment relates to urgency, SATD removal and resolution rates, and the extent to which SATD propagates across artifacts. We analyzed nine SSW repositories using a SATD classification model and a semantic embedding-based prioritization heuristic. SATD was examined across multiple artifacts, with sentiment assessed via a fine-tuned transformer. Propagation was traced, priority scores compared to static analysis, and removal and resolution rates quantified. SATD in comments, commits, and pull requests receive higher priority than SATD in issues, with negative sentiment amplifying urgency. Resolution and removal rates lag behind open-source software (OSS) averages. Most SATD remains confined to the originating artifact, but longer propagation chains are rare and correlate with higher priority, highlighting persistent and high impact debt. Prioritization is influenced by artifact type and sentiment, while low removal and resolution rates signal persistent debt. Cross-artifact propagation marks high priority, unresolved SATD, providing empirical guidance for targeted monitoring, review prioritization, and tool supported maintenance in SSW.

Melin, Eric [Boise State University]↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Enabling Intelligent Data Downlink Prioritization of In-Situ Observations through Generalizable and Computationally Inexpensive Anomaly Detection

High-fidelity measurements of magnetic fields and other observed properties, such as energetic particle fluxes, are a necessary component to our understanding of the highly dynamic near-Earth space environment. As our desire to study smaller-scale phenomena such as shocks and dipolorizations has increased, we have been driven to take and telemeter measurements at higher cadences. Unfortunately, many missions are unable to downlink all their captured data due to the well-known data transmission bottleneck at the DSN. These missions must then prioritize their high-cadence data such that the most scientifically useful intervals are transmitted. One simple prioritization technique uses the spacecraft position to telemeter data from only the region of interest. Although easy to implement, this method does not leverage the available scientific data and can omit intervals of useful scientific data when they lie outside the region of interest. The Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission (MMS) uses mission-specific parameterization of several data products to automatically prioritize scientifically useful intervals. Then, MMS verifies the automatically selected intervals by having a domain expert manually select intervals for downlink. The overall complexity required by this technique make it prohibitive for deployment on low-cost platforms (i.e., CubeSats) or on future missions featuring large constellations of satellites such as the Geospace Dynamics Constellation (GDC). We present preliminary results for a simple, generic, and data-driven method of downlink prioritization for magnetic field (and other) measurements. Specifically, Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and One-Class Support Vector Machines (OC-SVMs) are used to detect intervals containing anomalous activity, which can then be prioritized for subsequent downlink. The computational simplicity of this algorithm makes it an excellent candidate for implementation on spaceflight hardware, as well as provide generalizability to a broad range of missions and data products. Initial analysis of this technique has been performed using magnetic field measurements from the Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission and CASSIOP, where it automatically identified scientifically interesting intervals containing Alfvén waves and EMIC activity.

Matthew G. Finley↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Enabling Intelligent Data Downlink Prioritization of In-Situ Observations through Generalizable and Computationally Inexpensive Anomaly Detection

Matthew G. Finley↗

DOE OSTI2026

Evaluating Supply Prioritization Strategies for Risk-Informed Decision Making in an Arbitrary Gas Network

Supply disruptions and infrastructure failures in natural gas networks present critical challenges to energy reliability and risk-informed planning. This study evaluates two supply prioritization strategies, Maximum Delivery Prioritization (MDP) and Demand-Based Prioritization (DBP), within an arbitrary natural gas network under conditions of supply shortage. Model performance under both strategies is assessed in response to node and edge failure using demand satisfaction metrics, system-wide and localized dependency scores, and geographic information system (GIS)-based spatial analysis. Results show that DBP better preserves supply for high-demand nodes, while MDP offers broader coverage. The underlying network topology plays a critical role in shaping prioritization outcomes. Integrated GIS visualization enhances the interpretability of vulnerability assessments, revealing structurally critical components and localized vulnerabilities. The proposed framework supports scalable, data-driven decision-making for infrastructure planners and engineers, enabling improved disruption recovery and efficiency in constrained natural gas networks. These insights contribute to the development of more robust energy systems capable of withstanding stress and disruptions.

Peterson, Steven [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000287672998)↗

NASA NTRS1995

Prioritization methodology for chemical replacement

Since United States of America federal legislation has required ozone depleting chemicals (class 1 & 2) to be banned from production, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and industry have been required to find other chemicals and methods to replace these target chemicals. This project was initiated as a development of a prioritization methodology suitable for assessing and ranking existing processes for replacement 'urgency.' The methodology was produced in the form of a workbook (NASA Technical Paper 3421). The final workbook contains two tools, one for evaluation and one for prioritization. The two tools are interconnected in that they were developed from one central theme - chemical replacement due to imposed laws and regulations. This workbook provides matrices, detailed explanations of how to use them, and a detailed methodology for prioritization of replacement technology. The main objective is to provide a GUIDELINE to help direct the research for replacement technology. The approach for prioritization called for a system which would result in a numerical rating for the chemicals and processes being assessed. A Quality Function Deployment (QFD) technique was used in order to determine numerical values which would correspond to the concerns raised and their respective importance to the process. This workbook defines the approach and the application of the QFD matrix. This technique: (1) provides a standard database for technology that can be easily reviewed, and (2) provides a standard format for information when requesting resources for further research for chemical replacement technology. Originally, this workbook was to be used for Class 1 and Class 2 chemicals, but it was specifically designed to be flexible enough to be used for any chemical used in a process (if the chemical and/or process needs to be replaced). The methodology consists of comparison matrices (and the smaller comparison components) which allow replacement technology to be quantitatively compared in several categories, and a QFD matrix which allows process/chemical pairs to be rated against one another for importance (using consistent categories). Depending on the need for application, one can choose the part(s) needed or have the methodology completed in its entirety. For example, if a program needs to show the risk of changing a process/chemical one may choose to use part of Matrix A and Matrix C. If a chemical is being used, and the process must be changed; one might use the Process Concerns part of Matrix D for the existing process and all possible replacement processes. If an overall analysis of a program is needed, one may request the QFD to be completed.

Cruit, Wendy↗

NASA NTRS2004

Prioritizing Scientific Data for Transmission

A software system has been developed for prioritizing newly acquired geological data onboard a planetary rover. The system has been designed to enable efficient use of limited communication resources by transmitting the data likely to have the most scientific value. This software operates onboard a rover by analyzing collected data, identifying potential scientific targets, and then using that information to prioritize data for transmission to Earth. Currently, the system is focused on the analysis of acquired images, although the general techniques are applicable to a wide range of data modalities. Image prioritization is performed using two main steps. In the first step, the software detects features of interest from each image. In its current application, the system is focused on visual properties of rocks. Thus, rocks are located in each image and rock properties, such as shape, texture, and albedo, are extracted from the identified rocks. In the second step, the features extracted from a group of images are used to prioritize the images using three different methods: (1) identification of key target signature (finding specific rock features the scientist has identified as important), (2) novelty detection (finding rocks we haven t seen before), and (3) representative rock sampling (finding the most average sample of each rock type). These methods use techniques such as K-means unsupervised clustering and a discrimination-based kernel classifier to rank images based on their interest level.

Castano, Rebecca↗

DOE OSTI2025

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Infrastructure Security Division (ISD) Assessment Prioritization Project

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s Infrastructure Security Division (CISA ISD) manages a diverse portfolio of assessments across the nation’s critical infrastructure sectors. These assessments—ranging in type, scope, and complexity—are essential for identifying vulnerabilities and strengthening national security. However, the wide variation in assessment offerings and the increasing demand for limited resources have highlighted the need for a transparent, structured approach to prioritizing assessment activities. To address this challenge, CISA ISD partnered with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to review current assessment methodologies, analyze existing prioritization practices, and develop a comprehensive, national-security-focused prioritization framework. This report summarizes the project’s approach, key findings, and actionable recommendations for enhancing ISD’s assessment program.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗

NASA NTRS1995

Cognitive models of pilot categorization and prioritization of flight-deck information

In the past decade, automated systems on modern commercial flight decks have increased dramatically. Pilots now regularly interact and share tasks with these systems. This interaction has led human factors research to direct more attention to the pilot's cognitive processing and mental model of the information flow occurring on the flight deck. The experiment reported herein investigated how pilots mentally represent and process information typically available during flight. Fifty-two commercial pilots participated in tasks that required them to provide similarity ratings for pairs of flight-deck information and to prioritize this information under two contextual conditions. Pilots processed the information along three cognitive dimensions. These dimensions included the flight function and the flight action that the information supported and how frequently pilots refer to the information. Pilots classified the information as aviation, navigation, communications, or systems administration information. Prioritization results indicated a high degree of consensus among pilots, while scaling results revealed two dimensions along which information is prioritized. Pilot cognitive workload for flight-deck tasks and the potential for using these findings to operationalize cognitive metrics are evaluated. Such measures may be useful additions for flight-deck human performance evaluation.

Jonsson, Jon E.↗

NASA NTRS2001

CSMA Versus Prioritized CSMA for Air-Traffic-Control Improvement

OPNET version 7.0 simulations are presented involving an important application of the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN), Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) over the Very High Frequency Data Link, Mode 2 (VDL-2). Communication is modeled for essentially all incoming and outgoing nonstop air-traffic for just three United States cities: Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Detroit. There are 32 airports in the simulation, 29 of which are either sources or destinations for the air-traffic of the aforementioned three airports. The simulation involves 111 Air Traffic Control (ATC) ground stations, and 1,235 equally equipped aircraft-taking off, flying realistic free-flight trajectories, and landing in a 24-hr period. Collisionless, Prioritized Carrier Sense Multiple Access (CSMA) is successfully tested and compared with the traditional CSMA typically associated with VDL-2. The performance measures include latency, throughput, and packet loss. As expected, Prioritized CSMA is much quicker and more efficient than traditional CSMA. These simulation results show the potency of Prioritized CSMA for implementing low latency, high throughput, and efficient connectivity.

Robinson, Daryl C.↗

NASA NTRS2013

A Proposed Approach for Prioritizing Maintenance at NASA Centers

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) manages a vast array of infrastructure assets across ten National Centers with a worth of at least 30 billion dollars. Eighty percent of this infrastructure is greater than 40 years old and is in degraded condition. Maintenance budgets are typically less than one percent of current replacement value (CRV), much less than the 2-4% recommended by the National Research Council. The maintenance backlog was 2.55 billion dollars in FY10 and growing. NASA s annual budgets have flattened and are at risk of being reduced, so the problem is becoming even more difficult. NASA Centers utilize various means to prioritize and accomplish maintenance within available budgets, though data is suspect and processes are variable. This paper offers a structured means to prioritize maintenance based on mission criticality and facility performance (ability of the facility to deliver on its purpose). Mission alignment is assessed using the current timeframe Mission Dependence Index and a measure of facility alignment with the 2011 NASA Strategic Plan for the long-term perspective. Facility performance is assessed by combining specific findings from a structured facility condition assessment and an assessment of actual functional output. These are then combined in a matrix to identify the facilities most critical to mission and able to deliver services. The purpose of this approach is to provide the best benefits for the available funding. Additionally, this rationale can also be applied to the prioritization of investment (recapitalization) projects so that the ultimate customers of this paper, the senior infrastructure managers at each NASA Center, are better able to strategically manage their capabilities.

Dunn, Steven C.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Technology Alignment and Portfolio Prioritization (TAPP): Advanced Methods in Strategic Analysis, Technology Forecasting and Long Term Planning for Human Exploration and Operations, Advanced Exploration Systems and Advanced Concepts

The Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center is expanding its current technology assessment methodologies. ACO is developing a framework called TAPP that uses a variety of methods, such as association mining and rule learning from data mining, structure development using a Technological Innovation System (TIS), and social network modeling to measure structural relationships. The role of ACO is to 1) produce a broad spectrum of ideas and alternatives for a variety of NASA's missions, 2) determine mission architecture feasibility and appropriateness to NASA's strategic plans, and 3) define a project in enough detail to establish an initial baseline capable of meeting mission objectives ACO's role supports the decision-making process associated with the maturation of concepts for traveling through, living in, and understanding space. ACO performs concept studies and technology assessments to determine the degree of alignment between mission objectives and new technologies. The first step in technology assessment is to identify the current technology maturity in terms of a technology readiness level (TRL). The second step is to determine the difficulty associated with advancing a technology from one state to the next state. NASA has used TRLs since 1970 and ACO formalized them in 1995. The DoD, ESA, Oil & Gas, and DoE have adopted TRLs as a means to assess technology maturity. However, "with the emergence of more complex systems and system of systems, it has been increasingly recognized that TRL assessments have limitations, especially when considering [the] integration of complex systems." When performing the second step in a technology assessment, NASA requires that an Advancement Degree of Difficulty (AD2) method be utilized. NASA has used and developed or used a variety of methods to perform this step: Expert Opinion or Delphi Approach, Value Engineering or Value Stream, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for the Order of Prioritization by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and other multi‐criteria decision-making methods. These methods can be labor-intensive, often contain cognitive or parochial bias, and do not consider the competing prioritization between mission architectures. Strategic Decision-Making (SDM) processes cannot be properly understood unless the context of the technology is understood. This makes assessing technological change particularly challenging due to the relationships "between incumbent technology and the incumbent (innovation) system in relation to the emerging technology and the emerging innovation system." The central idea in technology dynamics is to consider all activities that contribute to the development, diffusion, and use of innovations as system functions. Bergek defines system functions within a TIS to address what is actually happening and has a direct influence on the ultimate performance of the system and technology development. ACO uses similar metrics and is expanding these metrics to account for the structure and context of the technology. At NASA technology and strategy is strongly interrelated. NASA's Strategic Space Technology Investment Plan (SSTIP) prioritizes those technologies essential to the pursuit of NASA's missions and national interests. The SSTIP is strongly coupled with NASA's Technology Roadmaps to provide investment guidance during the next four years, within a twenty-year horizon. This paper discusses the methods ACO is currently developing to better perform technology assessments while taking into consideration Strategic Alignment, Technology Forecasting, and Long Term Planning.

Funaro, Gregory V.↗

NASA NTRS2015

ExMC Work Prioritization Process

Last year, NASA's Human Research Program (HRP) introduced the concept of a "Path to Risk Reduction" (PRR), which will provide a roadmap that shows how the work being done within each HRP element can be mapped to reducing or closing exploration risks. Efforts are currently underway within the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element to develop a structured, repeatable process for prioritizing work utilizing decision analysis techniques and risk estimation tools. The goal of this effort is to ensure that the work done within the element maximizes risk reduction for future exploration missions in a quantifiable way and better aligns with the intent and content of the Path to Risk Reduction. The Integrated Medical Model (IMM) will be used to identify those conditions that are major contributors of medical risk for a given design reference mission. For each of these conditions, potential prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment methods will be identified. ExMC will then aim to prioritize its potential investments in these mitigation methods based upon their potential for risk reduction and other factors such as vehicle performance impacts, near term schedule needs, duplication with external efforts, and cost. This presentation will describe the process developed to perform this prioritization and inform investment discussions in future element planning efforts. It will also provide an overview of the required input information, types of process participants, figures of merit, and the expected outputs of the process.

Simon, Matthew↗

DOE OSTI2026

Exploring Wildfire & Energy data toward State Prioritization Index (WESPI)

Energy infrastructure can both induce and suffer risks from wildfires ranging from direct damage to energy assets such as substations and power lines to Public Safety Power Shutoffs. Recent wildfire events underscore the need for data-driven approaches that help states and utilities proactively plan for wildfire risk. Existing national tools such as Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s National Risk Index (NRI) are valuable for community hazard planning. However, they are less suited for energy infrastructure, as they emphasize population and building exposure rather than system vulnerabilities. In this paper, we explore relationships between energy and wildfire data and present a Wildfire-Energy State Prioritization Index (WESPI). Our methodology combines data from the US Forest Service’s Fire Simulation (FSIM) dataset with energy resilience metrics, historical fire incidents, and geospatial data on transmission lines and fire stations. Correlation analyses suggest that FSIM burn probability is more strongly associated with power outage metrics (ρ = 0.32) than NRI wildfire frequency, and counties with a greater density of fire stations experience more frequent, but less intense wildfires. We further leverage data for burn probability, transmission line density, and fire station density to develop a Wildfire-Energy State Prioritization Index (WESPI) to highlight counties where wildfire hazard, infrastructure exposure, and limited suppression capacity converge. The index provides a consistent, scalable framework for state energy offices and utilities to screen counties for vegetation management, optimization of outage management system deployment, and to inform wildfire mitigation plans.

Critical infrastructure↗

DOE OSTI2024

Flux REaction TArget Prioritization (Flux RETAP) v1

Metabolic engineering is evolving rapidly as a result of new advances in synthetic biology and automation, as well as the irruption of machine learning (ML). ML has been shown to provide the predictive power synthetic biology lacked and needed, and to be able to effectively guide the metabolic engineering process. However, current technical limitations prevent the independent application of ML approaches to metabolic engineering without the use of previous biological knowledge in the form of a prioritized list of desirable engineering targets. Here, we present FluxRETAP, a simple and computationally inexpensive method that leverages the prior mechanistic knowledge embedded in genome-scale metabolic models (GSMs) for suggesting targets for genetic overexpression, downregulation or deletion, with the final goal of increasing metabolite production. FluxRETAP captured 100% of reaction targets experimentally verified to improve Escherichia coli isoprenol production in the literature accessible to us, 50% of targets that experimentally improved taxadiene production in E. coli and ~60% of genetic targets from a verified minimal constrained cut-set in Pseudomonas putida while providing additional high priority targets that could be tested. Overall, FluxRETAP is an efficient algorithm for identifying a prioritized list of testable genetic and reaction targets which can also be utilized in ML pipelines.

Czajka, Jeffrey [Battelle Memorial Institute, Paci↗

NASA NTRS1978

A prioritized set of physiological measurements for future spaceflight experiments

A set of desired experimental measurements to be obtained in future spaceflights in four areas of physiological investigation are identified. The basis for identifying the measurements was the physiological systems analysis performed on Skylab data and related ground-based studies. An approach for prioritizing the measurement list is identified and discussed with the use of examples. A prioritized measurement list is presented for each of the following areas; cardiopulmonary, fluid-renal and electrolyte, hematology and immunology, and musculoskeletal. Also included is a list of interacting stresses and other factors present in spaceflight experiments whose effects may need to be quantified.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1991

A proven knowledge-based approach to prioritizing process information

Many space-related processes are highly complex systems subject to sudden, major transients. In any complex process control system, a critical aspect is rapid analysis of the changing process information. During a disturbance, this task can overwhelm humans as well as computers. Humans deal with this by applying heuristics in determining significant information. A simple, knowledge-based approach to prioritizing information is described. The approach models those heuristics that humans would use in similar circumstances. The approach described has received two patents and was implemented in the Alarm Filtering System (AFS) at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). AFS was first developed for application in a nuclear reactor control room. It has since been used in chemical processing applications, where it has had a significant impact on control room environments. The approach uses knowledge-based heuristics to analyze data from process instrumentation and respond to that data according to knowledge encapsulated in objects and rules. While AFS cannot perform the complete diagnosis and control task, it has proven to be extremely effective at filtering and prioritizing information. AFS was used for over two years as a first level of analysis for human diagnosticians. Given the approach's proven track record in a wide variety of practical applications, it should be useful in both ground- and space-based systems.

Corsberg, Daniel R.↗