SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Technical Standard”

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 181 records · Page 10

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2000

American National Standards: The Consensus Process

Since the early 20th Century, technical and professional societies have developed standards within their areas of expertise addressing aspects of their industries which they feel would benefit from a degree of standardization. From the beginning, the use of these standards was strictly voluntary. It did not take jurisdictional authorities long, however, to recognize that application of these voluntary standards enhanced public safety, as well as leveling the playing field in trade. Hence, laws were passed mandating their use. Purchasers of goods and services also recognized the advantages of standardization, and began requiring the use of standards in their procurement contracts. But how do jurisdictions and purchasers know that the standard they are mandating is a broad-based industry standard, or a narrowly focused set of rules which only apply to one company or institution, thereby giving them an unfair advantage? The answer is "consensus", and a unified approach in achieving it.

Schafer, Thom↗

NASA NTRS2019

Implementation of Cross-Agency Nuclear Applications

The Radioisotope Power System (RPS) Program was established in 2009 to manage RPS investments for NASA to ensure the availability of RPS for the exploration of the solar system in environments where conventional solar or chemical power generation is impractical or impossible. The RPS Program is a multi-center and multi-agency program. NASA is in partnership with the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy to provide technologically robust nuclear power system solutions to robotic spacecraft and exploration missions. During the last decade, the RPS Program and DOE have supported missions, developed technologies and initiated new power system developments. These technical areas, as all technical areas, have challenges and standard engineering solutions; however, clearing the path to enable the technical work requires agreements to be established. This paper describes a process by which two governmental agencies have established a successful basis to accomplish the needed work.

Zakrajsek, June F.↗

DOE OSTI2025

Bioremediation of Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds: DOE Experiences and Lessons Learned

From the mid-1980s to the present, the Department of Energy (DOE) has developed, tested, and deployed diverse bioremediation strategies for chlorinated volatile organic compounds (cVOCs). A systematic review of these projects after decades of activity provides an opportunity to identify crosscutting themes and lessons learned. The knowledge provided by a DOE bioremediation retrospective represents a resource to support current and future bioremediation operations, and future decisions related to cVOC bioremediation. This systematic review examined the design, objectives, performance and outcomes for remediation projects at DOE sites including Savannah River, Hanford, Idaho, Mound and Pinellas. The results were used to identify emergent themes to provide actionable insights. The bioremediation retrospective technical team first developed standardized criteria to support the systematic review. Then, the evaluation was performed using a sequential process that was informed by local technical experts who identified and provided the structured information that served as the basis for the evaluation. The participation of these experts was invaluable to the effort. Importantly, DOE cVOC bioremediation efforts were implemented based on the foundational knowledge developed by U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) strategic and applied environmental technology development and certification programs, as well as technical, policy and regulatory guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), industry, and universities. To maximize the value of the DOE cVOC bioremediation retrospective, the systematic review strategy focused on identifying important DOE-specific experiences, trends and lessons learned that would extend the knowledge available from these other key entities.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

NASA NTRS2006

Requirements and Techniques for Developing and Measuring Simulant Materials

The 1989 workshop report entitled Workshop on Production and Uses of Simulated Lunar Materials and the Lunar Regolith Simulant Materials: Recommendations for Standardization, Production, and Usage, NASA Technical Publication identify and reinforced a need for a set of standards and requirements for the production and usage of the lunar simulant materials. As NASA need prepares to return to the moon, a set of requirements have been developed for simulant materials and methods to produce and measure those simulants have been defined. Addressed in the requirements document are: 1) a method for evaluating the quality of any simulant of a regolith, 2) the minimum Characteristics for simulants of lunar regolith, and 3) a method to produce lunar regolith simulants needed for NASA's exploration mission. A method to evaluate new and current simulants has also been rigorously defined through the mathematics of Figures of Merit (FoM), a concept new to simulant development. A single FoM is conceptually an algorithm defining a single characteristic of a simulant and provides a clear comparison of that characteristic for both the simulant and a reference material. Included as an intrinsic part of the algorithm is a minimum acceptable performance for the characteristic of interest. The algorithms for the FoM for Standard Lunar Regolith Simulants are also explicitly keyed to a recommended method to make lunar simulants.

Rickman, Doug↗

NASA NTRS2015

Human System Risk Management for Space Flight

This brief abstract reviews the development of the current day approach to human system risk management for space flight and the development of the critical components of this process over the past few years. The human system risk management process now provides a comprehensive assessment of each human system risk by design reference mission (DRM) and is evaluated not only for mission success but also for long‐term health impacts for the astronauts. The discipline of bioastronautics is the study of the biological and medical effects of space flight on humans. In 1997, the Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD) initiated the Bioastronautics Roadmap (Roadmap) as the "Critical Path Roadmap", and in 1998 participation in the roadmap was expanded to include the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) and the external community. A total of 55 risks and 250 questions were identified and prioritized and in 2000, the Roadmap was base-lined and put under configuration control. The Roadmap took into account several major advisory committee reviews including the Institute of Medicine (IOM) "Safe Passage: Astronaut care for Exploration Missions", 2001. Subsequently, three collaborating organizations at NASA HQ (Chief Health and Medical Officer, Office of Space Flight and Office of Biological & Physical Research), published the Bioastronautics Strategy in 2003, that identified the human as a "critical subsystem of space flight" and noted that "tolerance limits and safe operating bands must be established" to enable human space flight. These offices also requested a review by the IOM of the Roadmap and that review was published in October 2005 as "A Risk Reduction Strategy for Human Exploration of Space: A Review of NASA's Bioastronautics Roadmap", that noted several strengths and weaknesses of the Roadmap and made several recommendations. In parallel with the development of the Roadmap, the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) began a process in 2004 of evaluating the tolerance limits and safe operating bands called for in the Bioastronautics Strategy. Over the next several years, the concept of the "operating bands" were turned into Space Flight Human System Standards (SFHSS), developed by the technical resources of the SLSD at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). These standards were developed and reviewed at the SLSD and then presented to the OCHMO for acceptance. The first set of standards was published in 2007 as the NASA‐STD‐3001, Volume 1, Crew Health that elaborated standards for several physiological areas such as cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, radiation exposure and nutrition. Volume 2, Human Factors, Habitability and Human Health was published in 2011, along with development guidance in the Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH). Taken together, the SFHSS Volumes 1 and 2, and the HIDH replaced the NASA‐STD‐3000 with new standards and revisions of the older document. Three other changes were also taking place that facilitated the development of the human system risk management approach. In 2005, the life sciences research and development portfolio underwent a comprehensive review through the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) that resulted in the reformulation of the Bioastronautics Program into Human Research Program (HRP) that was focused on appropriate mitigation results for high priority human health risks. The baseline HRP budget was established in August 2005. In addition, the OCHMO formulated the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) in 2006 that established the position of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) at the NASA JSC along with other key technical disciplines, and the OCHMO became the responsible office for the SFHSS as noted above. The final change was the establishment in 2008 of the Human System Risk Board (HSRB), chaired by the CMO with representation from the HRP, SLSD management and technical experts. The HSRB then began to review all human system risks, established a comprehensive risk management and configuration management plan and data sharing policy. These major developments of standards, the HRP, the HMTA and a forum for review of human system risks (HSRB) facilitated the integration of human research, medical operations, systems engineering and many other disciplines in the comprehensive review of human system risks. The HSRB began a comprehensive review of all potential inflight medical conditions and events and over the course of several reviews consolidated the number of human system risks to 30 where the greatest emphasis is placed for investing program dollars for risk mitigation. The HSRB considers all available evidence from human research, medical operations and occupational surveillance in assessing the risks for appropriate mitigation and future work. All applicable DRMs (low earth orbit 6 and 12 months, deep space sortie for 30 days and 1 year, a one year lunar mission, and a planetary mission for 3 years) are considered as human system risks are modified by the hazards associated with space flight such as microgravity, exposure to radiation, distance from the earth, isolation and a closed environment. Each risk has a summary assessment representing the state of knowledge/evidence base for that risk, the available risk mitigations, traceability to the SFHSS and program requirements, and future work required. These data then can drive coordinated budgets across the HRP, the International Space Station, Crew Health and Safety and Advanced Exploration System budgets. These risk assessments were completed for 6 DRMs in December of 2014 and serve as the baseline for which subsequent research and technology development and crew health care portfolios can be assessed. The HSRB will review each risk at least annually and especially when new information is available that must be considered for effective risk mitigation. The current status of each risk can be reported to program management for operations, budget reviews and general oversight of the human system risk management program.

Davis, Jeffrey↗

NASA NTRS2007

Quantitative Technique for Comparing Simulant Materials through Figures of Merit

The 1989 workshop report entitled Workshop on Production and Uses of Simulated Lunar Materials and the Lunar Regolith Simulant Materials: Recommendations for Standardization, Production, and Usage, NASA Technical Publication both identified and reinforced a need for a set of standards and requirements for the production and usage of the Lunar simulant materials. As NASA prepares to return to the Moon, and set out to Mars, a set of early requirements have been developed for simulant materials and the initial methods to produce and measure those simulants have been defined. Addressed in the requirements document are: 1) a method for evaluating the quality of any simulant of a regolith, 2) the minimum characteristics for simulants of Lunar regolith, and 3) a method to produce simulants needed for NASA's Exploration mission. As an extension of the requirements document a method to evaluate new and current simulants has been rigorously defined through the mathematics of Figures of Merit (FoM). Requirements and techniques have been developed that allow the simulant provider to compare their product to a standard reference material through Figures of Merit. Standard reference material may be physical material such as the Apollo core samples or material properties predicted for any landing site. The simulant provider is not restricted to providing a single "high fidelity" simulant, which may be costly to produce. The provider can now develop "lower fidelity" simulants for engineering applications such as drilling and mobility applications.

Rickman, Doug↗

NASA NTRS2011

Standards and Specifications for Ground Processing of Space Vehicles: From an Aviation-Based Shuttle Project to Global Application

Proprietary or unique designs and operations are expected early in any industry's development, and often provide a competitive early market advantage. However, there comes a time when a product or industry requires standardization for the whole industry to advance...or survive. For the space industry, that time has come. Here, we will focus on standardization of ground processing for space vehicles and their ground systems. With the retirement of the Space Shuttle, and emergence of a new global space race, affordability and sustainability are more important now than ever. The growing commercialization of the space industry and current global economic environment are driving greater need for efficiencies to save time and money. More RLV's (Reusable Launch Vehicles) are being developed for the gains of reusability not achievable with traditional ELV's (Expendable Launch Vehicles). More crew/passenger vehicles are also being developed. All of this calls for more attention needed for ground processing-repeatedly before launch and after landing/recovery. RLV's should provide more efficiencies than ELV's, as long as MRO (Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul) is well-planned-even for the unplanned problems. NASA's Space Shuttle is a primary example of an RLV which was supposed to thrive on reusability savings with efficient ground operations, but lessons learned show that costs were (and still are) much greater than expected. International standards and specifications can provide the commonality needed to simplify design and manufacturing as well as to improve safety, quality, maintenance, and operability. There are standards organizations engaged in the space industry, but ground processing is one of the areas least addressed. Challenges are encountered due to various factors often not considered during development. Multiple vehicle elements, sites, customers, and contractors pose various functional and integration difficulties. Resulting technical publication structures and methods are incongruent. Some processing products are still done on paper, some electronic, and many being converted in between. Business systems then are not fully compatible, and paper as well as electronic conversions are time-consuming and costly. NASA and its Shuttle contractors setup rules and systems to handle what has produced over 130 RLV launches, but they have had many challenges. Attempts have been made to apply aviation industry specifications to make the Shuttle more efficient with its ground processing. One efficiency project example was to make a Shuttle Maintenance Manual (SMM) based on the commercial ATA (Air Transport Association of America) Spec 100 for technical publications. This industry standard, along with others, has been a foundation for efficient global MRO of commercial airlines for years. A modified version was also made for some military aircraft. The SMM project found many similarities in Spec 100 which apply to the Shuttle, and room for expansion for space systems/structures not in aircraft. The SMM project team met with the ATA and representatives from NASA's X-33 and X-34 programs to discuss collaboration on a national space standard based on Spec 100. A pilot project was enabled for a subset of Shuttle systems. Full implementation was not yet achieved, X-33 and X-34 were cancelled, and the Shuttles were then designated for retirement. Nonetheless, we can learn from this project how to expand this concept to all space vehicle products. Since then, ATA has joined with ASD (AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe) and AIA (Aerospace Industries Association) to form a much-enhanced and expanded international specification: Sl000D, International Specification for Technical Publications. It includes air, land, and sea vehicles, missiles, support equipment, ordnance, and communications. It is used by a growing number of countries for commercial and government products. Its modular design is supported by a Common Source Dabase (CSDB), and COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) software is available for production of IETP's (Interactive Electronic Technical Publications). A few space industry products in Europe have begun to apply Sl000D already. Also, there are other related standards/specifications which have global implications. We have an opportunity to adapt Sl000D and possibly other standards for use with space vehicles and ground systems. Sl000D has plenty of flexibility to apply to any product needed. To successfully grow the viability of the space industry, all members, commercial and government, will need to engage cooperatively in developing and applying standards to move toward interoperability. If we leverage and combine the best existing space standards and specifications, develop new ones to address known gaps, and adapt the best applicable features from other industries, we can establish an infrastructure to not only accelerate current development, but also build longevity for a more cohesive international space community.

Ingalls, John↗

NASA NTRS2013

AeroMACS System Characterization and Demonstrations

This The Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communications System (AeroMACS) is being developed to provide a new broadband wireless communications capability for safety critical communications in the airport surface domain, providing connectivity to aircraft and other ground vehicles as well as connections between other critical airport fixed assets. AeroMACS development has progressed from requirements definition through technology definition, prototype deployment and testing, and now into national and international standards development. The first prototype AeroMACS system has been deployed at the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (CLE) and the adjacent NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC). During the past 3 years, extensive technical testing has taken place to characterize the performance of the AeroMACS prototype and provide technical support for the standards development process. The testing has characterized AeroMACS link and network performance over a variety of conditions for both fixed and mobile data transmission and has included basic system performance testing and fixed and mobile applications testing. This paper provides a summary of the AeroMACS performance testing and the status of standardization activities that the testing supports.

Kerczewski, Robert J.↗

NASA NTRS2013

AeroMACS System Characterization and Demonstrations

The Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communications System (AeroMACS) is being developed to provide a new broadband wireless communications capability for safety critical communications in the airport surface domain, providing connectivity to aircraft and other ground vehicles as well as connections between other critical airport fixed assets. AeroMACS development has progressed from requirements definition through technology definition, prototype deployment and testing, and now into national and international standards development. The first prototype AeroMACS system has been deployed at the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (CLE) and the adjacent NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC). During the past three years, extensive technical testing has taken place to characterize the performance of the AeroMACS prototype and provide technical support for the standards development process. The testing has characterized AeroMACS link and network performance over a variety of conditions for both fixed and mobile data transmission and has included basic system performance testing and fixed and mobile applications testing. This paper provides a summary of the AeroMACS performance testing and the status of standardization activities that the testing supports.

Kerczewski, Robert J.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Interim Set of TNT Curves for LOX/LNG Explosions

Space launch companies are actively developing, or in some cases have already developed, new vehicles that use large quantities of liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid natural gas (LNG) propellants. This propellant mixture currently lacks sound/verified LOX/LNG explosive safety standards for use in explosive siting and flight safety analysis. In the U.S., multiple government and commercial organizations have conducted limited testing, or are preparing to conduct tests, intended to provide a sound technical basis for explosive standards applicable to space launch vehicle ground and flight operations. The limited testing and analysis conducted so far indicates the potential to produce extremely energetic explosions due to the miscibility of LOX/LNG (methane), a unique feature relative to previously used propellant mixtures such as hydrogen/oxygen or kerosene/oxygen. MOX is a homogenous mixture of methane and oxygen that is possible because of methane’s 100% miscibility in LOX. Preliminary testing by N2L, Inc. described in this paper shows that it is possible to form MOX with a variety of mixing methods, and that MOX is a sensitive high explosive capable of producing overpressures greater than comparable masses of C-4. The limited amount and quality of large-scale LOX/LNG explosive test data, and the potential formation of high-explosive MOX, create significant unknowns in the determination of hazard areas (cleared of the public) for ground operations (such as a static fire test) and flights of launch vehicles with LOX/LNG propellant. This paper will review the methods used by NASA to develop and validate the LOX/LH2 blast model using large-scale explosive test programs such as Project PYRO, the Hydrogen-Oxygen Vertical Impact (HOVI), and the Large-Scale Hydrogen-Oxygen Explosion (LSHOE) tests. This paper will describe how the same process was used to prepare an interim LOX/LNG blast model that applies to various LV failure scenarios and conservatively accounts for potential MOX formation. This paper also summarizes past and future testing and modeling efforts funded by a consortium of NASA, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the US Space Force (USSF). These test programs should be concluded within the next 3 years and are intended to provide empirical data for model verification and validation.

Liquid Oxygen↗

NASA NTRS2007

Joint Test Report For Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) have similar missions and therefore similar facilities and structures in similar environments. The standard practice for protecting metallic substrates in atmospheric environments is the application of an applied coating system. The most common topcoats used in coating systems are polyurethanes that contain isocyanates. Isocyanates are classified as potential human carcinogens and are known to cause cancer in animals. The primary objective of this effort was to demonstrate and validate alternatives to aliphatic isocyanate polyurethanes resulting in one or more isocyanate-free coatings qualified for use at AFSPC and NASA installations participating in this project. This joint Test Report (JTR) documents the results of the laboratory and field testing as well as any test modifications made during the execution of the testing. The technical stakeholders agreed upon test procedure modifications documented in this document. This JTR is made available as a reference for future pollution prevention endeavors by other NASA centers, the Department of Defense and commercial users to minimize duplication of effort. All coating system candidates were tested using approved NASA and AFSPC standard coating systems as experimental controls. This study looked at eight alternative coating systems and two control coating systems and was divided into Phase I Screening Tests, Phase II Tests, and Field Testing. The Phase I Screening Tests were preliminary tests performed on all the selected candidate coating systems. Candidate coating systems that did not meet the acceptance criteria of the screening tests were eliminated from further testing. Phase I Screening Tests included: Ease of Application, Surface Appearance, Dry-To-Touch (Sanding), Accelerated Storage Stability, Pot Life (Viscosity), Cure Time (Solvent Rubs), Cleanability, Knife Test, Tensile (pull-off) Adhesion, and X-Cut Adhesion by Wet Tape After a review of the Phase I test results, four of the alternative coating systems showed substandard performance in relation to the Control Systems and were eliminated from the Phase II testing. Due to the interest of stakeholders and time constraints, however, all eight alternatives were subjected to the following Phase II tests, along with field testing at Stennis Space Center (SSC), Mississippi: Hypergol Compatibility, Liquid Oxygen Compatibility, 18-Month Marine Exposure (Gloss Retention, Color Retention, Blistering, Visual Corrosion, Creepage from Scribe, Heat Adhesion), and Field Exposure (6- and 12-month Evaluation for Coating Condition, Color Retention, Gloss Retention). The remaining four alternative coating systems determined to be the best viable alternatives were carried on to Phase II testing that included: Removability, Repairability, Abrasion Resistance, Gravelometer, Fungus Resistance, Accelerated Weathering, Mandrel Bend Flexibility, and Cyclic Corrosion Resistance. Of the systems that continued to Phase II, three (3) alternative coating systems meet the performance requirements as identified by stakeholders. Two (2) other systems, that were not included in Phase II testing, performed well enough on the 18-Month Marine Exposure, the primary requirement for NASA technical standard NASA-STD-5008, Protective Coating of Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, and Aluminum on Launch Structures, Facilities, and Ground Support Equipment, that they were also considered to be successful candidates. In total, five (5) alternative coating systems were approved for inclusion in the NASA-STD- 5008 Qualified Products List (QPL). The standard is intended to provide a common framework for consistent practices across NASA and is often used by other entities. The standard's QPL does not connote endorsement of the products by NASA, but lists those products that have been tested and meet the requirements as specified.

Lewis, Pattie↗

DOE OSTI1995

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 36, No. 1, January-June 1995]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. THE CHORNOBYL ACCIDENT: 1 The Chornobyl Accident Revisited, Part II: The State of the Nuclear Fuel Located Within the Chornobyl Sarcophagus, A A. Borovoi and A. R. Sich; GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 33 Nuclear Power Safety in Central and Eastern Europe, R. Wilson; 46 Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors in the Former Eastern European Countries, S. Chakraborty; 53 Technical Note: On the Definition of Common-Cause Failures, H. Paula; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 58 Modeling and Analysis of Core-Debris Recriticality During Hypothetical Severe Accidents in the Advanced Neutron Source Reactor, S.-H. Kim, V. Georgevich, D. B. Simpson, C. O. Slater, and R. P. Taleyarkhan; 68 Ignitability of Hydrogen/Oxygen/Diluent Mixtures in the Presence of Hot Surfaces, R. K. Kumar and G. W. Koroll; 94 Coupled RELAP5 and CONTAIN Accident Analysis Using PVM, K. A. Smith, A. J. Baratta, and G. E. Robinson; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 109 Application of Fuzzy Logic in Nuclear Reactor Control Part I: An Assessment of State-of-the-Art, A. S. Heger, N. K. Alang-Rashid, and M. Jamshidi; DESIGN FEATURES: 122 Twenty-Third DOE/NRC Nuclear Air-Cleaning and Treatment Conference, R. R. Bellamy, J. J. Hayes, and M. W. First; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 135 Atmospheric Dispersion and the Radiological Consequences of Normal Airborne Effluents from a Nuclear Power Plant, D. Fang, C. Z. Sun, and L. Yang; 142 Calculation of Distribution Coefficients for Radionuclides in Soils and Sediments, I. Puigdomenech and U. Bergstrom: OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 155 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 158 Operating Experience Feedback Report—Reliability of Safety-Related Steam Turbine-Driven Standby Pumps Used in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, J. R. Boardman; 166 Turbine Building Hazards, H. L Ornstein; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 169 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 175 Proposed Rule Changes as of Dec. 31,1994; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 32 Harvard School of Public Health In-Place Filter Testing Workshop; 134 International Conference on Advances in the Operational Safety of Nuclear Power Plants; 193 30th Tennessee Industries Week; 193 DOE Technical Standards Program 1995 Workshop; 194 Multiphase Flow Experiments and Instrumentation; 180 The Authors; 185 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volumes 34 and 35.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Elevating the Quality of Space Omics Sequencing Data: Innovations and Methodologies from NASA GeneLab Sample Processing Laboratory

NASA’s GeneLab, part of the NASA Open Science Data Repository, is a space-related database that hosts a diverse range of transcriptomics, proteomics, epigenomics and genomics data. The NASA GeneLab Sample Processing Laboratory (SPL) generates omics data from biological experiments conducted aboard the International Space Station, Space Shuttle and space related ground experiments, this omics data then hosted on the GeneLab repository. Samples generated such experiments pose numerous technical challenges such as small experimental sample size, variance in dissection times, limited tissue preservation methods, prolonged storage time, and more. GeneLab SPL team had developed specialized expertise in nucleic acid extraction, library preparation and sequencing of such biological samples via extensive training and years of experience. In order to ensure data accuracy and consistency across experiments, SPL has developed standardized protocols for each species and tissue type. These protocols in conjunction with quality control metrics and data standards are crucial in generating of high-quality data. SPL protocols and standards have been developed in collaboration with the scientific community and had been made publicly available on the GeneLab portal, guaranteeing comparability of datasets across spaceflight experiments. To ensure reliability of data generation, SPL leverages cutting-edge innovations in laboratory automation for sample processing. By leveraging these state-of-the-art platforms, SPL achieves high levels of data reproducibility while significantly minimizing sources of bias and variability, especially across experiments with large numbers of samples. Over the past few years, the space biology investigator community has accessed SPL-generated data from the Open Science Data Repository for a myriad of data re-analysis and re-use studies. We observe a trend that in-house SPL-generated data consistently outperforms outsourced sequencing data in terms of technical standards, quality control metrics, timeliness of data delivery, and sequencing and reagent efficiency. Superior data generation has and will continue to enable discoveries in disease, diagnostic tools, and the biological effects of long duration spaceflight.

GeneLab↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Elevating the Quality of Space Omics Sequencing Data: Innovations and Methodologies from NASA GeneLab Sample Processing Laboratory

GeneLab↗

NASA NTRS1993

Definition of spacecraft standard interfaces by the NASA Space Assembly and Servicing Working Group (SASWG)

The purpose of the NASA Space Assembly and Servicing Working Group (SASWG) is to study enabling technologies for on-orbit spacecraft maintenance and servicing. One key technology required for effective space logistics activity is the development of standard spacecraft interfaces, including the 'Basic Set' defined by NASA, the U.S. Space Command, and industry panelists to be the following: (1) navigation aids; (2) grasping, berthing, and docking; and (3) utility connections for power, data, and fluids. Draft standards have been prepared and referred to professional standards organizations, including the AIAA, EIA, and SAE space standards committee. The objective of the SASWG is to support these committees with the technical expertise required to prepare standards, guidelines, and recommended practices which will be accepted by the ANSI and international standards organizations, including the ISO, IEC, and PASC.

Radtke, Robert↗

NASA NTRS1980

Military standards and SCATHA program update of MIL-STD-1541

The elctromagnetic compatability requirements for space systems, 15 October 1973, to be met by industry contractors for spacecraft launch vehicles and other special space systems, are considered. Deficiencies in the existing standard with respect to spacecraft charge and discharge phenomena, the technical ramifications for generating a new standard, and the upgrading of MIL-STD-1541 with requirements supplied as a result of the SCATHA program are discussed.

Frankos, D. T.↗

NASA NTRS2004

NASA's Geospatial Interoperability Office(GIO)Program

NASA produces vast amounts of information about the Earth from satellites, supercomputer models, and other sources. These data are most useful when made easily accessible to NASA researchers and scientists, to NASA's partner Federal Agencies, and to society as a whole. A NASA goal is to apply its data for knowledge gain, decision support and understanding of Earth, and other planetary systems. The NASA Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) Geospatial Interoperability Office (GIO) Program leads the development, promotion and implementation of information technology standards that accelerate and expand the delivery of NASA's Earth system science research through integrated systems solutions. Our overarching goal is to make it easy for decision-makers, scientists and citizens to use NASA's science information. NASA's Federal partners currently participate with NASA and one another in the development and implementation of geospatial standards to ensure the most efficient and effective access to one another's data. Through the GIO, NASA participates with its Federal partners in implementing interoperability standards in support of E-Gov and the associated President's Management Agenda initiatives by collaborating on standards development. Through partnerships with government, private industry, education and communities the GIO works towards enhancing the ESE Applications Division in the area of National Applications and decision support systems. The GIO provides geospatial standards leadership within NASA, represents NASA on the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Coordination Working Group and chairs the FGDC's Geospatial Applications and Interoperability Working Group (GAI) and supports development and implementation efforts such as Earth Science Gateway (ESG), Space Time Tool Kit and Web Map Services (WMS) Global Mosaic. The GIO supports NASA in the collection and dissemination of geospatial interoperability standards needs and progress throughout the agency including areas such as ESE Applications, the SEEDS Working Groups, the Facilities Engineering Division (Code JX) and NASA's Chief Information Offices (CIO). With these agency level requirements GIO leads, brokers and facilitates efforts to, develop, implement, influence and fully participate in standards development internationally, federally and locally. The GIO also represents NASA in the OpenGIS Consortium and ISO TC211. The OGC has made considerable progress in regards to relations with other open standards bodies; namely ISO, W3C and OASIS. ISO TC211 is the Geographic and Geomatics Information technical committee that works towards standardization in the field of digital geographic information. The GIO focuses on seamless access to data, applications of data, and enabling technologies furthering the interoperability of distributed data. Through teaming within the Applications Directorate and partnerships with government, private industry, education and communities, GIO works towards the data application goals of NASA, the ESE Applications Directorate, and our Federal partners by managing projects in four categories: Geospatial Standards and Leadership, Geospatial One Stop, Standards Development and Implementation, and National and NASA Activities.

Weir, Patricia↗

NASA NTRS2011

Integrated Procedures for Flight and Ground Operations Using International Standards

Imagine astronauts using the same Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETM's) as the ground personnel who assemble or maintain their flight hardware, and having all of that data interoperable with design, logistics, reliability analysis, and training. Modern international standards and their corresponding COTS tools already used in other industries provide a good foundation for streamlined technical publications in the space industry. These standards cover everything from data exchange to product breakdown structure to business rules flexibility. Full Product Lifecycle Support (PLCS) is supported. The concept is to organize, build once, reuse many ways, and integrate. This should apply to all future and some current launch vehicles, payloads, space stations/habitats, spacecraft, facilities, support equipment, and retrieval ships.

Ingalls, John↗