Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “customer”

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 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1986

Prototyping and implementing flight qualifiable semicustom CMOS P-well bulk integrated circuits in the JPL environment

Presently, there are many difficulties associated with implementing application specific custom or semi-custom (standard cell based) integrated circuits (ICs) into JPL flight projects. One of the primary difficulties is developing prototype semi-custom integrated circuits for use and evaluation in engineering prototype flight hardware. The prototype semi-custom ICs must be extremely cost-effective and yet still representative of flight qualifiable versions of the design. A second difficulty is encountered in the transport of the design from engineering prototype quality to flight quality. Normally, flight quality integrated circuits have stringent quality standards, must be radiation resistant and should consume minimal power. It is often not necessary or cost effective, however, to impose such stringent quality standards on engineering models developed for systems analysis in controlled lab environments. This article presents work originally initiated for ground based applications that also addresses these two problems. Furthermore, this article suggests a method that has been shown successful in prototyping flight quality semi-custom ICs through the Metal Oxide Semiconductor Implementation Service (MOSIS) program run by the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute. The method has been used successfully to design and fabricate through the MOSIS three different semi-custom prototype CMOS p-well chips. The three designs make use of the work presented and were designed consistent with design techniques and structures that are flight qualifiable, allowing one hour transfer of the design from engineering model status to flight qualifiable foundry-ready status through methods outlined in this article.

Olson, E. M.↗
NASA NTRS2002

ISO 9000 and/or Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model?

For businesses and organizations to remain competitive today they must have processes and systems in place that will allow them to first identify customer needs and then develop products/processes that will meet or exceed the customers needs and expectations. Customer needs, once identified, are normally stated as requirements. Designers can then develop products/processes that will meet these requirements. Several functions, such as quality management and systems engineering management are used to assist product development teams in the development process. Both functions exist in all organizations and both have a similar objective, which is to ensure that developed processes will meet customer requirements. Are efforts in these organizations being duplicated? Are both functions needed by organizations? What are the similarities and differences between the functions listed above? ISO 9000 is an international standard of goods and services. It sets broad requirements for the assurance of quality and for management's involvement. It requires organizations to document the processes and to follow these documented processes. ISO 9000 gives customers assurance that the suppliers have control of the process for product development. Systems engineering can broadly be defined as a discipline that seeks to ensure that all requirements for a system are satisfied throughout the life of the system by preserving their interrelationship. The key activities of systems engineering include requirements analysis, functional analysis/allocation, design synthesis and verification, and system analysis and control. The systems engineering process, when followed properly, will lead to higher quality products, lower cost products, and shorter development cycles. The System Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE-CMM) will allow companies to measure their system engineering capability and continuously improve those capabilities. ISO 9000 and SE-CMM seem to have a similar objective, which is to document the organization's processes and certify to potential customers the capability of a supplier to control the processes that determine the quality of the product or services being produced. The remaining sections of this report examine the differences and similarities between ISO 9000 and SE-CMM and make recommendations for implementation.

Sampson E. Gholston↗
NASA NTRS1997

Steady-State Cycle Deck Launcher Developed for Numerical Propulsion System Simulation

One of the objectives of NASA's High Performance Computing and Communications Program's (HPCCP) Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS) is to reduce the time and cost of generating aerothermal numerical representations of engines, called customer decks. These customer decks, which are delivered to airframe companies by various U.S. engine companies, numerically characterize an engine's performance as defined by the particular U.S. airframe manufacturer. Until recently, all numerical models were provided with a Fortran-compatible interface in compliance with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) document AS681F, and data communication was performed via a standard, labeled common structure in compliance with AS681F. Recently, the SAE committee began to develop a new standard: AS681G. AS681G addresses multiple language requirements for customer decks along with alternative data communication techniques. Along with the SAE committee, the NPSS Steady-State Cycle Deck project team developed a standard Application Program Interface (API) supported by a graphical user interface. This work will result in Aerospace Recommended Practice 4868 (ARP4868). The Steady-State Cycle Deck work was validated against the Energy Efficient Engine customer deck, which is publicly available. The Energy Efficient Engine wrapper was used not only to validate ARP4868 but also to demonstrate how to wrap an existing customer deck. The graphical user interface for the Steady-State Cycle Deck facilitates the use of the new standard and makes it easier to design and analyze a customer deck. This software was developed following I. Jacobson's Object-Oriented Design methodology and is implemented in C++. The AS681G standard will establish a common generic interface for U.S. engine companies and airframe manufacturers. This will lead to more accurate cycle models, quicker model generation, and faster validation leading to specifications. The standard will facilitate cooperative work between industry and NASA. The NPSS Steady-State Cycle Deck team released a batch version of the Steady-State Cycle Deck in March 1996. Version 1.1 was released in June 1996. During fiscal 1997, NPSS accepted enhancements and modifications to the Steady-State Cycle Deck launcher. Consistent with NPSS' commercialization plan, these modifications will be done by a third party that can provide long-term software support.

VanDrei, Donald E.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Six Lessons We Learned Applying Six Sigma

As Chief Financial Officer of Kennedy Space Center (KSC), I'm not only responsible for financial planning and accounting but also for building strong partnerships with the CFO customers, who include Space Shuttle and International Space Station operations as well all who manage the KSC Spaceport. My never ending goal is to design, manage and continuously improve our core business processes so that they deliver world class products and services to the CFO's customers. I became interested in Six Sigma as Christa Casleton (KSC's first Six Sigma Black belt) applied Six Sigma tools and methods to our Plan and Account for Travel Costs Process. Her analysis was fresh, innovative and thorough but, even more impressive, was her approach to ensure ongoing, continuous process improvement. Encouraged by the results, I launched two more process improvement initiatives aimed at applying Six Sigma principles to CFO processes that not only touch most of my employees but also have direct customer impact. As many of you know, Six Sigma is a measurement scale that compares the output of a process with customer requirements. That's straight forward, but demands that you not only understand your processes but also know your products and the critical customer requirements. The objective is to isolate and eliminate the causes of process variation so that the customer sees consistently high quality.

Carroll, Napoleon↗
NASA NTRS2014

Imagery Integration Team

The Human Exploration Science Office (KX) provides leadership for NASA's Imagery Integration (Integration 2) Team, an affiliation of experts in the use of engineering-class imagery intended to monitor the performance of launch vehicles and crewed spacecraft in flight. Typical engineering imagery assessments include studying and characterizing the liftoff and ascent debris environments; launch vehicle and propulsion element performance; in-flight activities; and entry, landing, and recovery operations. Integration 2 support has been provided not only for U.S. Government spaceflight (e.g., Space Shuttle, Ares I-X) but also for commercial launch providers, such as Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corporation, servicing the International Space Station. The NASA Integration 2 Team is composed of imagery integration specialists from JSC, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), who have access to a vast pool of experience and capabilities related to program integration, deployment and management of imagery assets, imagery data management, and photogrammetric analysis. The Integration 2 team is currently providing integration services to commercial demonstration flights, Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1), and the Space Launch System (SLS)-based Exploration Missions (EM)-1 and EM-2. EM-2 will be the first attempt to fly a piloted mission with the Orion spacecraft. The Integration 2 Team provides the customer (both commercial and Government) with access to a wide array of imagery options - ground-based, airborne, seaborne, or vehicle-based - that are available through the Government and commercial vendors. The team guides the customer in assembling the appropriate complement of imagery acquisition assets at the customer's facilities, minimizing costs associated with market research and the risk of purchasing inadequate assets. The NASA Integration 2 capability simplifies the process of securing one-of-a-kind imagery assets and skill sets, such as ground-based fixed and tracking cameras, crew-in the-loop imaging applications, and the integration of custom or commercial-off-the-shelf sensors onboard spacecraft. For spaceflight applications, the Integration 2 Team leverages modeling, analytical, and scientific resources along with decades of experience and lessons learned to assist the customer in optimizing engineering imagery acquisition and management schemes for any phase of flight - launch, ascent, on-orbit, descent, and landing. The Integration 2 Team guides the customer in using NASA's world-class imagery analysis teams, which specialize in overcoming inherent challenges associated with spaceflight imagery sets. Precision motion tracking, two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) photogrammetry, image stabilization, 3D modeling of imagery data, lighting assessment, and vehicle fiducial marking assessments are available. During a mission or test, the Integration 2 Team provides oversight of imagery operations to verify fulfillment of imagery requirements. The team oversees the collection, screening, and analysis of imagery to build a set of imagery findings. It integrates and corroborates the imagery findings with other mission data sets, generating executive summaries to support time-critical mission decisions.

Calhoun, Tracy↗
NASA NTRS2016

Application of Design of Experiments and Surrogate Modeling within the NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-to-Orbit Design Process

Decisions made during early conceptual design have a large impact upon the expected life-cycle cost (LCC) of a new program. It is widely accepted that up to 80% of such cost is committed during these early design phases.1 Therefore, to help minimize LCC, decisions made during conceptual design must be based upon as much information as possible. To aid in the decision making for new launch vehicle programs, the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) provides rapid turnaround pre-phase A and phase A concept definition studies. The ACO team utilizes a proven set of tools to provide customers with a full vehicle mass breakdown to tertiary subsystems, preliminary structural sizing based upon worst-case flight loads, and trajectory optimization to quantify integrated vehicle performance for a given mission.2 Although the team provides rapid turnaround for single vehicle concepts, the scope of the trade space can be limited due to analyst availability and the manpower requirements for manual execution of the analysis tools. In order to enable exploration of a broader design space, the ACO team has implemented an Advanced Design Methods (ADM) based approach. This approach applies the concepts of Design of Experiments (DOE) and surrogate modeling to more exhaustively explore the trade space and provide the customer with additional design information to inform decision making. This paper will first discuss the automation of the ACO tool set, which represents a majority of the development e ort. In order to t a surrogate model within tolerable error bounds a number of DOE cases are needed. This number will scale with the number of variable parameters desired and the complexity of the system's response to those variables. For all but the smallest design spaces, the number of cases required cannot be produced within an acceptable timeframe using a manual process. Therefore, automation of the tools was a key enabler for the successful application of an ADM approach to an ACO design study. Following the overview of the tool set automation, an example problem will be given to illustrate the implementation of the ADM approach. The example problem will first cover the inclusion of Ground Rules and Assumptions (GR&A) for a study. The GR&A are very important to the study as they determine the constraints within which a trade study can be conducted. These trades must ultimately reconcile with the customer's desired output and any anticipated \what if" questions. The example problem will then illustrate the setup and execution of a DOE through the automated ACO tools. This process is accomplished more efficiently in this work by splitting the tools into two separate environments. The first environment encompasses the structural optimization and mass estimation tools, while the second is focused on trajectory optimization. Surrogate models are t to the outputs of each environment and are integrated via connection of the surrogate equations. Throughout this process, checks are implemented to compare the output of the surrogates to the output of manually run cases to ensure that the error of the final surrogates is at an acceptable level. The conclusion of the example problem demonstrates the utility of the ADM based approach. Using surrogate models gives the ACO team the ability to visualize vehicle sensitivities to various design parameters and identify regions of interest within the design space. The ADM approach can thus be used to inform concept down selection and isolate promising vehicle configurations to be explored in more detail through the manual design process. In addition it provides the customer with an almost instantaneous turnaround on any \what if" questions that may arise within the bounds of the surrogate model. This approach ultimately expands the ability of the ACO team to provide its customer with broad and rapid turnaround trade studies for launch vehicle conceptual design. The ability to identify a selection of designs which can meet the customer requirements will have the potential to lower LCC of launch vehicle designs originating from ACO.

Zwack, Mathew R.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Application of Design of Experiments and Surrogate Modeling within the NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-to-Orbit Design Process

Decisions made during early conceptual design have a large impact upon the expected life-cycle cost (LCC) of a new program. It is widely accepted that up to 80% of such cost is committed during these early design phases. Therefore, to help minimize LCC, decisions made during conceptual design must be based upon as much information as possible. To aid in the decision making for new launch vehicle programs, the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) provides rapid turnaround pre-phase A and phase A concept definition studies. The ACO team utilizes a proven set of tools to provide customers with a full vehicle mass breakdown to tertiary subsystems, preliminary structural sizing based upon worst-case flight loads, and trajectory optimization to quantify integrated vehicle performance for a given mission. Although the team provides rapid turnaround for single vehicle concepts, the scope of the trade space can be limited due to analyst availability and the manpower requirements for manual execution of the analysis tools. In order to enable exploration of a broader design space, the ACO team has implemented an advanced design methods (ADM) based approach. This approach applies the concepts of design of experiments (DOE) and surrogate modeling to more exhaustively explore the trade space and provide the customer with additional design information to inform decision making. This paper will first discuss the automation of the ACO tool set, which represents a majority of the development effort. In order to fit a surrogate model within tolerable error bounds a number of DOE cases are needed. This number will scale with the number of variable parameters desired and the complexity of the system's response to those variables. For all but the smallest design spaces, the number of cases required cannot be produced within an acceptable timeframe using a manual process. Therefore, automation of the tools was a key enabler for the successful application of an ADM approach to an ACO design study. Following the overview of the tool set automation, an example problem will be given to illustrate the implementation of the ADM approach. The example problem will first cover the inclusion of ground rules and assumptions (GR&A) for a study. The GR&A are very important to the study as they determine the constraints within which a trade study can be conducted. These trades must ultimately reconcile with the customer's desired output and any anticipated "what if" questions. The example problem will then illustrate the setup and execution of a DOE through the automated ACO tools. This process is accomplished more efficiently in this work by splitting the tools into two separate environments. The first environment encompasses the structural optimization and mass estimation tools, while the second is focused on trajectory optimization. Surrogate models are fit to the outputs of each environment and are "integrated" via connection of the surrogate equations. Throughout this process, checks are implemented to compare the output of the surrogates to the output of manually run cases to ensure that the error of the final surrogates is at an acceptable level. The conclusion of the example problem demonstrates the utility of the ADM based approach. Using surrogate models gives the ACO team the ability to visualize vehicle sensitivities to various design parameters and identify regions of interest within the design space. The ADM approach can thus be used to inform concept down selection and isolate promising vehicle configurations to be explored in more detail through the manual design process. In addition it provides the customer with an almost instantaneous turnaround on any ''what if" questions that may arise within the bounds of the surrogate model. This approach ultimately expands the ability of the ACO team to provide its customer with broad and rapid turnaround trade studies for launch vehicle conceptual design. The ability to identify a selection of designs which can meet the customer requirements will help ensure lower LCC of launch vehicle designs originating from ACO.

Zwack, Mathew R.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Understanding EV Charging Pain Points Through Deep Learning Analysis

Current and potential electric vehicle (EV) owners express concerns about the charging infrastructure, mentioning non-functional chargers, prolonged charging times, inconvenient charger locations, long wait times, and high costs as major barriers. Addressing these issues often requires analyzing actual vehicle charging data, which is typically proprietary and inconsistent due to diverse standards and protocols. To understand and improve the EV charging experience, customer reviews are typically used to identify common customer pain points (CPPs). However, there is not a comprehensive method to map customer reviews to a standardized set of CPPs. In collaboration with the National Charging Experience (ChargeX) Consortium, this study bridges these gaps by proposing a Systematic Categorization and Analysis of Large-scale EV-charging Reviews (SCALER) framework. SCALER is an integrated, deep learning framework that segments, actively labels, analyzes, and classifies EV charging customer reviews into six CPP categories. To test its effectiveness, we used SCALER to analyze over 72,000 reviews from customers charging various EV models on different networks across the United States. SCALER achieves a classification accuracy of 92.5%, with an F1 score exceeding 85.7%. By demonstrating real-world applications of SCALER, we enhance the industry’s ability to understand and address CPPs to improve the EV charging experience.

29 - ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Income Verification Strategies for Income-Based Solar Programs

The Inflation Reduction Act has created substantial new programs that support adoption of solar power by low-income households, including the $7 billion Solar For All program and the Low-Income Communities Bonus Credit Program, which increases the investment tax credit for certain types of deployment. In addition, a growing number of states are using solar programs to reduce energy burdens and create energy justice opportunities for low-income households and disadvantaged communities. Verifying the income of participating customers is an important component of these programs. Program managers are seeking strategies to verify a large number of subscribing customers in an accurate, timely, and cost-efficient manner. To help inform program managers, Berkeley Lab investigated how a number of energy and non-energy programs manage income verification. The most common approach is to require proof through tax documents, pay stubs, or other formal income documentation, which can pose an impediment to enrolling eligible customers and create a paperwork burden for administrators. In order to reduce the burden for both the applicant and the program manager, some programs use alternative methods. We identify three common alternative verification methods: -Categorical eligibility: Customers enrolled in other, similar income-verified assistance programs are automatically eligible for enrollment in other income-qualified programs. -Geographic eligibility: Eligibility is based on the customer’s location within a specified area, typically a low-income or disadvantaged community or census tract, and; -“Self-attestation”: The participant claims eligibility with or without further documentation. We describe these options, their pros and cons, give examples of how they are used, and explore how some low-income programs address administrative issues, audits, or other quality control measures. Finally, we explore the risk of mistaken verifications (finding a participant eligible when they are not) in the different strategies. While this memo was initiated by a request relating to income-based community solar programs, the methods are applicable to any program with income eligibility requirements in the energy or non-energy sector. Funding was provided for this research by the Solar Energy Technologies Office of the US Department of Energy, through the National Community Solar Partnership.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Bill Savings vs. Backup Power: Evaluating operational tradeoffs for home solar+storage systems [Slides]

Adoption of residential solar photovoltaic+energy storage systems (PVESS) is driven by both bill savings opportunities and customer demand for backup power. Prior work by this team (Gorman et al., 2022; Gorman et al., 2023) explored PVESS backup power capabilities during long-duration power interruptions (e.g., due to severe weather events), when customers are assumed to be able to anticipate the event and charge their batteries in advance. In many cases, however, power interruptions are unpredictable (and often relatively short); for those types of events, a customer will typically set its battery to maintain some minimum capacity in reserve in case of an interruption, which reduces the capacity available for managing utility bills. This study evaluates this operational tradeoff to help customers and installers configure backup reserve settings, and to inform decision-making more generally about the customer value of backup power services compared to utility bill savings. This study utilizes Berkeley Lab’s PRESTO tool to produce stochastic simulations of (predominantly short-duration) power interruption events, and builds on an earlier case-study demonstrating PVESS backup performance during short-duration interruptions (Baik et al., 2023).

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Electricity Rate Designs for Large Loads: Evolving Practices and Opportunities

Electricity demand from large load customers such as data centers is projected to grow significantly in the near term. While data centers play an important role in advancing technology innovation and economic growth in the United States, data center energy needs present challenges and opportunities for electricity supply and infrastructure. This technical brief serves as a foundation for the discussion of issues and sharing of perspectives among utilities, regulators, large load customers, and other stakeholders. As utilities and regulators explore rate structures to address growing data center electricity demand, several issues have emerged: -Fair allocation of electricity system costs to large-load customers without unfair shifting of costs to other customers -Appropriate mitigation of the financial risks associated with stranded assets from underutilized utility system investments -Mitigation of operational and resource adequacy risks if electricity demand exceeds supply -Appropriate risk-sharing in commercializing newer electricity technologies such as advanced geothermal, small modular reactors, and long duration energy storage -Accommodating the diverse needs of large-load customers, such as having the option to match electricity consumption with output from carbon-free resources or using onsite generation to provide system capacity The technical brief also identifies key design elements that aim to address these issues and uses leading examples from pending and approved rate structures, agreements, and special contracts to ground the elements in practice.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

ICE Calculator 2: Final Report for Phase 1 and 2 of the National Initiative to Update the Interruption Cost Estimate (ICE) Calculator

ICE 2.0 Phase 2 Final Report In 2021, Berkeley Lab and Resource Innovations, Inc. launched the “ICE Calculator 2 Initiative” – a national study to refresh the underlying data and enhance the functionality of the ICE Calculator. The Initiative involves Berkeley Lab contracting with sponsoring utilities to administer identical, updated and comprehensive interruption cost surveys to statistically representative samples of each utility’s customers. Berkeley Lab and Resource Innovations then pool the survey results across the utilities and use them to update the analytical engines that drive the ICE Calculator. The ICE Calculator 2 Initiative is being conducted in phases. Each phase involves the administration of interruption cost surveys to the customers of sponsoring utilities, followed by an update to the ICE Calculator based on analysis of the pooled survey results. This report describes the activities and findings from Phase 1 and 2 of the ICE Calculator 2 Initiative. Phase 1 was sponsored by eight utilities: American Electric Power, Commonwealth Edison, Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, DTE Electric, Exelon, National Grid, and Puget Sound Energy. Phase 2 was sponsored by six utilities: Empire District Electric Company, Evergy Missouri, Pacific Gas & Electric, San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and Union Electric. Phase 1 and 2 involved 15 customer interruption cost survey activities representing a total of 30 electricity distribution service territories. ICE Calculator Version 2.0 and 2.2 Comparison This memorandum describes–at a high-level–the improvements in interruption cost estimates for the version 2.2 of the ICE Calculator (released February 2026) compared to version 2.0 (released in April 2025). Version 2.2 of the ICE Calculator corresponds to Phase 2 of the initiative, while version 2.0 corresponds to Phase 1. The improvements in version 2.2 result from both a significant increase in the number of customer responses that have been collected and the identification of seven additional factors that help estimate customer interruption costs.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

California Price Response Potential Study

California's energy landscape is undergoing a significant transformation, driven by the increasing integration of renewable energy sources, the increased adoption of distributed energy resources, the electrification of end-use loads, and the growing need for grid efficiency. To address these challenges, recent revisions to the State’s Load Management Standards (LMS) require all of California’s large utilities and community choice aggregators (CCAs) to offer dynamic electricity pricing options to customers by 2027. Dynamic pricing, which involves varying electricity rates based on real-time supply and demand conditions, offers a promising solution for optimizing grid operations, reducing costs, and incentivizing efficient use of grid capacity. Effective implementation of dynamic pricing requires understanding the potential impacts on customer bills, system load, and the cost-effectiveness of automation technologies. This study aims to evaluate the load response of various end-use devices to hourly dynamic prices. The end-uses studied here are space cooling, space heating, water heating, crop irrigation, pool and spa pumps, and electric vehicle (EV) charging, all for both residential and commercial applications, except for crop irrigation. In 2030, these end uses are forecasted to account for 18% of annual electricity demand in the state, but 40% of demand in the peak net load hour. By modeling possible price-responsive load dispatch algorithms and assessing the resulting impacts on both individual bills and the overall grid, we seek to inform policymakers and utilities about the potential benefits and challenges associated with dynamic pricing, and considerations for the design of dynamic pricing tariffs. Additionally, we will explore the cost effectiveness of adopting automation technologies to enable devices to respond more effectively to real-time price signals. This study considers a range of price profiles, accounting for differences across utilities and customer classes, and presents scenarios for dynamic price design via variation in the percentage of total customer electric costs that are allocated dynamically (versus constituting a fixed portion of the hourly volumetric price). We present results focused primarily on 2030, forecasting electricity prices under both low and high-cost scenarios, to inform longer-term tariff design considerations. We design tariffs by starting with 2019 prices that were calculated according to CalFUSE guidance (CPUC, 2022) and that have been used in recent studies; these prices are all-in volumetric rates that vary by utility and are revenue-neutral to each customer class. They are developed by considering six electricity cost components that are allocated hourly based on system load indicators (gross and net load, and wholesale prices). These prices are forecasted to 2030 for low and high cost scenarios, considering recent trends in total electricity costs with and without years of substantial wildfire mitigation investments. These tariffs, which allocate all costs on an hourly basis, are considered our “Full” dynamic tariff design scenario, while two additional scenarios explore allocating a portion of costs as a flat volumetric charge: the “Medium” scenario allocates 50% of revenue dynamically (and keeps 50% flat), while the “Mild” scenario allocates 20% of revenue dynamically. The 20% dynamic allocation on the Mild scenario aims to represent a case where only the marginal operating costs of the grid are included in the dynamic price.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Product Defect Detection System: SYSM- 5620 Final Project

Retail sales is a growing market estimated to up to seven percent year over year. With this growing market there is also a trend in growing rate of retail returns, estimated just last year at $\$$850 billion. Retail stores must ensure that products available for purchase remain safe, undamaged, and acceptable to customers throughout their time in the store. This job exists regardless of the specific solution used because stores are always responsible for preventing damaged or defective products from reaching customers and when they fail to this is categorized under operation inefficiencies which accounts for an estimated $\$$12 billion in returns. When defective items remain on the sales floor, stores may experience increased returns, reduced customer satisfaction, loss of customer trust, and potential safety concerns depending on the product type. As a result, the core job to be done is to identify defective products quickly, remove them from the sales floor before they are purchased, and preserve useful information about the defect so that the store can improve its handling, stocking, and supplier coordination over time. The need for a more reliable process is especially important in high volume retail environments where employees manage large numbers of products across many aisles, shelves, and storage areas. In these settings, manual inspection alone can be inconsistent and difficult to sustain at the individual item level. At the same time, broader retail trends continue to emphasize operational efficiency, product visibility, and improved customer experience, creating an opportunity for more automated and data driven defect detection methods.

42 ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRS1993

Preparing the DSN operations concepts

Operations concepts are prepared to support a specific application and can, therefore, be classified accordingly. Studies of NASA and military operations concepts suggest three major types: data services, customer services, and systems oriented. Data services concepts concentrate on data types (e.g., telemetry and command) and how these data are processed and delivered to the user. Such concepts are normally used by data-processing centers to describe data-coding schemes and data formats. Customer services concepts concentrate on the customers' requirements and describe how these requirements are met using the systems available to the operation. Project centers use such concepts to describe the various types of data as they flow from the source (e.g., a spacecraft) to the end user (i.e., the customer). Systems oriented concepts concentrate on the use of systems for processing and delivering customer data. This paper examines the latter type and the 'concepts' that are inherent within them.

Salazar, A. J.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Method for optimizing resource allocation in a government organization

The managers in Federal agencies are challenged to control the extensive activities in government and still provide high-quality products and services to the American taxpayers. Considering today's complex social and economic environment and the $3.8 billion daily cost of operating the Federal Government, it is evident that there is a need to develop decision-making tools for accurate resource allocation and total quality management. The goal of this thesis is to provide a methodical process that will aid managers in Federal Government to make budgetary decisions based on the cost of services, the agency's objectives, and the customers' perception of the agency's product. A general resource allocation procedure was developed in this study that can be applied to any government organization. A government organization, hereafter the 'organization,' is assumed to be a multidivision enterprise. This procedure was applied to a small organization for the proof of the concept. This organization is the Technical Services Directorate (TSD) at the NASA Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio. As part of the procedure, a nonlinear programming model was developed to account for the resources of the organization, the outputs produced by the organization, the decision-maker's views, and the customers' satisfaction with the organization. The information on the resources of the organization was acquired from current budget levels of the organization and the human resources assigned to the divisions. The outputs of the organization were defined and measured by identifying metrics that assess the outputs, the most challenging task in this study. The decision-maker's views are represented in the model as weights assigned to the various outputs and were quantified by using the analytic hierarchy process. The customer's opinions regarding the outputs of the organization were collected through questionnaires that were designed for each division individually. Following the philosophy of total quality management, information on customers' satisfaction is presented in the model as the quality of output. The model is a nonlinear one whose objective is to maximize customers' satisfaction such that the total cost of operation does not exceed the organization's budget. This model represents a structured approach or policy mechanism, at the agency level, to make capital investment decisions based on the priorities of the agency and the quality of outputs. This procedure applied to TSD resulted in a resources allocation scheme that was reasonable and acceptable to the decision-makers and, as expected, dependent on the assumptions and accuracy of the data used in the model.

Afarin, James↗
NASA NTRS1994

Automated protein crystal growth facility

A customer for the protein crystal growth facility fills the specially designed chamber with the correct solutions, fills the syringes with their quenching solutions, and submits the data needed for the proper growth of their crystal. To make sure that the chambers and syringes are filled correctly, a NASA representative may assist the customer. The data needed is the approximate growth time, the growth temperature, and the desired crystal size, but this data can be changed anytime from the ground, if needed. The chambers are gathered and placed into numbered slots in special drawers. Then, data is entered into a computer for each of the chambers. Technicians map out when each chamber's growth should be activated so that all of the chambers have enough time to grow. All of this data is up-linked to the space station when the previous growth session is over. Anti-vibrational containers need to be constructed for the high forces encountered during the lift off and the landing of the space shuttle, and though our team has not designed these containers, we do not feel that there is any reason why a suitable one could not be made. When the shuttle reaches the space station, an astronaut removes a drawer of quenched chambers from the growth facility and inserts a drawer of new chambers. All twelve of the drawers can be replaced in this fashion. The optical disks can also be removed this way. The old drawers are stored for the trip back to earth. Once inside the growth facility, a chamber is removed by the robot and placed in one of 144 active sites at a time previously picked by a technician. Growth begins when the chamber is inserted into an active site. Then, the sensing system starts to determine the size of the protein crystal. All during the crystal's growth, the customer can view the crystal and read all of the crystal's data, such as growth rate and crystal size. When the sensing system determines that the crystal has reached the predetermined size, the robot is told to pick up a syringe filled with the correct quenchant solution and inject it into the chamber to stop the crystal growth. The chamber is then removed from the active site and placed into its original storage slot. Another chamber is then placed into the active site and the process is repeated in all of the active sites until all of the chambers have complted their growth. After ninety days (the scheduled time between shuttle visits), the crystal growth is completed, and the old drawers are replaced with new ones. Once the customer extracts the crystals, the chambers are retrieved for future customers.

Donald, Stacey↗
NASA NTRS1994

Dual-use technologies for the mining, processing, and energy industries

Over the years, NASA has utilized several approaches towards transferring space technologies into the private sectors. Some of these approaches have been successful, others have had mixed results. The conventional approach usually involves identifying advanced NASA technologies and then searching for applications. Some approaches involve joint sponsorship, but mostly focus on technologies for space. The greatest success has occurred when market forces are used to determine technology initiatives. This paper describes an unconventional approach that was structured to drive out customer requirements for advanced technologies where NASA is also a customer on par with others. The approach used herein is best described as entrepreneurial deal-making. This approach is new and is working very well so far, but it is still too early, and the process is too immature, for quantitative evaluation of success. However, it is appropriate to share these experiences at this time in order to obtain feedback and improve our chances for success. In the needs identification stage, NASA is one of many users (customers), and in the subsequent development stage, NASA is one of many suppliers along with industry, academia, and other government organizations. This specific characteristic of the approach was a primary goal that was incorporated from inception. It was the viewpoint of the instigators (the authors) that if the activity was customer focused, it would: (1) have a higher probability for success since it will be driven by those who will reap the benefits; (2) be able to advocate and promote action if necessary, since it would be founded outside the federal government; (3) not be self-perpetuating; that is, if no common need could be found that had a reasonable return on investment, it would self-destruct; and (4) have increased stability from a broader base of support and not be dependent on NASA being the principal funding source. To date, the workshop activities have identified a collection of potential customers in NASA, other federal government, private industry, and academia who have common needs for advanced technologies.

Roberts, Barney B.↗