A web of unholy alliances: how the US has indirectly aided Ankara’s attempts to undermine the Kurds in Syria and Turkey

Turkey committed itself to conducting operations against Islamic State following a suicide bombing in the town of Suruç in July. However, as Bill Park writes, the country has faced criticism over its decision to link operations to attacks carried out against Kurdish forces. He notes that the complex nature of Turkey’s involvement in the conflict has indirectly allied the United States with jihadi groups and helped facilitate the Turkish government’s attempts to undermine Kurdish organisations in Turkey and Syria

Turkey-Kurdish Regional Government Relations After the U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq: Putting the Kurds on the Map?

View the Executive SummaryThe withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq at the end of 2011 left behind a set of unresolved problems in the relationship between the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), and the Federal Government in Baghdad—notably relating to the disputed boundaries of the KRG, and the extent of its autonomy. Tensions have since been compounded by the discovery of significant quantities of oil and gas in the KRG area, and Erbil’s pursuit of an energy policy independent of and in opposition to Baghdad. Turkey, uneasy with the increasingly sectarian and authoritarian flavor of the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad, has since moved closer to the KRG, not least with respect to energy issues, deepening Turkish-Iraqi tensions still further. Added to the mix is the increasingly sectarian standoff in the region as a whole, in large measure as a consequence of Syrian developments, which has further pitted Ankara against Baghdad and its ally Iran; and the emergence of a bid for autonomy by Syria’s Kurds, which has complicated the stance of both Ankara and Erbil toward Syria and towards each other. Washington is in danger of being left behind by the fast-paced events in the region, while the ethnic Kurds of the region may be approaching a decisive moment in their long struggle for self-determination.https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1504/thumbnail.jp

Formalizing Theory Development in IS Design Science Research: Learning from Qualitative Research

The parallels between design science research and various types of qualitative research as well as the synergies between the two research paradigms have been pointed out in many recent design science research in IS (DSRIS) papers. Commonly, for example, a qualitative research method, action research, has been used or proposed for validation of a DSRIS artifact. Building on insights into the similarities of the two methodologies, we have surveyed the qualitative research literature in search of techniques from that area that could be applicable to theory construction and refinement in DSRIS. We have found four techniques widely used in theory construction in qualitative research that are immediately applicable to DSRIS, thus leveraging the work in an older discipline for the benefit of DSRIS. In addition we explicate the similarity between qualitative research and DSRIS in a more detailed manner than has been done previously

Geometry Modeling for Unstructured Mesh Adaptation

The quantification and control of discretization error is critical to obtaining reliable simulation results. Adaptive mesh techniques have the potential to automate discretization error control, but have made limited impact on production analysis workflow. Recent progress has matured a number of independent implementations of flow solvers, error estimation methods, and anisotropic mesh adaptation mechanics. However, the poor integration of initial mesh generation and adaptive mesh mechanics to typical sources of geometry has hindered adoption of adaptive mesh techniques, where these geometries are often created in Mechanical Computer- Aided Design (MCAD) systems. The difficulty of this coupling is compounded by two factors: the inherent complexity of the model (e.g., large range of scales, bodies in proximity, details not required for analysis) and unintended geometry construction artifacts (e.g., translation, uneven parameterization, degeneracy, self-intersection, sliver faces, gaps, large tolerances be- tween topological elements, local high curvature to enforce continuity). Manual preparation of geometry is commonly employed to enable fixed-grid and adaptive-grid workflows by reducing the severity and negative impacts of these construction artifacts, but manual process interaction inhibits workflow automation. Techniques to permit the use of complex geometry models and reduce the impact of geometry construction artifacts on unstructured grid workflows are models from the AIAA Sonic Boom and High Lift Prediction are shown to demonstrate the utility of the current approach

SLS Navigation Model-Based Design Approach

The SLS Program chose to implement a Model-based Design and Model-based Requirements approach for managing component design information and system requirements. This approach differs from previous large-scale design efforts at Marshall Space Flight Center where design documentation alone conveyed information required for vehicle design and analysis and where extensive requirements sets were used to scope and constrain the design. The SLS Navigation Team has been responsible for the Program-controlled Design Math Models (DMMs) which describe and represent the performance of the Inertial Navigation System (INS) and the Rate Gyro Assemblies (RGAs) used by Guidance, Navigation, and Controls (GN&C). The SLS Navigation Team is also responsible for the navigation algorithms. The navigation algorithms are delivered for implementation on the flight hardware as a DMM. For the SLS Block 1-B design, the additional GPS Receiver hardware is managed as a DMM at the vehicle design level. This paper provides a discussion of the processes and methods used to engineer, design, and coordinate engineering trades and performance assessments using SLS practices as applied to the GN&C system, with a particular focus on the Navigation components. These include composing system requirements, requirements verification, model development, model verification and validation, and modeling and analysis approaches. The Model-based Design and Requirements approach does not reduce the effort associated with the design process versus previous processes used at Marshall Space Flight Center. Instead, the approach takes advantage of overlap between the requirements development and management process, and the design and analysis process by efficiently combining the control (i.e. the requirement) and the design mechanisms. The design mechanism is the representation of the component behavior and performance in design and analysis tools. The focus in the early design process shifts from the development and management of design requirements to the development of usable models, model requirements, and model verification and validation efforts. The models themselves are represented in C/C++ code and accompanying data files. Under the idealized process, potential ambiguity in specification is reduced because the model must be implementable versus a requirement which is not necessarily subject to this constraint. Further, the models are shown to emulate the hardware during validation. For models developed by the Navigation Team, a common interface/standalone environment was developed. The common environment allows for easy implementation in design and analysis tools. Mechanisms such as unit test cases ensure implementation as the developer intended. The model verification and validation process provides a very high level of component design insight. The origin and implementation of the SLS variant of Model-based Design is described from the perspective of the SLS Navigation Team. The format of the models and the requirements are described. The Model-based Design approach has many benefits but is not without potential complications. Key lessons learned associated with the implementation of the Model Based Design approach and process from infancy to verification and certification are discusse

Successful Completion of the JWST OGSE2 Cryogenic Test at JSC Chamber-A While Managing Numerous Challenges

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) Optical Telescope Element (OTE) assembly is the largest optically stable infrared-optimized telescope currently being manufactured and assembled, and scheduled for launch in 2018. The JWST OTE, including the primary mirrors, secondary mirror, and the Aft Optics Subsystems (AOS) are designed to be passively cooled and operate at near 45 degrees Kelvin. Due to the size of its large sunshield in relation to existing test facilities, JWST cannot be optically or thermally tested as a complete observatory-level system at flight temperatures. As a result, the telescope portion along with its instrument complement will be tested as a single unit very late in the program, and on the program schedule critical path. To mitigate schedule risks, a set of 'pathfinder' cryogenic tests will be performed to reduce program risks by demonstrating the optical testing capabilities of the facility, characterizing telescope thermal performance, and allowing project personnel to learn valuable testing lessons off-line. This paper describes the 'pathfinder' cryogenic test program, focusing on the recently completed second test in the series called the Optical Ground Support Equipment 2 (OGSE2) test. The JWST OGSE2 was successfully completed within the allocated project schedule while faced with numerous conflicting thermal requirements during cool-down to the final cryogenic operational temperatures, and during warm-up after the cryo-stable optical tests. The challenges include developing a pre-test cool-down and warm-up profiles without a reliable method to predict the thermal behaviors in a rarified helium environment, and managing the test article hardware safety driven by the project Limits and Constraints (L&C's). Furthermore, OGSE2 test included the time critical Aft Optics Subsystem (AOS), a part of the flight Optical Telescope Element that would need to be placed back in the overall telescope assembly integrations. The OGSE2 test requirements included the strict adherence of the project contamination controls due to the presence of the contamination sensitive flight optical elements. The test operations required close coordination of numerous personnel while they being exposed and trained for the 'final' combined OTE and instrument cryo-test in 2017. This paper will also encompass the OGSE2 thermal data look-back review

SLS Block 1-B and Exploration Upper Stage Navigation System Design

The SLS Block 1B vehicle is planned to extend NASA's heavy lift capability beyond the initial SLS Block 1 vehicle. The most noticeable change for this vehicle from SLS Block 1 is the swapping of the upper stage from the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion stage (ICPS), a modified Delta IV upper stage, to the more capable Exploration Upper Stage (EUS). As the vehicle evolves to provide greater lift capability and execute more demanding missions so must the SLS Integrated Navigation System to support those missions. The SLS Block 1 vehicle carries two independent navigation systems. The responsibility of the two systems is delineated between ascent and upper stage flight. The Block 1 navigation system is responsible for the phase of flight between the launch pad and insertion into Low-Earth Orbit (LEO). The upper stage system assumes the mission from LEO to payload separation. For the Block 1B vehicle, the two functions are combined into a single system intended to navigate from ground to payload insertion. Both are responsible for self-disposal once payload delivery is achieved. The evolution of the navigation hardware and algorithms from an inertial-only navigation system for Block 1 ascent flight to a tightly coupled GPS-aided inertial navigation system for Block 1-B is described. The Block 1 GN&C system has been designed to meet a LEO insertion target with a specified accuracy. The Block 1-B vehicle navigation system is designed to support the Block 1 LEO target accuracy as well as trans-lunar or trans-planetary injection accuracy. This is measured in terms of payload impact and stage disposal requirements. Additionally, the Block 1-B vehicle is designed to support human exploration and thus is designed to minimize the probability of Loss of Crew (LOC) through high-quality inertial instruments and Fault Detection, Isolation, and Recovery (FDIR) logic. The preliminary Block 1B integrated navigation system design is presented along with the challenges associated with meeting the design objectives. This paper also addresses the design considerations associated with the use of Block 1 and Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) avionics for Block 1-B/EUS as part of an integrated vehicle suite for orbital operations