September 2005

NASA/CR-2005-213910

Transmitter Signal Measurements,

Task 5C Report

Kent Horton, Brian Eppic, Mitch Huffman, and Harrison White

Delta Air Lines, Technical Operations Center, Atlanta, Georgia
The NASA STI Program Office . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The

NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI)

Program Office plays a key part in helping NASA

maintain this important role.

The NASA STI Program Office is operated by

Langley Research Center, the lead center for NASA’s

scientific and technical information. The NASA STI

Program Office provides access to the NASA STI

Database, the largest collection of aeronautical and

space science STI in the world. The Program Office is

also NASA’s institutional mechanism for

disseminating the results of its research and

development activities. These results are published by

NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of

completed research or a major significant phase

of research that present the results of NASA

programs and include extensive data or

theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of

significant scientific and technical data and

information deemed to be of continuing

reference value. NASA counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers, but having

less stringent limitations on manuscript length

and extent of graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific

and technical findings that are preliminary or of

specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports,

working papers, and bibliographies that contain

minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive

analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and

technical findings by NASA-sponsored

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected

papers from scientific and technical

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other

meetings sponsored or co-sponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,

technical, or historical information from NASA

programs, projects, and missions, often

concerned with subjects having substantial

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientific and

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services that complement the STI

Program Office’s diverse offerings include creating

custom thesauri, building customized databases,

organizing and publishing research results ... even

providing videos.

For more information about the NASA STI Program

Office, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI Program Home Page at

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to

help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk

at (301) 621-0134

• Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at

(301) 621-0390

• Write to:

 NASA STI Help Desk

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

 7121 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076-1320
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Langley Research Center Prepared for Langley Research Center

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199 under Contract NCC1-381

September 2005

NASA/CR-2005-213910

Transmitter Signal Measurements,

Task 5C Report

Kent Horton, Brian Eppic, Mitch Huffman, and Harrison White

Delta Air Lines, Technical Operations Center, Atlanta, Georgia
Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI) National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

7121 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Springfield, VA 22161-2171

(301) 621-0390 (703) 605-6000
 1

 

1 INTRODUCTION 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Delta continue to 

collect quantitative data through the Cooperative Agreement NCC-1-381. Task 5C – 

Transmitter Signal Measurements was completed and this report summarizes the work 

accomplished, the findings, and data that were generated. Signal Measurements were 

obtained on four (4) different airport systems. Systems measured were Localizer (LOC), 

Very High Frequency Communication, (VHF), Glideslope, (G/S), and Global 

Positioning System (GPS). The task calls for path loss measurements to be taken at 

Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (ATL) and one smaller airport which was 

Greenville/Spartanburg Airport (GSP) to determine relative signal strengths on the 

airport properties. 

 

2 PURPOSE 

The purpose of this report is to collect and summarize the data that was collected that 

will enable us better understand the Radio Frequency (RF) environment at a larger and 

smaller airport. This data will be used to ensure adequate safety margins of comm/nav 

(communication and navigation) systems exist in current and future assessments of 

Portable Electronic Device (PED) policies. These PEDs include all devices operated in 

or around the aircraft by crews, passengers, servicing personnel, as well as the general 

public in the airport area. This data may also be used comparatively with theoretical 

analysis and computer modeling data sponsored by NASA Langley Research Center. 

3 TECHNICAL APPROACH & PROCEDURES SET-UP AND 

CALIBRATION

A mock up aircraft fuselage was designed that housed the four particular antennas for 

Very High Frequency, Glide Slope, Localizer and Global Positioning System. These 

antennas were mounted on various positions of the exterior surface of the mockup, 

similar to the antenna configuration on aircraft. Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the layout of 

the antennas on the mockup. This mockup was placed on the bed of a truck which was 

positioned at different locations around the two airport properties collecting samples in 

the various frequency ranges. 

The comm/nav systems were tested one at a time. A RG214 test cable was run from the 

test equipment location through a side window. This cable was connected to the 

spectrum analyzer input. The other end of the cable was connected to the test antenna. 

All cables, amplifiers, spectrum analyzer, and test antennas were calibrated prior to test, 

or verified as calibrated by use of the manufacturer’s data. This allows the collected 

data to be corrected after the fact, to remove any effect introduced by the test equipment. 

The receiving antenna type, polarization, power and location are recorded in a data 
 2 

collection log. The raw uncorrected power received by the spectrum analyzer is entered 

in the log using the on-screen marker of frequency and power level. 

The spectrum analyzer was calibrated, using the internal routine, at each setup before 

colleting data. The settings, antenna type, and cables used to connect the equipment 

were recorded for each comm/nav system measured as well as the testing location. The 

spectrum analyzer was connected to a laptop computer and measurement data was 

recorded and stored in memory. 

 

Figure 1 – Test Team and Antenna Mockup 
 3

Figure 2 – Truck (overhead view)

Localizer 

Glideslope 

GPS 

(not used) 

VHF 

Localizer 

Glideslope 

Figure 3 – Close-up of Antenna Mockup
 4 

In Atlanta there are currently four runways oriented to the East and West. Figure 4 is a 

diagram of Atlanta’s airport and runways. The test points are indicated with red circles 

in the figure below. 

Figure 4 – Atlanta Airport Diagram
 5

Table 1 – Conditions During Testing 

Location/Date Skies Visibility 

Atlanta (ATL) 10/21/04 AM Overcast/Light Fog 1.5 miles 

Atlanta (ATL) 10/21/04 PM Overcast 2.5 miles 

Atlanta (ATL) 10/22/04 Partly Cloudy Good 

Greenville/Spartanburg (GSP) 11/4 Noon Light to Heavy 

Rain 

0.75 miles 

Greenville Spartanburg International Airport was also visited and included in Table 1. 

Figure 5 shows the aerial view of GSP and the single runway. At GSP six (6) test points 

were selected – one at each end of the runway, two (2) points on each side of the 

runway. The test points are indicated with red circles in Figure 5. The same crew 

operated the equipment in GSP and ATL with essentially the same setup. 

1 

2 3

4

6 5

Figure 5 - Greenville/Spartanburg Airport Diagram
 6

Figure 6 - GSP Tower

Figure 7 - GSP Field Conditions
 7

4 DATA GATHERED 

4.1 Localizer (LOC) 

LOC provides lateral guidance relative to the runway centerline in an ILS landing 

system. LOC is a highly directional signal using a multi-element phased antenna system 

that is horizontally polarized. Since we were limited to the elevation of the runway or 

below and due to the directivity of the LOC signal, it was impossible to measure the 

desired signal except at one or two test points. 

4.2 Very High Frequency (VHF) 

VHF data was collected over the complete commercial aviation VHF frequency range 

(116-138 MHz) and individual VHF frequency correlated with ground control or tower 

control. Since we were most interested in safe operations at the terminal environment, a 

ground control frequency was selected at each site (121.75 MHz-ATL, 121.9 MHzGSP). 

Data was reviewed for the VHF spectrum activity, the strength of signals for ground and 

tower frequencies, and the corresponding noise floor. ATL and GSP exhibited similar 

readings and safety margins from the required signal strengths. Average margins were 

seen to be from 15 to 40 dB. Test points 11 and 12 in Atlanta along with test point 1 in 

Greenville/Spartanburg were well below the field elevation and across the runway from 

the VHF transmitter, which resulted in negative signal margins. Tables 5 and 8 in 

Section 5 summarize the measurement data for each airport. 

Figure 8 - Localizer Near Atlanta Test Point 2
 8

4.3 Glideslope (GS) 

GS data was taken around the frequency of 332 MHz. GLS is vertically directed and 

uses amplitude modulations of 90 and 150 kHz like the localizer. Glideslope provides 

vertical guidance in an ILS instrument landing system. 

Figure 9 - VHF Antennas Near Atlanta Test Point 13

Figure 10 - GS Antennas Near Atlanta Test Point 3
 9

4.4 Global Positioning System (GPS) 

GPS data was initially taken using an aircraft passive GPS antenna, but no signal could 

be found even when using an amplifier. Alternately, a Garmin GPS receiver was used to 

determine the number of satellites that could be acquired at each test point and the 

relative accuracy calculated by the GPS device. A Garmin receiver was used in ATL 

and GSP. The exact position of each test point was collected and shown in Table 2 and 

Table 3. 

GPS was observed to have at least five (5) satellites available in ATL and at least six (6) 

in GSP. Overall signals could not be seen by the spectrum analyzer but the relative 

signal strength was observed to be high on the Garmin receiver. GPS has the advantage 

of satellite communications and back-up capabilities. Only four (4) satellites must be 

seen by the aircraft’s multi-mode receiver for GPS. GPS’s low power requirement and 

multiple frequency redundant system make it unlikely that anyone could interfere with 

the aircraft using Part 15 devices. 

Table 2 - Atlanta Airport Test Point Locations 

Test Point Latitude (N33◦ ) Longitude (W084) Elevation (ft) 

1 38.809 24.066 975 

2 38.966 24.326 989 

3 39.101 24.646 979 

4 39.077 25.573 991 

5 38.975 26.539 1014 

6 38.799 26.520 1013 

7 38.640 26.169 1043 

8 38.653 25.463 1005 

9 38.232 25.428 1006 

10 38.239 26.127 1023 

11 38.081 27.069 1002 

12 37.906 27.069 1016 

13 37.747 26.463 1010 

14 37.787 25.704 979 

15 37.912 24.829 955 

16 38.082 24.283 914 

Atlanta - Field Elevation 1026ft 

Table 3 – Greenville/Spartanburg Airport Test Locations

Test Point Latitude (N34) Longitude (W082) Elevation 

1 52.791 13.860 893 

2 54.014 13.038 949 

3 53.368 13.595 904 

4 54.659 12.429 935 

5 54.101 12.677 955 

6 53.301 13.231 937 

Greenville/Spartanburg - Field Elevation 963ft 
10

5 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The measured signal levels are organized by system and summarized in tables below. 

An antenna shadow loss is included for LOC and GS in accordance with DO-233 since 

these antennas did not always have line-of-sight view of the transmitting antennas. 

Since the VHF antenna was mounted on top of the mockup and did have line-of-sight 

view of the VHF tower, no shadow loss was included in VHF Comm calculations. 

Appendix 1 contains the spectrum analyzer plots recorded during testing. 

The directivity of the LOC and Glideslope antennas was observed to be the line of sight 

and well above the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) minimum signal 

levels on the airport property near the runway. Aircraft taxing with Part 15 devices 

onboard and the field should not be able to interfere with the instrument landing system. 

VHF, the sole safety and security communication system during ground operations, is 

heavily relied upon in the aviation industry. This system must perform reliably in order 

to support the many aircraft movements taking place. Data collected for this task shows 

that VHF systems have sufficient safety margin when aircraft are operating on all 

runways and taxiways. 

Although signal levels for GPS could not be measured with the spectrum analyzer, the 

Garmin GPS receiver indicated at least 5 satellites were available at each test point. It is 

expected that aircraft using GPS antennas with internal preamplifiers will capture 

satellite signals much better than the Garmin receiver. 

Freq. 

(MHz) 

Test 

Point 

Measured 

Power 

(dBm) 

Cable 

Loss 

(dB) 

50 Ohm 

Conversion 

(dBuVdBm) 

Antenna 

Factor 

(dBuV/mdBuV) 

Shadow 

Loss 

(dB) 

Incident Field 

@ Test Point 

(dBuV/m) 

ICAO 

Min 

(dBuV/m)

Safety 

Margin 

(dB) 

109.3 1 N/A 

 2 -36.59 0.53 107 9 3 82.94 32 50.94

 3 -60.54 0.53 107 9 3 58.99 32 26.99

 4 -76.8 0.53 107 9 3 42.73 32 10.73

 5 -78.46 0.53 107 9 3 41.07 32 9.07

 6 -78.46 0.53 107 9 3 41.07 32 9.07

 7 -87.36 0.53 107 9 3 32.17 32 0.17

 8 -77.93 0.53 107 9 3 41.6 32 9.6

Table 4 - Atlanta Airport Localizer Results
11

Table 6 - Atlanta Airport VHF Comm Results

Table 5 – Atlanta Airport Glideslope Results

Table 7 – Greenville/Spartanburg Airport Localizer Results

Freq. 

(MHz) Test Point

Measured 

Power 

(dBm)

Cable 

Loss (dB)

50 Ohm 

Conversio

n (dBuVdBm)

Antenna 

Factor 

(dBuV/mdBuV)

Shadow 

Loss (dB)

Incident 

Field @ 

Test Point 

(dBuV/m)

ICAO Min 

(dBuV/m)

Safety 

Margin 

(dB)

121.75 1 -53.76 0.62 107 10.5 0 64.36 37 27.36

2 -57.91 0.62 107 10.5 0 60.21 37 23.21

3 -60.9 0.62 107 10.5 0 57.22 37 20.22

4 -60.76 0.62 107 10.5 0 57.36 37 20.36

5 -60.02 0.62 107 10.5 0 58.1 37 21.1

6 -61.8 0.62 107 10.5 0 56.32 37 19.32

7 -47.94 0.62 107 10.5 0 70.18 37 33.18

8 -64.76 0.62 107 10.5 0 53.36 37 16.36

9 -44.97 0.62 107 10.5 0 73.15 37 36.15

10 -41.94 0.62 107 10.5 0 76.18 37 39.18

11 -86.31 0.62 107 10.5 0 31.81 37 -5.19

12 -79.24 0.62 107 10.5 0 38.88 37 1.88

13 -58.47 0.62 107 10.5 0 59.65 37 22.65

14 -59.39 0.62 107 10.5 0 58.73 37 21.73

15 -62.01 0.62 107 10.5 0 56.11 37 19.11

16 -30.52 0.62 107 10.5 0 87.6 37 50.6

Freq. 

(MHz) Test Point

Measured 

Power 

(dBm)

Cable 

Loss (dB)

50 Ohm 

Conversio

n (dBuVdBm)

Antenna 

Factor 

(dBuV/mdBuV)

Shadow 

Loss (dB)

Incident 

Field @ 

Test Point 

(dBuV/m)

ICAO Min 

(dBuV/m)

Safety 

Margin 

(dB)

332 5 -63.35 1.29 107 19 3 66.94 46 20.94

6 -95.16 1.29 107 19 3 35.13 46 -10.87

7 -99.78 1.29 107 19 3 30.51 46 -15.49

8 -89.81 1.29 107 19 3 40.48 46 -5.52

Freq. 

(MHz) Test Point

Measured 

Power 

(dBm)

Cable 

Loss (dB)

50 Ohm 

Conversio

n (dBuVdBm)

Antenna 

Factor 

(dBuV/mdBuV)

Shadow 

Loss (dB)

Incident 

Field @ 

Test Point 

(dBuV/m)

ICAO Min 

(dBuV/m)

Safety 

Margin 

(dB)

109.3 1 -108.61 0.53 107 9 3 10.92 32 -21.08

2 -94.55 0.53 107 9 3 24.98 32 -7.02

3 -72.12 0.53 107 9 3 47.41 32 15.41

4 -37.75 0.53 107 9 3 81.78 32 49.78

5 -71.68 0.53 107 9 3 47.85 32 15.85

6 -85.67 0.53 107 9 3 33.86 32 1.86
12

Table 8 - Greenville/Spartanburg Airport VHF Comm Results

Table 9 - Greenville/Spartanburg Airport Glideslope Results

Freq. 

(MHz) Test Point

Measured 

Power 

(dBm)

Cable 

Loss (dB)

50 Ohm 

Conversio

n (dBuVdBm)

Antenna 

Factor 

(dBuV/mdBuV)

Shadow 

Loss (dB)

Incident 

Field @ 

Test Point 

(dBuV/m)

ICAO Min 

(dBuV/m)

Safety 

Margin 

(dB)

120.1 1 -71.13 0.62 107 10.5 0 46.99 37 9.99

120.1 2 -58.97 0.62 107 10.5 0 59.15 37 22.15

120.1 3 -39.87 0.62 107 10.5 0 78.25 37 41.25

120.1 4 -69.92 0.62 107 10.5 0 48.2 37 11.2

120.1 5 -51.66 0.62 107 10.5 0 66.46 37 29.46

120.1 6 -60.44 0.62 107 10.5 0 57.68 37 20.68

121.9 1 -80.49 0.62 107 10.5 0 37.63 37 0.63

121.9 2 -54.62 0.62 107 10.5 0 63.5 37 26.5

121.9 3 -36.12 0.62 107 10.5 0 82 37 45

121.9 4 -61.93 0.62 107 10.5 0 56.19 37 19.19

121.9 5 -48.93 0.62 107 10.5 0 69.19 37 32.19

121.9 6 -58.17 0.62 107 10.5 0 59.95 37 22.95

Freq. 

(MHz) Test Point

Measured 

Power 

(dBm)

Cable 

Loss (dB)

50 Ohm 

Conversio

n (dBuVdBm)

Antenna 

Factor 

(dBuV/mdBuV)

Shadow 

Loss (dB)

Incident 

Field @ 

Test Point 

(dBuV/m)

ICAO Min 

(dBuV/m)

Safety 

Margin 

(dB)

332 1 -80.2 1.29 107 19 3 50.09 46 4.09

332 2 -73.49 1.29 107 19 3 56.8 46 10.8

332 3 -98.2 1.29 107 19 3 32.09 46 -13.91

330.2 4 -79.87 1.29 107 19 3 50.42 46 4.42

330.2 5 -84.71 1.29 107 19 3 45.58 46 -0.42

332 6 -96.56 1.29 107 19 3 33.73 46 -12.27
13

6 RECOMMENDATIONS 

• One reason safety margins were not as high as expected is due to the inability of 

our truck to access points on the normal taxiway and runway. This test needs to 

be repeated on aircraft, utilizing the installed systems, by taxiing to various 

points of interest to get an accurate assessment of the received signal. 

• Another reason margins were not as good as expected is the directivity of the 

localizer and glideslope signals. A shadow loss of 3 dB was included in the 

calculation due to the mounting location of the receiving antennas on the 

mockup. (3 dB was used in DO-233 calculations) 

• The VHF system provided good results and is the safety system used for ground 

operations. We should limit the scope of any future tests to the VHF frequency 

band to access the most critical system on the ground. 

• Readers should only utilize data from the VHF system at points at or above field 

elevation. 

• TCAS might be included in future testing depending on the progress of 

multilateration initiatives. 
14

1 APPENDIX 1 – SPECTRUM ANALYZER PLOTS 

1.1 Atlanta Localizer (Aircraft Landing on Runway 8L) 

Figure 1 - Test Point 2 LOC Signal 

Figure 2 - Test Point 3 LOC Signal 
15

Figure 3 - Test Point 4 LOC Signal 

Figure 4 - Test Point 5 and 6 LOC Signal 

Figure 5 - Test Point 7 LOC Signal 
16

Figure 6 - Test Point 8 LOC Signal 

1.2 Atlanta VHF Comm (121.75 MHz) 

Figure 7 - Test Point 1 VHF Signal 
17

Figure 8 - Test Point 2 VHF Signal 

Figure 9 - Test Point 3 VHF Signal 

Figure 10 - Test Point 4 VHF Signal 
18

Figure 11 - Test Point 5 VHF Signal 

Figure 12 - Test Point 6 VHF Signal 

Figure 13 - Test Point 7 VHF Signal 
19

Figure 14 - Test Point 8 VHF Signal 

Figure 15 - Test Point 9 VHF Signal 

Figure 16 - Test Point 10 VHF Signal 
20

Figure 17 - Test Point 11 VHF Signal (image incomplete)

Figure 18 - Test Point 12 VHF Signal 

Figure 19 - Test Point 13 VHF Signal 
21

Figure 20 - Test Point 14 VHF Signal 

Figure 21 - Test Point 15 VHF Signal 

Figure 22 - Test Point 16 VHF Signal 
22

1.3 Atlanta Glideslope (Aircraft Landing on Runway 8L) 

Figure 23 - Test Point 5 GS Signal 

Figure 24 - Test Point 6 GS Signal 
23

Figure 25 - Test Point 7 GS Signal 

Figure 26 – Test Point 8 GS Signal 
24

1.4 Greenville Localizer (Aircraft Landing on Runway 4) 

Figure 27 - Test Point 1 LOC Signal 

Figure 28 - Test Point 2 LOC Signal 
25

Figure 29 - Test Point 3 LOC Signal 

Figure 30 - Test Point 4 LOC Signal 

Figure 31 - Test Point 5 LOC Signal 
26

Figure 32 - Test Point 6 LOC Signal 

1.5 Greenville VHF Comm 

1.5.1 120.1 MHz 

Figure 33 - Test Point 1 VHF Signal 
27

Figure 34 - Test Point 2 VHF Signal 

Figure 35 - Test Point 3 VHF Signal 

Figure 36 - Test Point 4 VHF Signal 
28

Figure 37 - Test Point 5 VHF Signal 

Figure 38 - Test Point 6 VHF Signal 
29

1.5.2 121.9 MHz 

Figure 39 - Test Point 1 VHF Signal 

Figure 40 - Test Point 2 VHF Signal 
30

Figure 41 - Test Point 3 VHF Signal 

Figure 42 - Test Point 4 VHF Signal 

Figure 43 - Test Point 5 VHF Signal 
31

Figure 44 - Test Point 6 VHF Signal 

1.6 Greenville Glideslope (Aircraft Landing on Runway 4) 

Figure 45 - Test Point 1 GS Signal 
32

Figure 46 - Test Point 2 GS Signal 

Figure 47 - Test Point 3 GS Signal 

Figure 48 - Test Point 4 GS Signal 
33

Figure 49 - Test Point 5 GS Signal 

Figure 50 - Test Point 6 GS Signal 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

2. REPORT TYPE 

Contractor Report

 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Transmitter Signal Measurements, Task 5C Report

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

NCC1-381

 6. AUTHOR(S)

Horton, Kent; Eppic, Brian; Huffman, Mitch; and White, Harrison

 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NASA

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Langley Technical Monitor: Jay J. Ely

An electronic version can be found at http://ntrs.nasa.gov

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 33

Availability: NASA CASI (301) 621-0390

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email: help@sti.nasa.gov)

14. ABSTRACT

Signal Measurements were obtained on four (4) different airport systems. Systems measured were Localizer (LOC), Very 

High Frequency Communication, (VHF), Glideslope, (G/S), and Global Positioning System (GPS). The task calls for path loss 

measurements to be taken at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (ATL) and one smaller airport which was Greenville/

Spartanburg Airport (GSP) to determine relative signal strengths on the airport properties.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Airport; GPS; Glideslope; ILS; Localizer

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

38

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(301) 621-0390

a. REPORT

U

c. THIS PAGE

U

b. ABSTRACT

U

17. LIMITATION OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5C

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

23-079-30-10

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

NASA/CR-2005-213910

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and 

Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 

shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01- 09 - 2005