How can we model subsurface stormflow at the catchment scale if we cannot measure it?

Subsurface stormflow (SSF) can be a dominant run‐off generation process in humid mountainous catchments (e.g., Bachmair & Weiler, 2011; Blume & van Meerveld, 2015; Chifflard, Didszun, & Zepp, 2008). Generally, SSF develops in structured soils where bedrock or a less permeable soil layer is overlaid by a more permeable soil layer and vertically percolating water is deflected, at least partially, in a lateral downslope direction due to the slope inclination. SSF can also occur when groundwater levels rise into more permeable soil layers and water flows laterally through the more permeable layers to the stream (“transmissivity feedback mechanism”; Bishop, Grip, & O'Neill, 1990). The different existing terms for SSF in the hydrological literature such as shallow subsurface run‐off, interflow, lateral flow, or soil water flow reflects the different underlying process concepts developed in various experimental studies in different environments by using different experimental approaches at different spatial and temporal scales (Weiler, McDonnell, Tromp‐van Meerveld, & Uchida, 2005). Intersite comparisons and the extraction of general rules for SSF generation and its controlling factors are still lacking, which hampers the development of appropriate approaches for modelling SSF. But appropriate prediction of SSF is essential due to its clear influence on run‐off generation at the catchment scale (e.g., Chifflard et al., 2010; Zillgens, Merz, Kirnbauer, & Tilch, 2005), on the formation of floods (e.g., Markart et al., 2013, 2015) and on the transport of nutrients or pollutants from the hillslopes into surface water bodies (Zhao, Tang, Zhao, Wang, & Tang, 2013). However, a precise simulation of SSF in models requires an accurate process understanding including, knowledge about water pathways, residence times, magnitude of water fluxes, or the spatial origin of SSF within a given catchment because such factors determine the transport of subsurface water and solutes to the stream. But due to its occurrence in the subsurface and its spatial and temporal variability, determining and quantifying the processes generating SSF is a challenging task as they cannot be observed directly. Therefore, it is logical to ask whether we can really model SSF correctly if we cannot measure it well enough on the scale of interest (Figure 1). This commentary reflects critically on whether current experimental concepts and modelling approaches are sufficient to predict the contribution of SSF to the run‐off at the catchment scale. This applies in particular to the underlying processes, controlling factors, modelling approaches, research gaps, and innovative strategies to trace SSF across different scales

Control/structure interaction during Space Station Freedom-Orbiter berthing

The berthing maneuver is essential for the construction and assembly of Space Station Freedom (SSF) and has a direct effect on the SSF assembly build up and SSF/Orbiter operations. The effects of flexible body dynamics coupled with the available control system may impose new requirements on the maneuver. The problem is further complicated by the effect of the SSF control system on the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS). These effects will play a major role in the development of operational requirements which need to be identified and validated in order to assure total safety and maneuver execution during SSF construction. This paper presents the results of ongoing studies to investigate the Control/Structure Interaction (CSI) during the berthing operations. The problem is formulated in terms of multi-flex body equations of motion for SSF and the SRMS and on-orbit flight control systems for the SRMS and the SSF, which includes the Control Moment Gyro (CMG) and Reaction Control System (RCS) Attitude Control Systems (ACS). The SSF control system designs are based on the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) version of the Honeywell design. The simulation tool used for the analysis is briefly described and the CSI results are presented for given berthing scenarios

Spectral Spatial Fluctuations of CMBR: Strategy and Concept of the Experiment

Spectral Spatial Fluctuations (SSF) of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature are considered as a result of an interaction of primordial atoms and molecules with CMBR in proto-objects moving with peculiar velocities relative to the CMBR. Expected optimistic values of $\Delta T/T$ are 2x10^{-5}--2x10^{-6}$for SSF caused by HeH$^+$at z =20-30 which are possible redshifts of early reionization scenario. The bandwidth of the lines is 0.1-2depending on the scale of proto-objects and redshifts. For the SSF search CMBR maps in different spectral channels are to be observed and then processed by the Difference method. Simulation of the experiment is made for MSRT (Tuorla Observatory, Finland) equipped with a 7x4 beam cryo-microbolometer array with a chopping flat and frequency multiplexer providing up to 7 spectral channels in each beam (88-100 GHz). Expected$\Delta $T/T limit in the experiment is 2x10$^{-5}$ with 6'-7' angular and 2% frequency resolution. Simulation shows that SSF may be recognized in the angular power spectrum when S/N in single frequency CMBR maps is as small as 1.17 or even something less for white noise. Such an experiment gives us a possibility to set upper limit of SSF in MM band and prepare future SSF observations.Comment: 26 pages, 6 figure

Findings of the Joint Workshop on Evaluation of Impacts of Space Station Freedom Ground Configurations

At the workshop, experts from the plasma interactions community evaluated the impacts of environmental interactions on the Space Station Freedom (SSF) under each of the proposed grounding schemes. The grounding scheme chosen for the SSF power system was found to have serious implications for SSF design. Interactions of the SSF power system and structure with the low Earth orbit (LEO) plasma differ significantly between different proposed grounding schemes. Environmental constraints will require modification of current SSF designs under any grounding scheme. Maintaining the present negative-grounding scheme compromises SSF safety, structural integrity, and electromagnetic compatibility. It also will increase contamination rates over alternative grounding schemes. One alternative, positive grounding of the array, requires redesign of the primary power system in work package four. Floating the array reduces the number of circuit changes to work package four but adds new hardware. Maintaining the current design will affect all work packages; however, no impacts were identified on work packages one, two, or three by positively grounding or floating the array, with the possible exception of extra corona protection in multi-wire connectors

SSF loads and controllability during assembly

The Orbiter Primary Reaction Control System (PRCS) pulse width and firing frequency is restricted to prevent excessive loads in the Space Station Freedom (SSF). The feasibility of using the SSF Control Moment Gyros (CMG) as a secondary controller for load relief is evaluated. The studies revealed the CMG not only reduced loads but were useful for other SSF functions: vibration suppression and modal excitation. Vibration suppression lowers the g level for the SSF micro-g experiments and damps the low frequency oscillations that cause crew sickness. Modal excitation could be used for the modal identification experiment and health monitoring. The CMG's reduced the peak loads and damped the vibrations. They were found to be an effective multi-purpose ancillary device for SSF operation

Consortium for materials development in space interaction with Space Station Freedom

The Consortium for Materials Development in Space (CMDS) is one of seventeen Centers for the Commercial Development of Space (CCDS) sponsored by the Office of Commercial Programs of NASA. The CMDS formed at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in the fall of 1985. The Consortium activities therefore will have progressed for over a decade by the time Space Station Freedom (SSF) begins operation. The topic to be addressed here is: what are the natural, mutually productive relationships between the CMDS and SSF? For management and planning purposes, the Consortium organizes its activities into a number of individual projects. Normally, each project has a team of personnel from industry, university, and often government organizations. This is true for both product-oriented materials projects and for infrastructure projects. For various projects Space Station offers specific mutually productive relationships. First, SSF can provide a site for commercial operations that have evolved as a natural stage in the life cycle of individual projects. Efficiency and associated cost control lead to another important option. With SSF in place, there is the possibility to leave major parts of processing equipment in SSF, and only bring materials to SSF to be processed and return to earth the treated materials. This saves the transportation costs of repeatedly carrying heavy equipment to orbit and back to the ground. Another generic feature of commercial viability can be the general need to accomplish large through-put or large scale operations. The size of SSF lends itself to such needs. Also in addition to processing equipment, some of the other infrastructure capabilities developed in CCDS projects may be applied on SSF to support product activities. The larger SSF program may derive mutual benefits from these infrastructure abilities

A radiological assessment of nuclear power and propulsion operations near Space Station Freedom

Scenarios were identified which involve the use of nuclear power systems in the vicinity of Space Station Freedom (SSF) and their radiological impact on the SSF crew was quantified. Several of the developed scenarios relate to the use of SSF as an evolutionary transportation node for lunar and Mars missions. In particular, radiation doses delivered to SSF crew were calculated for both the launch and subsequent return of a Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) cargo vehicle and a Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) personnel vehicle to low earth orbit. The use of nuclear power on co-orbiting platforms and the storage and handling issues associated with radioisotope power systems were also explored as they relate to SSF. A central philosophy in these analyses was the utilization of a radiation dose budget, defined as the difference between recommended dose limits from all radiation sources and estimated doses received by crew members from natural space radiations. Consequently, for each scenario examined, the dose budget concept was used to identify and quantify constraints on operational parameters such as launch separation distances, returned vehicle parking distances, and reactor shutdown times prior to vehicle approach. The results indicate that realistic scenarios do not exist which would preclude the use of nuclear power sources in the vicinity of SSF. The radiation dose to the SSF crew can be maintained at safe levels solely by implementing proper and reasonable operating procedures

Description of the PMAD DC test bed architecture and integration sequence

NASA-Lewis is responsible for the development, fabrication, and assembly of the electric power system (EPS) for the Space Station Freedom (SSF). The SSF power system is radically different from previous spacecraft power systems in both the size and complexity of the system. Unlike past spacecraft power system the SSF EPS will grow and be maintained on orbit and must be flexible to meet changing user power needs. The SSF power system is also unique in comparison with terrestrial power systems because it is dominated by power electronic converters which regulate and control the power. Although spacecraft historically have used power converters for regulation they typically involved only a single series regulating element. The SSF EPS involves multiple regulating elements, two or more in series, prior to the load. These unique system features required the construction of a testbed which would allow the development of spacecraft power system technology. A description is provided of the Power Management and Distribution (PMAD) DC Testbed which was assembled to support the design and early evaluation of the SSF EPS. A description of the integration process used in the assembly sequence is also given along with a description of the support facility

Removal of nitrogen leaching from vegetable crops in constructed wetlands

Vegetable growing leads to high nitrogen emissions. In the Netherlands, nitrogen emissions can hardly be reduced by reducing fertilization without risks for yield and quality loss. An alternative measure to reduce emissions is to collect nitrate-rich drain water and remove nitrate from the drain water in constructed wetlands. This was tested in three different types of constructed wetlands at an experimental farm in the SE of the Netherlands: (1) a surface flow system (SF) planted with Common reed, (2) a horizontal subsurface flow system with Common reed (SSF-reed) and (3) a horizontal subsurface flow system filled with straw (SSF-straw). The water discharge into the wetlands is adjusted to the nitrate removal capacity of the wetlands. In- and outlet concentrations of nitrogen and other nutrients were measured every two weeks since December 2005. Collected water from pipe drains contained on average 30 mg N L-1. The mean N removal was 58% in SF (1655 kg N ha-1 year-1), 25% in SSF-reed (1447 kg ha-1 year-1) and 63% in SSF-straw (3622 kg N ha-1 year-1). SF and SSF-straw are functioning well. In SSF-reed, the amount of carbon seems to be insufficient to sustain nitrogen reduction. Disadvantage of SSF-straw is the negative removal rate of phosphorus (mean 16 kg ha-1). With a removal rate of about 60% within the system, about 20% of the leached nitrogen from the vegetable fields could be removed: about two-third of the leached water is collected in drains and half of the nitrate-rich drain water is collected for purification. The cost effectiveness (expressed as € per kg N removed) ranged between € 52 and € 104 kg-1 N for SF, between € 29 and 58 kg-1 N for SSF-straw and between € 161 and € 322 kg-1 N for SSF-reed. Cost reduction is possible by combining with other functions as water storage and nature developmen