Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “navigation systems”

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.

168 records · Page 10

2020 Budget Request for the DOE Computational Science Graduate Fellowship (CSGF) Grant

The Department of Energy Computational Science Graduate Fellowship (DOE CSGF) is essential for addressing the increasingly complex national workforce demands stemming from the growth of computational science and engineering challenges. Computational science and engineering (CSE) takes a multidisciplinary approach that utilizes scientific computing to tackle practical problems and provide technical tools across the spectrum of scientific discovery. The DOE CSGF specifically highlights high-performance computing (HPC) as a critical enabling technology in CSE, driving advancements in science and engineering that are vital to both the DOE and the broader economy. Over the past half-century, HPC has been an essential tool for DOE’s success. During this period, important missions, such as nuclear stockpile stewardship, have turned to HPC as an essential technology. Entire science disciplines have been transformed through the augmentation of scientific observation via HPC. At government laboratories, academic institutions, and in industry, DOE CSGF alumni are helping push traditional HPC boundaries while contributing to discoveries in high-energy physics, quantum information systems, fusion-reactor design, machine learning, additive manufacturing, nano materials for next-generation batteries and transistors, and advanced nuclear reactor modeling. In addition, HPC is used to address national health needs that will eventually point to cures both by helping cancer researchers manage and analyze huge troves of data, by simulating biological mechanisms, and by accelerating drug development. A 2023 report from the ASCAC Subcommittee on American Competitiveness and Innovation to the ASCR office, “Can the United States Maintain Its Leadership in High-Performance Computing?” says of the Program, “The CSGF program provides a barometer for disciplines that will be of interest to future DOE computing. Computational biology, machine learning, and quantum computing are among the subjects that began to swell in the ranks of CSGF applicants before the labs were hiring as high a percentage of employees in these categories.” The explosion of scientific and technological data has heightened the demand for advanced high-performance computing (HPC) to transform these data into meaningful scientific insights. As access to vast amounts of data increases, the fields of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence are experiencing a resurgence, enhancing the established practices of computational modeling and simulation. In its September 2020 subcommittee report on "AI/ML, Data Intensive Science, and High-Performance Computing," the DOE Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC) specifically called for a fellowship program to train computational and data scientists to address exascale and data-intensive computing challenges. This integration of empirical and theoretical modeling will increasingly guide federal policymakers in making decisions that impact American society and future generations. It demands a workforce of highly skilled and intellectually agile computational scientists capable of navigating the rapid advancements in scientific computing within the DOE National Laboratory research environment. The DOE CSGF program has consistently addressed this critical need.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Navigating the Noise: Bringing Clarity to ML Parameterization Design With O $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{O}}$(100) Ensembles

Abstract Machine‐learning (ML) parameterizations of subgrid processes (here of turbulence, convection, and radiation) may one day replace conventional parameterizations by emulating high‐resolution physics without the cost of explicit simulation. However, uncertainty about the relationship between offline and online performance (i.e., when integrated with a large‐scale general circulation model) hinders their development. Much of this uncertainty stems from limited sampling of the noisy, emergent effects of upstream ML design decisions on downstream online hybrid simulation. Our work rectifies the sampling issue via the construction of a semi‐automated, end‐to‐end pipeline for size ensembles of hybrid simulations, revealing important nuances in how systematic reductions in offline error manifest in changes to online error and online stability. For example, removing dropout and switching from a Mean Squared Error to a Mean Absolute Error loss both reduce offline error, but they have opposite effects on online error and online stability. Other design decisions, like incorporating memory, converting moisture input from specific humidity to relative humidity, using batch normalization, and training on multiple climates do not come with any such compromises. Finally, we show that ensemble sizes of may be necessary to reliably detect causally relevant differences online. By enabling rapid online experimentation at scale, we can empirically settle debates regarding subgrid ML parameterization design that would have otherwise remained unresolved in the noise.

Lin, Jerry [Department of Earth System Sciences Un↗

Design and permitting considerations of a floating hydrogen production and dispensing Barge for the Port of San Francisco

This paper reports on the design of a Floating Hydrogen Production and Dispensing Barge destined for the Port of San Francisco (SF). The H 2 Barge is designed to produce renewable H 2 at the rate of ∼530 kg/day, storing 512 kg of hydrogen at 517-bar, allowing fast refueling of hydrogen fuel cell vessels and land-side hydrogen delivery trailers for distribution into the nascent SF hydrogen ecosystem. The broader considerations that impacted H 2 Barge design are also described. An account is given of a new review process formulated by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) to review this first-of-its-kind maritime implementation of hydrogen technology. Furthermore, the immediate goals of the H 2 Barge Project are to 1) demonstrate the feasibility, viability and methods of hydrogen production, storage and fueling in a maritime context, 2) help shape (where needed) and navigate the required local, state and federal regulatory gauntlet and 3) catalyze a “green hydrogen ecosystem” (both marine and landside) with locally produced renewable hydrogen at the San Francisco waterfront.

08 HYDROGEN↗

EV Charging Infrastructure Energization An Overview of Approaches for Simplifying and Accelerating Timelines to Processing EV Charging Load Service Requests

The United States has seen significant growth in electric vehicle (EV) adoption, leading to increased demand for EV charging infrastructure. Over the past decade, EV charging infrastructure site developers, site hosts, and electric distribution utilities have navigated the process to integrate chargers onto the electric grid. Site developers and site hosts have raised the alarm that the integration process for high-powered EV charging projects does not meet the needs of the EV market for timeliness or cost. High-powered charging stations typically require a load service request or an agreement with the local utility to connect to the grid. The process of energizing a new high-powered charging site can be complex and time-consuming, often taking up to 2 years. This timeline is the result of current utility energization processes having been designed for construction projects that take longer to build (i.e., buildings). The specific challenges stem from various factors, including compartmentalization in application processes, the integration of EV charging process approvals with other distributed energy resources (DERs), and the need to ensure grid reliability. The energization process needs to evolve to meet the growing demand for high-powered EV charging. This white paper compiles information gathered through various conversations with key stakeholders, including utilities, utility regulators, EV charging operators, site developers, and authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ) as well as through an extensive literature review. This document identifies the challenges and provides potential solutions to streamline the process of connecting EV charging infrastructure to the power grid in the United States, serving as a starting point for future conversations around these solutions. The solutions noted in this white paper require collaborative efforts among utilities, regulators, and EV charging infrastructure developers to streamline the grid connection process for EV charging infrastructure. They are broadly organized into four areas: 1. Increase data access and transparency: Develop automated load service request tools, integrate hosting capacity and load service request analyses, incorporate EV adoption forecasts, and provide transparency on the processing queue. 2. Improve energization processes and timing: Create fast-track options based on prescreening criteria, provide flexibility or phased approvals in the load service request/interconnection process, build internal knowledge within utilities about EV charging technologies, and provide standardized workforce training. 3. Promote economic efficiency: Right size distribution components to accurately reflect the load requirements of EV charging infrastructure, make proactive investments in grid infrastructure based on EV adoption forecasts and growth projections, and consider energy equity and environmental justice factors such as equitable access to EV charging when planning infrastructure. 4. Improve grid reliability and resilience: Use load management/power control systems (PCS) at EV charging stations, adopt and implement harmonized standards for communication protocols and information models between the EV charging and grid control infrastructure, and address cybersecurity considerations by implementing robust security measures and standards for EV charging infrastructure—with particular emphasis on clarifying the security requirements for the interface to the grid. The objective of the solutions proposed in this white paper is to accelerate the timeline and decrease costs associated with connecting EV charging infrastructure to the grid. Electric utilities, utility regulators, EV charging infrastructure developers, and site hosts will first need to understand which solutions are available in their service territory, and if warranted, which combination of solutions would support their specific needs. Through the successful implementations of solutions at scale detailed here, industry will demonstrate a new and innovative ecosystem where timely deployment and energization of EV charging infrastructure with greater grid resiliency and reliability is a reality.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

EV Charging Infrastructure Energization: An Overview of Approaches for Simplifying Processes and Accelerating Timelines to Processing EV Charging Load Service Requests

The United States has seen significant growth in electric vehicle (EV) adoption, leading to increased demand for EV charging infrastructure and electricity. Growth in electricity demand from EV charging, coupled with growth in other sectors like data centers and electrification of other sectors, is impacting electricity infrastructure and load service request processes after two decades of relatively flat electricity demand. While most electric vehicle charging occurs at home, enroute and depot charging for medium and heavy-duty vehicles, both using high-powered EV charging, are critical to meet electric vehicle operational needs. Over the past decade, EV charging infrastructure site developers, site hosts, and electric distribution utilities have navigated the process to integrate chargers onto the electric grid. Site developers and site hosts have expressed distress that the integration process for high-powered EV charging projects does not meet the needs of the EV market for timeliness or cost. High-powered charging stations typically require a load service request or an agreement with the local utility to connect to the grid. The process of energizing a new high-powered charging site can be complex and time consuming, often taking up to 2 years. This timeline is the result of current utility energization processes having been designed for construction projects that take longer to build (i.e., buildings). The specific challenges stem from various factors, including compartmentalization in application processes, the integration of EV charging process approvals with other distributed energy resources (DERs), and the need to ensure grid reliability. The energization process needs to evolve to meet the growing demand for high-powered EV charging. This white paper compiles information gathered through various conversations with key stakeholders, including utilities, utility regulators, EV charging operators, site developers, and authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ) as well as through an extensive literature review. This document identifies the challenges and provides potential solutions to streamline the process of connecting EV charging infrastructure to the power grid in the United States, serving as a starting point for future conversations around these solutions.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

Remote sensing images, DEM, and point clouds associated with “Accuracy evaluation of cost-effective 3D reconstruction approaches for hydrobiogeochemical processes in non-perennial stream riverbeds”

This data package is associated with the publication “Accuracy evaluation of cost-effective 3D reconstruction approaches for hydrobiogeochemical processes in non-perennial stream riverbeds” published in Frontiers in Environmental Science, Environmental Informatics and Remote Sensing (Bao et al., 2026; doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2026.1725258). This data package includes the drone photos for a section of Umtanum Creek in Washington, Unted States. The photos were used to reconstruct the 3-dimensional (3D) digital elevation model (DEM) of the riverbed for the investigated stream section. The reconstruction results from four approaches are provided: (1) unoccupied aerial vehicle (UAV, colloquially known as drone) imagery-based Structure-from-Motion (SfM), (2) a machine learning-based 3D reconstruction model, Visual Geometry Grounded Deep Structure from Motion (VGGSfM), (3) Visual Geometry Grounded Transformer for long sequence of images (VGGT-Long), and (4) handheld smartphone LiDAR scanning. The ground truth measurements by tripod-mounted optical level kit and ground control points GPS locations for evaluating the accuracy of the four reconstruction approaches are also provided in this data package. A preliminary version of this data package was published in October 2025 at the time of manuscript submission. It was updated in March 2026, at the time of manuscript acceptance, to include additional metadata (this readme, data dictionary, and file level metadata). The data did not change. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. In addition to a readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions. This dataset is comprised of (1) 8 folders; (2) the detailed flight configuration html files; (3) field metadata; (4) a readme; (5) a data dictionary; and (6) file-level metadata. The folders “2024_10_18_d01” and “2024_10_18_d02” contain the original drone photos for the two drone flights (d01 and d02) on October 18, 2024. The reconstruction results from each of the approaches are in the folders called “ODM_SfM”, “VGGSfM”, “VGGTLong”, and “LiDAR”. The ground truth measurements are in the folder called “optical_level_kit”. Lastly, results comparing the different approaches are in the folder called “comparisons”. All files are .csv, .html, .jpg, .obj, .txt, and .npy. For information on using the .obj and .npy files, see the readme files within the same folder as the files.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗