SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Configuration Items”

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.

246 records · Page 14

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2006

NASA Technologies for Product Identification

Since 1975 bar codes on products at the retail counter have been accepted as the standard for entering product identity for price determination. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the Data Matrix symbol has become accepted as the bar code format that is marked directly on a part, assembly or product that is durable enough to identify that item for its lifetime. NASA began the studies for direct part marking Data Matrix symbols on parts during the Return to Flight activities after the Challenger Accident. Over the 20 year period that has elapsed since Challenger, a mountain of studies, analyses and focused problem solutions developed by and for NASA have brought about world changing results. NASA Technical Standard 6002 and NASA Handbook 6003 for Direct Part Marking Data Matrix Symbols on Aerospace Parts have formed the basis for most other standards on part marking internationally. NASA and its commercial partners have developed numerous products and methods that addressed the difficulties of collecting part identification in aerospace operations. These products enabled the marking of Data Matrix symbols in virtually every situation and the reading of symbols at great distances, severe angles, under paint and in the dark without a light. Even unmarkable delicate parts now have a process to apply a chemical mixture called NanocodesTM that can be converted to a Data Matrix. The accompanying intellectual property is protected by 10 patents, several of which are licensed. Direct marking Data Matrix on NASA parts virtually eliminates data entry errors and the number of parts that go through their life cycle unmarked, two major threats to sound configuration management and flight safety. NASA is said to only have people and stuff with information connecting them. Data Matrix is one of the most significant improvements since Challenger to the safety and reliability of that connection. This presentation highlights the accomplishments of NASA in its efforts to develop technologies for automatic identification, its efforts to implement them and its vision on their role in space.

Schramm, Fred, Jr.↗

NASA NTRS2007

UID...Now That's Gonna Leave A Mark

Since 1975 bar codes on products at the retail counter have been accepted as the standard for entering product identity for price determination. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the Data Matrix symbol has become accepted as the bar code format that is marked directly on a part, assembly or product that is durable enough to identify that item for its lifetime. NASA began the studies for direct part marking Data Matrix symbols on parts during the Return to Flight activities after the Challenger Accident. Over the 20 year period that has elapsed since Challenger, a mountain of studies, analyses and focused problem solutions developed by and for NASA have brought about world changing results. NASA Technical Standard 6002 and NASA Handbook 6003 for Direct Part Marking Data Matrix Symbols on Aerospace Parts have formed the basis for most other standards on part marking internationally. NASA and its commercial partners have developed numerous products and methods that addressed the difficulties of collecting part identification in aerospace operations. These products enabled the marking of Data Matrix symbols in virtually every situation and the reading of symbols at great distances, severe angles, under paint and in the dark without a light. Even unmarkable delicate parts now have a process to apply a chemical mixture, recently trademarked as Nanocodes, that can be converted to Data Matrix information through software. The accompanying intellectual property is protected by ten patents, several of which are licensed. Direct marking Data Matrix on NASA parts dramatically decreases data entry errors and the number ofparts that go through their life cycle unmarked, two major threats to sound configuration management and flight safety. NASA is said to only have people and stuff with information connecting them. Data Matrix is one of the most significant improvements since Challenger to the safety and reliability of that connection.

Schramm, Harry F., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS2006

UID.. .Now That's Gonna Leave A Mark

Since 1975 bar codes on products at the retail counter have been accepted as the standard for entering product identity for price determination. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the Data Matrix symbol has become accepted as the bar code format that is marked directly on a part, assembly or product that is durable enough to identify that item for its lifetime. NASA began the studies for direct part marking Data Matrix symbols on parts during the Return to Flight activities after the Challenger Accident. Over the 20 year period that has elapsed since Challenger, a mountain of studies, analyses and focused problem solutions developed by and for NASA have brought about world changing results. NASA Technical Standard 6002 and NASA Handbook 6003 for Direct Part Marking Data Matrix Symbols on Aerospace Parts have formed the basis for most other standards on part marking internationally. NASA and its commercial partners have developed numerous products and methods that addressed the difficulties of collecting part identification in aerospace operations. These products enabled the marking of Data Matrix symbols in virtually every situation and the reading of symbols at great distances, severe angles, under paint and in the dark without a light. Even unmarkable delicate parts now have a process to apply a chemical mixture, recently trademarked as Nanocodes, that can be converted to Data Matrix information through software. The accompanying intellectual property is protected by ten patents, several of which are licensed. Direct marking Data Matrix on NASA parts dramatically decreases data entry errors and the number of parts that go through their life cycle marked, two major threats to sound configuration management and flight safety. NASA is said to only have people and stuff with information connecting them. Data Matrix is one of the most significant improvements since Challenger to the safety and reliability of that connection.

Schramm, Fred↗

NASA NTRS2008

UID...Now That's Gonna Leave a Mark

Since 1975 bar codes on products at the retail counter have been accepted as the standard for entering product identity for price determination. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the Data Matrix symbol has become accepted as the bar code format that is marked directly on a part, assembly or product that is durable enough to identify that item for its lifetime. NASA began the studies for direct part marking Data Matrix symbols on parts during the Return to Flight activities after the Challenger Accident. Over the 20 year period that has elapsed since Challenger, a mountain of studies, analyses and focused problem solutions developed by and for NASA have brought about world changing results. NASA Technical Standard 6002 and NASA Handbook 6003 for Direct Part Marking Data Matrix Symbols on Aerospace Parts have formed the basis for most other standards on part marking internationally. NASA and its commercial partners have developed numerous products and methods that addressed the difficulties of collecting part identification in aerospace operations. These products enabled the marking of Data Matrix symbols in virtually every situation and the reading of symbols at great distances, severe angles, under paint and in the dark without a light. Even unmarkable delicate parts now have a process to apply a chemical mixture, recently trademarked as Nanocodes, that can be converted to Data Matrix information through software. The accompanying intellectual property is protected by ten patents, several of which are licensed. Direct marking Data Matrix on NASA parts dramatically decreases data entry errors and the number of parts that go through their life cycle unmarked, two major threats to sound configuration management and flight safety. NASA is said to only have people and stuff with information connecting them. Data Matrix is one of the most significant improvements since Challenger to the safety and reliability of that connection.

Schramm, Harry F.↗

NASA NTRS2008

UID....Now That's Gonna Leave A Mark

Since 1975 bar codes on products at the retail counter have been accepted as the standard for entering product identity for price determination. Since the beginning of the 21 st century, the Data Matrix symbol has become accepted as the bar code format that is marked directly on a part, assembly or product that is durable enough to identify that item for its lifetime. NASA began the studies for direct part marking Data Matrix symbols on parts during the Return to Flight activities after the Challenger Accident. Over the 20 year period that has elapsed since Challenger, a mountain of studies, analyses and focused problem solutions developed by and for NASA have brought about world changing results. NASA Technical Standard 6002 and NASA Handbook 6003 for Direct Part Marking Data Matrix Symbols on Aerospace Parts have formed the basis for most other standards on part marking internationally. NASA and its commercial partners have developed numerous products and methods that addressed the difficulties of collecting part identification in aerospace operations. These products enabled the marking of Data Matrix symbols in virtually every situation and the reading of symbols at great distances, severe angles, under paint and in the dark without a light. Even unmarkable delicate parts now have a process to apply a chemical mixture, recently trademarked as Nanocodes, that can be converted to Data Matrix information through software. The accompanying intellectual property is protected by ten patents, several of which are licensed. Direct marking Data Matrix on NASA parts dramatically decreases data entry errors and the number of parts that go through their life cycle unmarked, two major threats to sound configuration management and flight safety. NASA is said to only have people and stuff with information connecting them. Data Matrix is one of the most significant improvements since Challenger to the safety and reliability of that connection.

Schramm, Harry F., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS2008

UID...Leaving Its Mark on the Universe

Since 1975 bar codes on products at the retail counter have been accepted as the standard for entering product identity for price determination. Since the beginning of the 21 st century, the Data Matrix symbol has become accepted as the bar code format that is marked directly on a part, assembly or product that is durable enough to identify that item for its lifetime. NASA began the studies for direct part marking Data Matrix symbols on parts during the Return to Flight activities after the Challenger Accident. Over the 20 year period that has elapsed since Challenger, a mountain of studies, analyses and focused problem solutions developed by and for NASA have brought about world changing results. NASA Technical Standard 6002 and NASA Handbook 6003 for Direct Part Marking Data Matrix Symbols on Aerospace Parts have formed the basis for most other standards on part marking internationally. NASA and its commercial partners have developed numerous products and methods that addressed the difficulties of collecting part identification in aerospace operations. These products enabled the marking of Data Matrix symbols in virtually every situation and the reading of symbols at great distances, severe angles, under paint and in the dark without a light. Even unmarkable delicate parts now have a process to apply a chemical mixture, recently trademarked as Nanocodes, that can be converted to Data Matrix information through software. The accompanying intellectual property is protected by ten patents, several of which are licensed. Direct marking Data Matrix on NASA parts dramatically decreases data entry errors and the number of parts that go through their life cycle unmarked, two major threats to sound configuration management and flight safety. NASA is said to only have people and stuff with information connecting them. Data Matrix is one of the most significant improvements since Challenger to the safety and reliability of that connection.

Schramm, Harry F., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS1998

The mass storage testing laboratory at GSFC

Industry-wide benchmarks exist for measuring the performance of processors (SPECmarks), and of database systems (Transaction Processing Council). Despite storage having become the dominant item in computing and IT (Information Technology) budgets, no such common benchmark is available in the mass storage field. Vendors and consultants provide services and tools for capacity planning and sizing, but these do not account for the complete set of metrics needed in today's archives. The availability of automated tape libraries, high-capacity RAID systems, and high- bandwidth interconnectivity between processor and peripherals has led to demands for services which traditional file systems cannot provide. File Storage and Management Systems (FSMS), which began to be marketed in the late 80's, have helped to some extent with large tape libraries, but their use has introduced additional parameters affecting performance. The aim of the Mass Storage Test Laboratory (MSTL) at Goddard Space Flight Center is to develop a test suite that includes not only a comprehensive check list to document a mass storage environment but also benchmark code. Benchmark code is being tested which will provide measurements for both baseline systems, i.e. applications interacting with peripherals through the operating system services, and for combinations involving an FSMS. The benchmarks are written in C, and are easily portable. They are initially being aimed at the UNIX Open Systems world. Measurements are being made using a Sun Ultra 170 Sparc with 256MB memory running Solaris 2.5.1 with the following configuration: 4mm tape stacker on SCSI 2 Fast/Wide; 4GB disk device on SCSI 2 Fast/Wide; and Sony Petaserve on Fast/Wide differential SCSI 2.

Venkataraman, Ravi↗

NASA NTRS2002

Factors in International Space Station Integration Feasibility Assessments

The International Space Station, ISS, is a growing vehicle. The ISS configuration changes internally and externally with each ISS flight. Each flight adds resources and capabilities such as docking/berthing ports, power, stowage volume, heat rejection, and data processing capability. The configuration, capabilities and performance characteristics of the vehicle will be in flux until assembly complete. At the same time the knowledge about what is required to support humans involved in long duration space flight is also being greatly expanded. In addition to the changes occurring on-orbit, the situation on the ground is also very dynamic. Proposals for new ISS elements, proposed deletions of elements, changes to the ISS requirements, and changes to the planned configuration are always under evaluation. Furthermore, budgetary issues have driven the need to explore alternative options for the ISS . This environment has made the role of the technical integrator in the ISS program unique in that the baseline against which proposals are evaluated is always changing. The nature of the International Space Station Program adds another dimension to the integrators task. ISS program activities are spread across several centers: KSC, MSFC, GRC, DFRC, ARC and JSc. There are six International Partners/participants each with their own unique organizations. The prime contractor is in Texas, California and Alabama. And, the Space Shuttle Program as the launch vehicle provider is another major interface. In spite of the fluidity of the technical baseline, projections and organizational complexity, in the course of evaluating proposals and producing feasibility assessments there are factors, which frequently emerge as significant. These factors tend to be the limiting conditions when they come into play. The finite resources, which tend to limit the options for ISS are: upmass, life support and crew rescue capability, crew time, utilities, exercise equipment, and docking/berthing ports. Upmass requirements need to be developed for each option proposed. Short term and long term impacts to upmass are the result of the implementation and long term operations. The upmass requirements need to be met by the existing launch vehicles and any change in flight rate will be a significant cost driver. In addition, when any item is brought to the ISS careful consideration must be given to the on-board stowage and crew time available to unpack, transfer, stow and use these items. If stowage is not available then something must be returned, use of non-standard stowage negotiated or the item in question stays on the ground. Additional crew time requirements will impact available utilization time or crew off-duty time. When the human element is affected, such as, by increasing the number of crew members or changing the duration of the crew stay (longer or shorter) there is an additional set of factors that come into play. The main considerations are: rescue capability, exercise requirements and availability of equipment, resupply, and life support capability.

Watson, Patricia M.↗

DOE OSTI2026

Passive Confirmation of the Presence Of High-Explosive Material Via Neutron Transmission Spectroscopy

The goal of this project was to explore a novel approach for identifying presence and potential types of high explosives (HE) in treaty-controlled items with passive neutron sources by using passive neutron transmission spectroscopy. We predominantly look to measure relative elemental abundance of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen (CHON) since most relevant materials are certain mix of these elements, as shown in Table 1. Previously, most studies exploring potential identification of CHON elemental content of targets in the vicinity of passive neutron source were focused solely on gamma spectroscopy using high resolution gamma detectors. Using neutron transmission spectroscopy with pulse-shape discrimination (PSD) capable organic scintillators is not only a novel idea in of itself, but arguably necessary for accurate identification of the CHON elemental content of an interrogated target. While high resolution gamma spectroscopy in principle can determine a presence of hydrogen and nitrogen, it is effectively blind to a quantitatively measuring areal densities of C, O. The initially proposed approach, described in detail in the project proposal, was to leverage previous Monte Carlo study on neutron transmission spectroscopy using slab shaped target interrogated with well-collimated (“pencil”) neutron beam. In this study, a simulated test CO 2 target was interrogated by a pencil neutron beam and transmitted neutron spectra were measured using PSD capable organic scintillator using MLEM based unfolding technique. To establish relative elemental content of carbon and oxygen, the unfolded neutron spectrum was fit with a parametrized combination of their respective elemental spectral templates. The individual spectral template was calculated by convoluting ENDF neutron crosssection with the known resolution of the PSD detector used in the study. This approach in the studied configuration successfully quantitatively established relative elemental composition of carbon and oxygen.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

DOE OSTI2024

IDAES-PSE 2.6.0 Release

The Institute for the Design of Advanced Energy Systems (IDAES) Integrated Platform is a versatile computational environment offering extensive process systems engineering (PSE) capabilities for optimizing the design and operation of complex, interacting technologies and systems. IDAES enables users to efficiently search vast, complex design spaces to discover the lowest cost solutions while supporting the full process modeling lifecycle, from conceptual design to dynamic optimization and control. The extensible, open platform empowers users to create models of novel processes and rapidly develop custom analyses, workflows, and end-user applications. IDAES-PSE 2.6.0 Release Highlights Upcoming Changes IDAES will be switching to the new Pyomo solver interface in the next release. Whilst this will hopefully be a smooth transition for most users, there are a few important changes to be aware of. The new solver interface uses a different version of the IPOPT writer (“ipopt_v2”) and thus any custom configuration options you might have set for IPOPT will not carry over and will need to be reset. By default, the new Pyomo linear presolver will be activated with ipopt_v2. Whilst are working to identify any bugs in the presolver, it is possible that some edge cases will remain. IDAES will begin deploying a new set of scaling tools and APIs over the next few releases that make use of the new solver writers. The old scaling tools and APIs will remain for backward compatibility but will begin to be deprecated. New Models, Tools and Features New Intersphinx extension automatically linking Jupyter notebook examples to project documentation New end-to-end diagnostics example demonstrated on a real problem New complementarity formulation for VLE with cubic equations of state, backward compatibility for old formulation New solver interface with presolve (ipopt_v2) in support of upcoming changes to the initialization and APIs methods, with default set to ipopt to maintain backwards compatibility; this will deprecate once all examples have been updated New forecaster and parameterized bidder methods within grid integration library Updated surrogates API and examples to support Keras 3, with backwards compatibility for older formats such as TensorFlow SavedModel (TFSM) Updated costing base dictionary to include the 2023 cost year index value Updated ProcessBlock to include information on the constructing block class Updated Flowsheet Visualizer to allow visualize() method to return value and functions Bug Fixes Fixed bug in the Modular Property Framework that would cause errors when trying to use phase-based material balances with phase equilibria. Fixed bug in Modular Properties Framework that caused errors when initializing models with non-vapor-liquid phase equilibria. Fixed typos flagged by June update to crate-ci/typos and removed DMF-related exceptions Minor corrections of units of measurement handling in power plant waste/transport costing expressions, control volume material holdup expressions, and BTX property package parameters Fixed throwing >7500 numpy deprecation warnings by replacing scalar value assignment with element extraction and item iteration calls Testing and Robustness Migrated slow tests (>10s) to integration, impacting test coverage but also yielding a nearly 30% decrease in local test runtime Pinned pint to avoid issues with older supported Python versions Pinned codecov versions to avoid tokenless upload behavior with latest version Bumped extensions to version 3.4.2 to allow pointing to non-standard install location Deprecations and Removals Python 3.8 is no longer supported. The supported Python versions are 3.9 through 3.12 The Data Management Framework (DMF) is no longer supported. Importing idaes.core.dmf will cause a deprecation warning to be displayed until the next release The SOFC Keras surrogates have been removed. The current version of the SOFC surrogate model in the examples repository is a PySMO Kriging model.

AS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The WTP LAB stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the DV of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the maximum conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be = 20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be = 20% COV. Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stacks must agree within 5% COV. In general, these criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Some specific items for each scale model and full-scale stack comparison should be noted in assessing the validity of the verification tests. The LB-C2 scale model stacks were performed with single fan operations at then-minimum flow conditions. These conditions resulted in DV values that were too low to meet the DV range criterion, and therefore are unable to be used in qualifying single fan operations on the full-scale stack. However, the single fan operations demonstrated COV values for velocity uniformity as well as flow angles that were comparable to the dual-fan operations at high flows. Overall, the test conditions and test results were within the range of acceptable values based on current design flow rates. Single fan operations are expected to only occur infrequently for maintenance needs and is therefore not a planned operating condition at this time. The LB-S1 scale model stacks were performed at three fan combinations, and in each combination, at least one test was performed at the then-minimum flow conditions as well as at then-maximum flow conditions. While the then-minimum flow conditions result in a DV range that is lower than the verification test DV value, and therefore does not meet the criterion, these tests are un-necessary for the verification test acceptance. The normal and maximum flow conditions from the scale model stack tests meet the DV range criterion, and the velocity uniformity test results compare favorably with the full-scale stack results. The LB-S2 scale model stacks were performed at nominally the same maximum flow condition; however, the 6 DV value for Fan A operation was slightly lower than the full-scale stack test DV. The COV values from the scale model stacks were comparable between the Fan A and Fan B results, and the overall test conditions are within the range of acceptable values. The stack verification is therefore considered acceptable for both Fan A and Fan B operations. The verification tests were performed at flows that were appreciably higher than the design conditions, and further elevated flow rates would be beyond the range of acceptable DV. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stacks meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this and the scale model test reports (Glissmeyer, Flaherty, and Piepel (2001), Glissmeyer and Geeting (2013)) may require additional tests and additional analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

NASA NTRS1995

Wing-section optimization for supersonic viscous flows

The recent interest in High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) has resulted in renewed research studies of optimized supersonic cruise transport configurations. Incorporation of flow viscosity effects in the design process of such a supersonic wing is currently under investigation. This may lead to more accurate problem formulations and, in turn, greater aerodynamic efficiency than can be obtained by the traditional, inviscid, linear theories. In this context, for a design code to be a candidate for a complex optimization problem, such as three-dimensional viscous supersonic wing design, it should be validated using simpler building-block shapes. To optimize the shape of a supersonic wing, an automated method that also includes higher fidelity to the flow physics is desirable. With this impetus, an aerodynamic optimization methodology incorporating Navier-Stokes equations and sensitivity analysis had been previously developed. Prior to embarking upon the wing design task, the present investigation concentrated on testing the flexibility of the methodology, and the identification of adequate problem formulations, by defining two-dimensional, cost-effective test cases. Starting with two distinctly different initial airfoils, two independent shape optimizations resulted in shapes with very similar features. Secondly, the normal section to the subsonic portion of the leading edge, which had a high normal angle-of-attack, was considered. The optimization resulted in a shape with twist and camber, which eliminated the adverse pressure gradient, hence, exploiting the leading-edge thrust. The wing section shapes obtained in all the test cases had the features predicted by previous studies. Therefore, it was concluded that the flowfield analyses and the sensitivity coefficients were computed and fed to the present gradient-based optimizer correctly. Also, as a result of the present two-dimensional study, suggestions were made for problem formulations which should contribute to an effective wing shape optimization.

Item, Cem C.↗