Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “SITE SELECTION”

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.

169 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2010

Ares I-X Ground Diagnostic Prototype

Automating prelaunch diagnostics for launch vehicles offers three potential benefits. First, it potentially improves safety by detecting faults that might otherwise have been missed so that they can be corrected before launch. Second, it potentially reduces launch delays by more quickly diagnosing the cause of anomalies that occur during prelaunch processing. Reducing launch delays will be critical to the success of NASA's planned future missions that require in-orbit rendezvous. Third, it potentially reduces costs by reducing both launch delays and the number of people needed to monitor the prelaunch process. NASA is currently developing the Ares I launch vehicle to bring the Orion capsule and its crew of four astronauts to low-earth orbit on their way to the moon. Ares I-X will be the first unmanned test flight of Ares I. It is scheduled to launch on October 27, 2009. The Ares I-X Ground Diagnostic Prototype is a prototype ground diagnostic system that will provide anomaly detection, fault detection, fault isolation, and diagnostics for the Ares I-X first-stage thrust vector control (TVC) and for the associated ground hydraulics while it is in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and on the launch pad. It will serve as a prototype for a future operational ground diagnostic system for Ares I. The prototype combines three existing diagnostic tools. The first tool, TEAMS (Testability Engineering and Maintenance System), is a model-based tool that is commercially produced by Qualtech Systems, Inc. It uses a qualitative model of failure propagation to perform fault isolation and diagnostics. We adapted an existing TEAMS model of the TVC to use for diagnostics and developed a TEAMS model of the ground hydraulics. The second tool, Spacecraft Health Inference Engine (SHINE), is a rule-based expert system developed at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We developed SHINE rules for fault detection and mode identification. The prototype uses the outputs of SHINE as inputs to TEAMS. The third tool, the Inductive Monitoring System (IMS), is an anomaly detection tool developed at NASA Ames Research Center and is currently used to monitor the International Space Station Control Moment Gyroscopes. IMS automatically "learns" a model of historical nominal data in the form of a set of clusters and signals an alarm when new data fails to match this model. IMS offers the potential to detect faults that have not been modeled. The three tools have been integrated and deployed to Hangar AE at KSC where they interface with live data from the Ares I-X vehicle and from the ground hydraulics. The outputs of the tools are displayed on a console in Hangar AE, one of the locations from which the Ares I-X launch will be monitored. In a previous publication, we discussed how we selected the three tools based primarily on their ability to be certified for human spaceflight and described our plans for the prototype. This abstract is due October 23, 2009, and the Ares I-X launch is currently scheduled for October 27, 2009. If this abstract is accepted, then the full paper will describe how the prototype performed before the launch. It will include an analysis of the prototype's accuracy, including false-positive rates, false-negative rates, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. It will also include a description of the prototype's computational requirements, including CPU usage, main memory usage, and disk usage. If the prototype detects any faults during the prelaunch period then the paper will include a description of those faults. Similarly, if the prototype has any false alarms then the paper will describe them and will attempt to explain their causes. Also, the paper will describe the three tools and how they are used in the prototype. It will include a description of the TEAMS models of the Ares I-X first-stage TVC and associated ground hydraulics and how we adapted the TVC model for use in real-time diagnostics. It will describe the SHINE rules used for fault detection and mode identification and the software architecture that interfaces the various pieces of existing software that are part of the prototype to one another. It will describe how we selected the sensor values and commands that were used to train the IMS model and how we optimized the number of clusters in the IMS model. It will include screen shots of the graphical display that we developed in Java to display the outputs of the three tools. Because Ares I-X data was not yet available to us while we were developing the prototype, we used historical data from the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) TVCs and the associated ground hydraulics to train IMS and to test the entire prototype. Because most of the failure modes that we modeled have never occurred in the Shuttle we inserted simulated failures into the Shuttle data. The Ares I-X first-stage TVC is very similar to the SRB TVC and we expect the data will be very similar. After the launch, we will determine how similar the data actually is and report how any differences in the data affected the diagnostic accuracy of the prototype. Finally, although we did not get the prototype certified, we designed it in a way that it could be certified and wrote a preliminary certification plan. The paper will include a brief summary of how we considered the need for certification in the design of the prototype, how we tested the prototype before deploying it to Hangar AE, and how we would propose to get it certified if it were deployed as an operational system. The paper will conclude with a description of some of the challenges we faced and some of the lessons learned in developing and deploying the prototype.

International Space Station↗
NASA NTRS2026

Thermal Considerations for 2039 Opposition Class Nuclear Electric Propulsion/Chemical Propulsion Crewed Mars Mission

The high specific impulse (Isp) of Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) technology offers the potential for advanced space mission capabilities. However, the five critical technology elements of NEP vehicles have yet to prove technical maturity levels for consideration into mission design. In response to the critical reviews by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), NASA’s Space Nuclear Propulsion (SNP) project created an NEP Technology Maturation Plan (TMP) for focused development of NEP technology. The TMP called for a coordinated set of technology development efforts to meet this objective. The Modular Assembled Radiators for NEP VehicLes (MARVL) Early Career Initiative (ECI) project was initiated to develop a portion of the fifth Critical Technology Element (CTE) of the NEP vehicle: the Primary Heat Rejection Subsystem (PHRS). A target application of a 2039 human-rated Mars mission was outlined in the TMP. For the outlined mission, a NEP vehicle will experience several thermal environments which will impact the design and operation of the PHRS. To maintain radiator temperatures within the required effective temperature range, the effect of natural, induced, and NEP internally generated heat loads on the radiator panel must be well understood. Furthermore, this analysis is critical for analyzing the influence of various orientations and positions of the NEP vehicle relative to nearby celestial bodies throughout the mission. This study conducted a complete enveloping analysis of the thermal environments influencing the NEP vehicle throughout the mission. Thermal analysis was conducted for the radiator panels based on the defined mission environments. This thermal analysis concludes with the selection of ideal radiator orientations for the NEP vehicle, and the identification of worst case hot and cold environmental sink temperatures throughout the mission. For the target application, the environmental sink temperature while the reactor is powered OFF or powered ON ranges from 30 K to 353 K and 2.7 K to 243 K respectively. When considering interplanetary space, the minimum environmental sink temperature when the reactor is powered OFF and the radiators are oriented “edge to Sun” is 2.7 K. The environmental thermal models generated in this study will be used for future studies with the full vehicle system model. The environmental sink temperature curves generated will be used for future radiator and component analysis to predict transient performance in the space environment. The environmental sink temperature and heat rejection capability curves will inform the trade between commissioning orbits that are in consideration. The model may also serve as a useful tool as reference for future crewed space missions, missions involving radiators or temperature sensitive equipment, or other missions requiring analysis of natural orbital thermal environments.

Nuclear Electric Propulsion↗
NASA NTRS2001

Performance of Li-Ion Cells Under Battery Voltage Charge Control

A study consisting of electrochemical characterization and Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO) cycling of Li-Ion cells from three vendors was initiated in 1999 to determine the cycling performance and to infuse the new technology in the future NASA missions. The 8-cell batteries included in this evaluation are prismatic cells manufactured by Mine Safety Appliances Company (MSA), cylindrical cells manufactured by SAFT and prismatic cells manufactured by Yardney Technical Products, Inc. (YTP). The three batteries were cycle tested in the LEO regime at 40% depth of discharge, and under a charge control technique that consists of battery voltage clamp with a current taper. The initial testing was conducted at 20 C; however, the batteries were cycled also intermittently at low temperatures. YTP 20 Ah cells consisted of mixed-oxide (Co and Ni) positive, graphitic carbon negative, LIPF6 salt mixed with organic carbonate solvents. The battery voltage clamp was 32 V. The low temperature cycling tests started after 4575 cycles at 20 C. The cells were not capable of cycling. at low temperature since the charge acceptance at battery level was poor. There was a cell in the battery that showed too high an end-of-charge (EOC) voltage thereby limiting the ability to charge the rest of the cells in the battery. The battery has completed 6714 cycles. SAFT 12 Ah cells consisted of mixed-oxide (Co and NO positive, graphitic carbon negative, LiPF6 salt mixed with organic carbonate solvents. The battery voltage clamp was for 30.8 V. The low temperature cycling tests started after 4594 cycles at 20 C. A cell that showed low end of discharge (EOD) and EOC voltages and three other cells that showed higher EOC voltages limited the charge acceptance at the selected voltage limit during charge. The cells were capable of cycling at 10 C and 0 C but the charge voltage limit had to be increased to 34.3 V (4.3 V per cell). The low temperature cycling may have induced poor chargeability since the voltage had to be increased to achieve the required charge input. The battery has completed 6226 cycles. MSA 10 Ah cells consisted of Co oxide positive, graphitic carbon negative, LiPF6 salt mixed with organic carbonate solvents. The battery voltage clamp was 30.8 V. The low temperature cycling tests were started after 2182 cycles at 20 C. The cells were capable of cycling at 10 C and 0 C. Like SAFT, the voltage limit on charge had to be increased to 36 V (4.5 V per cell). There was a cell (cell S/N 13) in the battery that showed poor performance features such as low EOD voltage and high EOC voltage. The battery has completed 3441 cycles. A reconditioning procedure that consisted of C15 charge to a taper current of C/100 and C/20 discharge improved the voltage behavior of SAFT and MSA cells with no significant effect on YTP cells. We have demonstrated that the charge operation with VT clamp at battery rather than at cell level is feasible for onboard Li-Ion battery operation.

Rao, Gopalakrishna M.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Performance Assessment of LunaNet’s Augmented Forward Signal

LunaNet provides a common set of interoperable specifications for communication and position, navigation and time (PNT) services and interfaces soon to be implemented in lunar vicinity. The LunaNet Interoperability Specification (LNIS) provides the design for the GNSS-like Augmented Forward Signal (AFS), which enables orbiting and surface users in lunar space, such as Artemis, to estimate their position, velocity, and time. The specification of AFS defines two orthogonal signal components on a single carrier: the in-phase component (AFS-I), a lower-chip-rate data channel tailored for applications where low SWaP (Size, Weight, and Power) is critical (e.g., IoT devices or search and rescue), and the quadrature component (AFS-Q), a high-chip-rate data-less pilot signal for high-precision, robust lunar navigation and positioning applications. An initial description of AFS was provided in LNIS 2023, with initial analysis results shown in Dafesh 2024 and Dafesh 2025, and the current signal in space description provided in LNIS 2025. As part of NASA's Lunar Communication Relay and Navigation Systems (LCRNS) project, this work expands upon the initial analysis results and proposes a new expanded set of AFS-Q spreading codes that exceed the cross-correlation and autocorrelation sidelobe performance of L1C and other GNSS signals, while providing additional expansion capabilities for future service satellites. A set of 420 codes was selected from a Weil-based code derived from the prime number 10247, which is larger than the 10243 prime number used to derive BeiDou’s B1C Weil sequences. Both the initial set of 210 codes and the expanded set of 420 codes are shown to provide the best cross-correlation of any 10230-chip satellite navigation codes. The performance is demonstrated for hierarchical sets of spreading codes optimized and organized in sets of 30 codes. The work also compares LunaNet’s AFS to terrestrial GNSS signals in terms of acquisition, tracking, and data demodulation performance. Performance is evaluated for receivers that only track the 1.023 MCPS data channel spreading code for low SWaP IoT use cases, as well as for receivers that track both the 1.023 MCPS data channel and the 5.115 MCPS pilot channel spreading code for high-performance use cases. Performance is assessed in the presence of interference and thermal noise. The analysis is performed in terms of expected operating conditions on the lunar surface. Several unique flexibility aspects of the augmented forward signal are described, including the use of the Q channel’s secondary and tertiary codes to enable variable coherent integrations during acquisition. This is compared to GNSS signals such as L5/E5 and MBOC in terms of achievable processing gain for interference mitigation versus acquisition complexity. The work details acquisition and tracking techniques used to optimally acquire and track the primary, secondary, and tertiary codes on the Q channel, as well as acquisition of the I channel spreading code. Acquisition of the 8 ms, Q channel spreading code is also compared to joint acquisition of the I and Q channel primary codes in noise and interference environments

LCRNS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Performance Assessment of LunaNet’s Augmented Forward Signal

LunaNet provides a common set of interoperable specifications for communication and position, navigation and time (PNT) services and interfaces soon to be implemented in lunar vicinity. The LunaNet Interoperability Specification (LNIS) provides the design for the GNSS-like Augmented Forward Signal (AFS), which enables orbiting and surface users in lunar space, such as Artemis, to estimate their position, velocity, and time. The specification of AFS defines two orthogonal signal components on a single carrier: the in-phase component (AFS-I), a lower-chip-rate data channel tailored for applications where low SWaP (Size, Weight, and Power) is critical (e.g., IoT devices or search and rescue), and the quadrature component (AFS-Q), a high-chip-rate data-less pilot signal for high-precision, robust lunar navigation and positioning applications. An initial description of AFS was provided in [1], with initial analysis results shown in [2] and [3] and the current signal in space description provided in [4]. As part of NASA's Lunar Communication Relay and Navigation Systems (LCRNS) project, this work expands upon the initial analysis results and proposes a new expanded set of AFS-Q spreading codes that exceed the cross-correlation and autocorrelation sidelobe performance of L1C and other GNSS signals, while providing additional expansion capabilities for future provider satellites. A set of 420 codes was selected from a Weil-based code derived from the prime number 10247, which is larger than the 10243 prime number used to derive Beidou’s B1C Weil sequences. Both the initial set of 210 codes and the expanded set of 420 codes are shown to provide the best cross-correlation of any 10230-chip satellite navigation codes. The performance is demonstrated for hierarchical sets of spreading codes optimized and organized in sets of 30 codes. The new codes were developed using an optimization approach and correlation methodology described in [5]. The work also compares LunaNet’s AFS to terrestrial GNSS signals in terms of acquisition, tracking, and data demodulation performance. Performance is evaluated for receivers that only track the 1.023 MCPS data channel spreading code for low SWaP IoT use cases, as well as for receivers that track both the 1.023 MCPS data channel and the 5.115 MCPS pilot channel spreading code for high-performance use cases. Performance is assessed in the presence of interference and thermal noise. The analysis is performed in terms of expected operating conditions on the lunar surface. Several unique flexibility aspects of the augmented forward signal are described, including the use of the Q channel’s secondary and tertiary codes to enable variable coherent integrations during acquisition. This is compared to GNSS signals such as L5/E5 and MBOC in terms of achievable processing gain for interference mitigation versus acquisition complexity. The work details acquisition and tracking techniques used to optimally acquire and track the primary, secondary, and tertiary codes on the Q channel, as well as acquisition of the I channel spreading code. Acquisition of the 8 ms Q channel spreading code is also compared to joint acquisition of the I and Q channel primary codes in noise and interference environments.

LCRNS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ARCTRON: A Rapid Experimental Proving Ground for TPS Experiments and Arcjet Technology Development

Innovation in high-enthalpy facilities is fundamentally limited by the cost and risk of experimentation. New concepts for plasma control, diagnostics, facility components, and plasma-material interaction often require repeated iterations that are impractical to perform in production arcjets. As a result, promising ideas may remain unexplored or reach operational facilities only after significant development effort. ARCTRON is being developed as a rapid experimental proving ground where new ideas in plasma science, arcjet engineering, diagnostics, and material response can be conceived, tested, and quantitatively evaluated before transition to large-scale facilities. The platform combines radio-frequency (RF) and DC arc plasma generation, externally applied magnetic fields, configurable gas composition, reduced-pressure operation, laser heating, electrical biasing, and modular diagnostic access. These capabilities permit the plasma source, applied forcing, test article, and measurement configuration to be modified independently, allowing individual physical mechanisms to be isolated more readily than in a traditional test environment. One class of investigations addresses fundamental plasma-surface interaction physics. Conventional material tests often expose a specimen simultaneously to convective heating, reactive species, pressure, shear, radiation, and surface-current effects. The resulting material response may be measured accurately, while the contribution of each mechanism remains difficult to identify. ARCTRON is designed to vary these effects selectively. Plasma chemistry can be changed independently through configurable gas mixtures; magnetic fields and electrical biasing can modify charged-particle transport; laser heating can provide a non-plasma thermal input; and pressure, flow, and discharge mode can be varied over a broad operating space. This enables controlled tests of hypotheses involving surface catalycity, reactive-species transport, plasma-assisted oxidation, electromagnetic effects, shear, and the relative contributions of thermal and chemical loading. A second class of investigations enabled by this approach concerns the engineering of high-enthalpy facilities themselves. Arc-heated facilities are limited by electrode erosion, unstable arc attachment, localized heating, and damage to nozzles and other plasma-facing components. ARCTRON provides a lower-cost environment for testing concepts intended to mitigate these limitations. Candidate investigations include the use of applied magnetic fields to alter current paths and reduce plasma interaction with nozzle walls, ExB forcing to introduce controlled plasma rotation, magnetic or geometric approaches for distributing arc attachment, and alternative electrode or discharge configurations intended to reduce erosion and improve stability. Because the platform is reconfigurable, these concepts can be evaluated through repeated design--build--test cycles before they are considered for implementation in operational facilities. The platform also supports the development and validation of diagnostics that may be difficult to introduce initially into a large arcjet. Current and planned measurements include spatially resolved optical emission spectroscopy, electrostatic probes, fast imaging, pyrometry, calorimetry, laser-induced fluorescence, and absorption spectroscopy. These diagnostics are intended not merely to document a nominal operating condition, but to constrain the local plasma state and its relationship to component or material response. The modular facility geometry allows diagnostic concepts to be tested, calibrated, and compared under repeatable conditions before deployment in more demanding environments. ARCTRON is also supported by an integrated software suite. Automated control and data acquisition allow discharge parameters, gas composition, magnetic fields, diagnostic timing, and test configuration to be recorded as part of each experiment (STARDAC - Software for Testing, Analysis, Research Data, and Control). The Backend for Experiment Analysis, Storage, and Traceability (BEAST) is a database that provides the infrastructure needed to associate heterogeneous measurements with facility configuration, specimen identity, calibration state, geometry, and analysis provenance. This backend is particularly important for exploratory campaigns, in which many related configurations may be tested, and the value of an individual experiment depends on its connection to earlier and subsequent iterations. Complementary analysis capabilities, including computer-vision-based transient response measurements (arcjetCV), three-dimensional surface reconstruction (STARSCAN), and model-based Bayesian inference (SHIELD), and tomography data analysis (TOMATO, PuMA) can be incorporated when required by a specific hypothesis without becoming the focus of every campaign. The central objective of ARCTRON is therefore not to maximize heat flux or reproduce a complete flight environment. Its purpose is to reduce the cost and time required to ask consequential questions about plasma behavior, plasma-facing materials, diagnostics, and arcjet technology. By providing a controlled environment for rapid reconfiguration, mechanism isolation, quantitative measurement, and iterative engineering, ARCTRON can help mature concepts that would otherwise remain too speculative or too risky for evaluation in production facilities. The resulting knowledge can then guide the design of material models, focus test objectives in larger arcjets, reduce facility-development risk, and improve the physical basis of high-enthalpy ground testing. This work will present the ARCTRON architecture, operating modes, diagnostic suite, and digital experimental workflow. Initial experimental results from the first integrated operation of the facility will be presented, including flow characterization, power limitations, and deployment of the initial diagnostic suite. Ongoing development efforts aimed at catalycity characterization, magnetic plasma control, and advanced optical diagnostics will also be discussed, illustrating how the platform supports rapid iteration from concept to experiment.

experimental diagnostics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ARCTRON: A Rapid Experimental Proving Ground for TPS Experiments and Arcjet Technology Development

Innovation in high-enthalpy facilities is fundamentally limited by the cost and risk of experimentation. New concepts for plasma control, diagnostics, facility components, and plasma-material interaction often require repeated iterations that are impractical to perform in production arcjets. As a result, promising ideas may remain unexplored or reach operational facilities only after significant development effort. ARCTRON is being developed as a rapid experimental proving ground where new ideas in plasma science, arcjet engineering, diagnostics, and material response can be conceived, tested, and quantitatively evaluated before transition to large-scale facilities. The platform combines radio-frequency (RF) and DC arc plasma generation, externally applied magnetic fields, configurable gas composition, reduced-pressure operation, laser heating, electrical biasing, and modular diagnostic access. These capabilities permit the plasma source, applied forcing, test article, and measurement configuration to be modified independently, allowing individual physical mechanisms to be isolated more readily than in a traditional test environment. One class of investigations addresses fundamental plasma-surface interaction physics. Conventional material tests often expose a specimen simultaneously to convective heating, reactive species, pressure, shear, radiation, and surface-current effects. The resulting material response may be measured accurately, while the contribution of each mechanism remains difficult to identify. ARCTRON is designed to vary these effects selectively. Plasma chemistry can be changed independently through configurable gas mixtures; magnetic fields and electrical biasing can modify charged-particle transport; laser heating can provide a non-plasma thermal input; and pressure, flow, and discharge mode can be varied over a broad operating space. This enables controlled tests of hypotheses involving surface catalycity, reactive-species transport, plasma-assisted oxidation, electromagnetic effects, shear, and the relative contributions of thermal and chemical loading. A second class of investigations enabled by this approach concerns the engineering of high-enthalpy facilities themselves. Arc-heated facilities are limited by electrode erosion, unstable arc attachment, localized heating, and damage to nozzles and other plasma-facing components. ARCTRON provides a lower-cost environment for testing concepts intended to mitigate these limitations. Candidate investigations include the use of applied magnetic fields to alter current paths and reduce plasma interaction with nozzle walls, ExB forcing to introduce controlled plasma rotation, magnetic or geometric approaches for distributing arc attachment, and alternative electrode or discharge configurations intended to reduce erosion and improve stability. Because the platform is reconfigurable, these concepts can be evaluated through repeated design--build--test cycles before they are considered for implementation in operational facilities. The platform also supports the development and validation of diagnostics that may be difficult to introduce initially into a large arcjet. Current and planned measurements include spatially resolved optical emission spectroscopy, electrostatic probes, fast imaging, pyrometry, calorimetry, laser-induced fluorescence, and absorption spectroscopy. These diagnostics are intended not merely to document a nominal operating condition, but to constrain the local plasma state and its relationship to component or material response. The modular facility geometry allows diagnostic concepts to be tested, calibrated, and compared under repeatable conditions before deployment in more demanding environments. ARCTRON is also supported by an integrated software suite. Automated control and data acquisition allow discharge parameters, gas composition, magnetic fields, diagnostic timing, and test configuration to be recorded as part of each experiment (STARDAC - Software for Testing, Analysis, Research Data, and Control). The Backend for Experiment Analysis, Storage, and Traceability (BEAST) is a database that provides the infrastructure needed to associate heterogeneous measurements with facility configuration, specimen identity, calibration state, geometry, and analysis provenance. This backend is particularly important for exploratory campaigns, in which many related configurations may be tested, and the value of an individual experiment depends on its connection to earlier and subsequent iterations. Complementary analysis capabilities, including computer-vision-based transient response measurements (arcjetCV), three-dimensional surface reconstruction (STARSCAN), and model-based Bayesian inference (SHIELD), and tomography data analysis (TOMATO, PuMA) can be incorporated when required by a specific hypothesis without becoming the focus of every campaign. The central objective of ARCTRON is therefore not to maximize heat flux or reproduce a complete flight environment. Its purpose is to reduce the cost and time required to ask consequential questions about plasma behavior, plasma-facing materials, diagnostics, and arcjet technology. By providing a controlled environment for rapid reconfiguration, mechanism isolation, quantitative measurement, and iterative engineering, ARCTRON can help mature concepts that would otherwise remain too speculative or too risky for evaluation in production facilities. The resulting knowledge can then guide the design of material models, focus test objectives in larger arcjets, reduce facility-development risk, and improve the physical basis of high-enthalpy ground testing. This work will present the ARCTRON architecture, operating modes, diagnostic suite, and digital experimental workflow. Initial experimental results from the first integrated operation of the facility will be presented, including flow characterization, power limitations, and deployment of the initial diagnostic suite. Ongoing development efforts aimed at catalycity characterization, magnetic plasma control, and advanced optical diagnostics will also be discussed, illustrating how the platform supports rapid iteration from concept to experiment.

experimental diagnostics↗