Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Fund”

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.

At least 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

Center Innovation Fund: JSC CIF Characterize Human Forward Contamination

Let's face it: wherever we go, we will inevitably carry along the little critters that live in and on us. Conventional wisdom has long held that it's unlikely those critters could survive the space environment, but in 2007 microscopic animals called Tardigrades survived exposure to space and in 2008 Cyanobacteria lived for 548 days outside the International Space Station (ISS). But what about the organisms we might reasonably expect a crewed spacecraft to leak or vent? Do we even know what they are? How long might our tiny hitch-hikers survive in close proximity to a warm spacecraft that periodically leaks/vents water or oxygen-and how might they mutate with long-duration exposure? Unlike the Mars rovers that we cleaned once and sent on their way, crew members will provide a constantly regenerating contaminant source. Are we prepared to certify that we can meet forward contamination protocols as we search for life at new destinations?

planetary protection↗
NASA NTRS2023

NASA's Center Innovation Fund (CIF) Internal Research and Development (IRAD) Handling Qualities Study on the Mikrolar Motion Platform Test Report

In order to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Extravehicular Activity and Surface Mobility Program (EHP), system engineers, designers, and researchers embarked on a yearlong challenge to develop a new lunar rover-based motion table simulator to study handling qualities of lunar rovers in the lunar South Pole region, support development research for any lunar rover vendor, and provide a lunar training capability for future lunar/planetary astronauts. In 1989, the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force Institute of Aviation Medicine (RAF-IAM) stated that motion platforms are the only simulation devices capable of fully stimulating the body motion sensors. They confirmed that motion platforms can impart accelerations to the whole body and therefore exercise the automatic motion feedback-loop that operators are used to. With both visual and motion cues handling the vehicle becomes more realistic. Strachan (2019) con-firms motion cueing from a well set-up motion platform has been found to be important especially in conditions such as night or reduced visibility where motion cues may be more relied upon

Motion Table↗
NASA NTRS2013

Electrical Impedance Tomography Technology: 2013 Center Innovation Fund Final Report

Electrical impedance tomography is a medical noninvasive imaging technology which has advantages over other medical imaging technologies for medically safe long term real time internal imaging monitoring applications in human patients. The technology is much more compact, portable, low power and potentially more low cost compared to other medical image technologies, making it very well suited for medical aerospace and spaceflight applications. EIT technology’s main drawback has been low image resolution, and consequently improving EIT resolution is the primary research goal, as well as increasing imaging speed for real time animation imaging. In a relatively short time the BERL group has brought together design plans, technical resources and has built and tested hardware with the purpose of improving EIT imaging technology. EIT prototype system development plans and system designs have been made to target needed EIT technical improvement in electronic and computer hardware as well as EIT software technology. New hardware design and fabrication resources and technologies have been brought together through resourceful use of existing equipment and software at BERL, and a significant advance has been made in custom electronic hardware prototyping capabilities in collaboration with EFAL, for mutual benefit for both NASA KSC laboratories. BERL has gained significant EIT software capability and tested EIT imaging algorithm code through collaboration with an internationally recognized EIT software development and research forum. A new custom workstation has been developed, built and tested using internal resources, equipment and expertise, that includes a new state-of-the-art massively parallel technology that is commercially available. Custom prototype hardware has been designed and tested, a high priority electronic design, key to improving electronic performance and image quality, has been researched and tested in four designs, with a summary of test results of the selected design illustrated here. The selected design performance exceeds the developed EIT design hardware specifications.

Michael R Lapointe↗
DOE OSTI2023

Predictive performance of multi-model ensemble forecasts of COVID-19 across European nations

Background: Short-term forecasts of infectious disease burden can contribute to situational awareness and aid capacity planning. Based on best practice in other fields and recent insights in infectious disease epidemiology, one can maximise the predictive performance of such forecasts if multiple models are combined into an ensemble. Here, we report on the performance of ensembles in predicting COVID-19 cases and deaths across Europe between 08 March 2021 and 07 March 2022. Methods: We used open-source tools to develop a public European COVID-19 Forecast Hub. We invited groups globally to contribute weekly forecasts for COVID-19 cases and deaths reported by a standardised source for 32 countries over the next 1–4 weeks. Teams submitted forecasts from March 2021 using standardised quantiles of the predictive distribution. Each week we created an ensemble forecast, where each predictive quantile was calculated as the equally-weighted average (initially the mean and then from 26th July the median) of all individual models’ predictive quantiles. We measured the performance of each model using the relative Weighted Interval Score (WIS), comparing models’ forecast accuracy relative to all other models. We retrospectively explored alternative methods for ensemble forecasts, including weighted averages based on models’ past predictive performance. Results: Over 52 weeks, we collected forecasts from 48 unique models. We evaluated 29 models’ forecast scores in comparison to the ensemble model. We found a weekly ensemble had a consistently strong performance across countries over time. Across all horizons and locations, the ensemble performed better on relative WIS than 83% of participating models’ forecasts of incident cases (with a total N=886 predictions from 23 unique models), and 91% of participating models’ forecasts of deaths (N=763 predictions from 20 models). Across a 1–4 week time horizon, ensemble performance declined with longer forecast periods when forecasting cases, but remained stable over 4 weeks for incident death forecasts. In every forecast across 32 countries, the ensemble outperformed most contributing models when forecasting either cases or deaths, frequently outperforming all of its individual component models. Among several choices of ensemble methods we found that the most influential and best choice was to use a median average of models instead of using the mean, regardless of methods of weighting component forecast models. Conclusions: Our results support the use of combining forecasts from individual models into an ensemble in order to improve predictive performance across epidemiological targets and populations during infectious disease epidemics. Our findings further suggest that median ensemble methods yield better predictive performance more than ones based on means. Our findings also highlight that forecast consumers should place more weight on incident death forecasts than incident case forecasts at forecast horizons greater than 2 weeks. Funding: AA, BH, BL, LWa, MMa, PP, SV funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant 1R01GM109718, NSF BIG DATA Grant IIS-1633028, NSF Grant No.: OAC-1916805, NSF Expeditions in Computing Grant CCF-1918656, CCF-1917819, NSF RAPID CNS-2028004, NSF RAPID OAC-2027541, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 75D30119C05935, a grant from Google, University of Virginia Strategic Investment Fund award number SIF160, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under Contract No. HDTRA1-19-D-0007, and respectively Virginia Dept of Health Grant VDH-21-501-0141, VDH-21-501-0143, VDH-21-501-0147, VDH-21-501-0145, VDH-21-501-0146, VDH-21-501-0142, VDH-21-501-0148. AF, AMa, GL funded by SMIGE - Modelli statistici inferenziali per governare l'epidemia, FISR 2020-Covid-19 I Fase, FISR2020IP-00156, Codice Progetto: PRJ-0695. AM, BK, FD, FR, JK, JN, JZ, KN, MG, MR, MS, RB funded by Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland with grant 28/WFSN/2021 to the University of Warsaw. BRe, CPe, JLAz funded by Ministerio de Sanidad/ISCIII. BT, PG funded by PERISCOPE European H2020 project, contract number 101016233. CP, DL, EA, MC, SA funded by European Commission - Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology through the contract LC-01485746, and Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades and FEDER, with the project PGC2018-095456-B-I00. DE., MGu funded by Spanish Ministry of Health / REACT-UE (FEDER). DO, GF, IMi, LC funded by Laboratory Directed Research and Development program of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) under project number 20200700ER. DS, ELR, GG, NGR, NW, YW funded by National Institutes of General Medical Sciences (R35GM119582; the content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIGMS or the National Institutes of Health). FB, FP funded by InPresa, Lombardy Region, Italy. HG, KS funded by European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. IV funded by Agencia de Qualitat i Avaluacio Sanitaries de Catalunya (AQuAS) through contract 2021-021OE. JDe, SMo, VP funded by Netzwerk Universitatsmedizin (NUM) project egePan (01KX2021). JPB, SH, TH funded by Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; grant 05M18SIA). KH, MSc, YKh funded by Project SaxoCOV, funded by the German Free State of Saxony. Presentation of data, model results and simulations also funded by the NFDI4Health Task Force COVID-19 ( https://www.nfdi4health.de/task-force-covid-19-2 ) within the framework of a DFG-project (LO-342/17-1). LP, VE funded by Mathematical and Statistical modelling project (MUNI/A/1615/2020), Online platform for real-time monitoring, analysis and management of epidemic situations (MUNI/11/02202001/2020); VE also supported by RECETOX research infrastructure (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic: LM2018121), the CETOCOEN EXCELLENCE (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/17-043/0009632), RECETOX RI project (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16-013/0001761). NIB funded by Health Protection Research Unit (grant code NIHR200908). SAb, SF funded by Wellcome Trust (210758/Z/18/Z).

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Examining the Trends in Financial Support Given to Science Teams for Data Analysis in Mission Proposals

Introduction: The goal of this summer internship research project was to analyze trends in financial support proposed for the science teams of planetary missions. The analysis focuses on the funding for Co-Investigators (Co-Is) to conduct research and/or data analysis needed to achieve the science objectives of the mission. The operational portion of the missions after launch (i.e., Phase E, including cruise and prime operations at the final destination) were examined since that is when the bulk of research is funded and conducted. The objectives of the project were to determine the average level of support for Co-Investigators, identify variation between mission competitions and over time, and determine the relationship between mission type and the amount of support requested. Methodology: This project was conducted using data from 90 proposals submitted to six mission competitions in the Discovery and New Frontiers programs. The level of support for Co-Is was determined by examining Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) 4 (Science Analysis) for Phase E, which was further subdivided into cruise and prime operations. This data represents a proxy rather than the actual funding Co-Is receive to perform research and data analysis because not every dollar in WBS 4 is spent on this activity. Therefore, the proxy obtained in this research represents an overestimate of the funds allocated to Co-Is for research and data analysis. Findings: Analysis shows that on average a Co-I receives approximately four full years of support spread across the entirety of Phase E for science analysis. The variation among proposed missions is less than expected given the variety of factors that are expected to drive this metric (length of mission, mission type, etc.). Additionally, the level of requested support for Co-Is has been remarkably consistent across every variable considered (by competition, over time, by mission type) over the six competitions and nearly 20 years spanned by this project. This remains true for cruise, primary operations, and all of Phase E. Conclusions: A remarkable amount of science is accomplished by the science teams of planetary missions. However, a surprisingly small amount of funding is requested to support the science analysis driving this productivity, both in terms of absolute magnitude of funding and as a portion of total mission cost. This suggests improvements are needed to refine the estimates of Co-I support and/or that Co-Is rely on other funding sources to conduct their research. Better estimates can be determined by engaging directly with Co-Is and NASA centers to obtain data as well as finding other data sources. Additionally, NASA could consider mandating improved reporting of requested funding levels in mission competitions.

E Murray↗
NASA NTRS1996

The Telecommunications and Data Acquisition Report

This quarterly publication provides archival reports on developments in programs managed by JPL's Telecommunications and Mission Operations Directorate (TMOD), which now includes the former Telecommunications and Data Acquisition (TDA) Office. In space communications, radio navigation, radio science, and ground-based radio and radar astronomy, it reports on activities of the Deep Space Network (DSN) in planning, supporting research and technology, implementation, and operations. Also included are standards activity at JPL for space data and information systems and reimbursable DSN work performed for other space agencies through NASA. The preceding work is all performed for NASA's Office of Space Communications (OSC). TMOD also performs work funded by other NASA program offices through and with the cooperation of OSC. The first of these is the Orbital Debris Radar Program funded by the Office of Space Systems Development. It exists at Goldstone only and makes use of the planetary radar capability when the antennas are configured as science instruments making direct observations of the planets, their satellites, and asteroids of our solar system. The Office of Space Sciences funds the data reduction and science analyses of data obtained by the Goldstone Solar System Radar. The antennas at all three complexes are also configured for radio astronomy research and, as such, conduct experiments funded by the National Science Foundation in the U.S. and other agencies at the overseas complexes. These experiments are either in microwave spectroscopy or very long baseline interferometry. Finally, tasks funded under the JPL Director's Discretionary Fund and the Caltech President's Fund that involve TMOD are included. This and each succeeding issue of 'The Telecommunications and Data Acquisition Progress Report' will present material in some, but not necessarily all, of the aforementioned programs.

Yuen, Joseph H.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Database and Explorer

Overview The Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Toolkit is an online exploratory visualization tool developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) with support from other federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). It provides a single point of access to authoritative information on federal agency investment in a portfolio of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects that have been publicly announced to advance technologies for point source carbon capture, carbon dioxide removal, transport, storage, and conversion, collectively referred to as carbon management. The RD&D programs covered in this tool are authorized by annual congressional appropriations ("Base Program") and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The tool also incorporates public information on other federal initiatives, such as the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, and public information released by other government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and Primacy States’ Underground Injection Control Class VI permits and EPA’s facility level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Developed in a geographic information system, the tool organizes carbon management projects into five groups based on the primary technology that a project aims to advance, each visually represented as a digital layer ("carbon management project layer"). Only federally funded projects are included, which can be awarded projects that are completed or ongoing, or projects that have been selected but are currently under negotiation. Project information can be viewed in the map or in the attribute table below it when turned on. In the map view, each project is displayed at either its host site (for field work), where available, or its performer site (project lead's location, further explained in the table below). Host sites and performer sites are represented in distinct icons. Several reference layers offer additional public information on infrastructural and natural resource environment for carbon management. These reference layers, combined with multiple geographical basemaps, enable users to visualize the carbon management project layers in context. Carbon management project information will be updated monthly based on feedback and information availability. Carbon management project layers Point Source Carbon Capture (PSC) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants or industrial facilities. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, including direct air capture (DAC) and DAC hubs, direct ocean capture, enhanced mineralization, and biomass carbon removal and storage. For projects with multiple host sites, each of the sites are displayed individually with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the total for the entire project. Carbon Transport This layer contains DOE- and DOT-funded projects focused on CO2 transport. The Transport Research and Development sublayer contains projects that do not involve physical infrastructure; the Proposed Transport Corridor sublayer contains projects for which either a route for the transport infrastructure has been proposed or a general area for the transport infrastructure has been identified. Carbon Storage This layer contains DOE-funded key projects focused on CO2 storage. For projects with multiple field-work sites, each of the sites are displayed individually on the map with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the overall total for the entire project. Carbon Conversion This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on converting CO2 into economically valuable products. Reference layers The following layers provide additional information in the geographic proximity of carbon management projects. Users should reference the original sources for more details (weblinks provided below and in pop-up windows on the map). Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub and Facility These layers illustrate the approximate areas of the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs announced by DOE's Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) and the approximate locations of individual facilities that constitute the hubs (see "Where are the H2Hubs located?" on the webpage linked above). EPA Facility Level GHG Emissions (direct emitter) This layer shows direct CO2 emissions from stationary sources in 2022, using data extracted from EPA's Facility Level Information on GreenHouse gases Tool (FLIGHT). Captured and injected CO2 are not deducted from direct emitters’ total emissions. Contact EPA for additional details. Underground Injection Control Class VI permit/permit application This layer shows the locations of CO2 injection wells that are granted or in the process of applying for an Underground Injection Control Class VI permit by EPA or a Primacy State (currently Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming). The URLs for the permits or permit applications are provided in the pop-up windows associated with the well locations. Contact EPA for additional details. Carbon Storage Resource This layer contains information on prospective CO2 storage resources in saline formations and oil and gas reservoirs provided by the National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System (NATCARB) spatial database. Contact NETL for additional details. Existing CO2 pipeline This layer shows active CO2 pipelines based on information digitized from the map issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Contact PHMSA for additional details.

Carbon Conversion↗