Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “report”

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
DOE OSTI2025

Reported Energy and Cost Savings from the DOE ESPC IDIQ Program: FY 2024

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs)are a contractual mechanism that allow a federal agency to procure energy savings and facility improvements without upfront capital costs to reduce costs and resiliency. ESPCs are covered under FAR Part 23.2, and 42 USC § 8287. Section 8287(a)(2)(A) of Title 42 of the U.S. Code requires that each energy savings performance contract (ESPC) undergo an annual energy audit, resulting in a separate audit report for every project. The objective of the present report is to compile and analyze all annual ESPC audit reports issued between October 1, 2023, and September 30, 2024, for projects awarded under Generations 1, 2, and 3 of DOE’s ESPC IDIQ contracts. During this period, 205 measurement and verification (M&V) reports were produced for 200 projects; the total number of reports exceeds the number of projects because some projects generated more than one report(for example, a few projects measure savings twice per year and produce two audit reports annually, each covering a different six-month period). By aggregating the results from these individual audits, the report determines the portfolio-wide realization rate of energy and cost savings for all active ESPC projects awarded under DOE’s IDIQ program. For all 205audit reports, sufficient information was available to compare project-level estimated, reported, and guaranteed cost savings. Reported cost savings accounted for ESCO verified savings per each project’s M&V plan. The total reported cost savings for the period addressed were $\$$647.8million,compared with the total guaranteed cost savings of $\$$601.6million. On average across the reported projects: •ESPC contractors guaranteed 92.8% of the estimated cost savings• projects reported achieving 100.0% of the estimated cost savings• projects reported achieving 107.7% of the guaranteed cost savings. The M&V performed for the period indicated adjustments for government operations and maintenance impacts to savings amount to$\$$43.9millionandcould be restored with the original operational parameters for impacted projects. Accounting for this potential cost savings impact, these projects still realized 100.4% of the guaranteed cost savings. The information on estimated and reported energy savings was collected and compared for all 205of the reports examined. Based on site energy, estimated savings totaled 14.88million MMBtu, and reported savings were 15.33million MMBtu; 3.1% greater than the estimated energy savings. All of the reports examined contained sufficient information to calculate source energy savings. Based on site-adjusted source energy, total estimated energy savings were 20.90 million MMBtu, and reported savings were 21.22million MMBtu, 101.5% of the estimated energy savings. For water savings, the estimated savings were 11,539,055 kGal and the reported savings were 13,315,930 kGal. This means 1,776,875 kGal more water was saved than estimated, which is about 15% higher than the estimate. These results indicate that, overall, the reported energy savings slightly exceeded the estimated values, while estimated water savings significantly exceeded estimated values, suggesting that the projects achieved greater cost savings than originally projected. The total annual expense for the ESCOs to perform annual M&V audits and reporting was $\$$10.02million. Through this effort, $\$$647.8 million in annual cost savings was verified. The M&V results indicated that $\$$43.9 million of these verified savings reflected adjustments due to government operations A-6and maintenance impacts, which could be restored under the original operational parameters for the affected projects. These findings show the value of M&V that only costs 1.7%of the guaranteed cost savings to ensure guarantees are met.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
NASA NTRS2016

Review of NASA's Evidence Reports on Human Health Risks

NASA has requested a study from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to provide an independent review of more than 30 evidence reports on human health risks for long duration and exploration spaceflight. The evidence reports, which are publicly available, are categorized into five broad categories: (1) behavioral health and performance; (2) human health countermeasures (with a focus on bone metabolism and orthopedics, nutrition, immunology, and cardiac and pulmonary physiology); (3) radiation; (4) human factors issues; and (5) exploration medical capabilities. The reports are revised on an ongoing basis to incorporate new scientific information. In conducting this study, an IOM ad hoc committee will build on the 2008 IOM report Review of NASA's Human Research Program Evidence Books. That report provided an assessment of the process used for developing the evidence reports and provided an initial review of the evidence reports that had been completed at that time. Each year, NASA staff will identify a set of evidence reports for committee review. Over the course of the study all evidence reports will be reviewed. The committee will hold an annual scientific workshop to receive input on the evidence reports it is reviewing that year and an update on the recent literature. The committee will issue an annual letter report that addresses the following questions relevant to each evidence report: 1. Does the evidence report provide sufficient evidence, as well as sufficient risk context, that the risk is of concern for long-term space missions? 2. Does the evidence report make the case for the research gaps presented? 3. Are there any additional gaps in knowledge or areas of fundamental research that should be considered to enhance the basic understanding of this specific risk? 4. Does the evidence report address relevant interactions among risks? 5. Is input from additional disciplines needed? 6. Is the breadth of the cited literature sufficient? 7. What is the overall readability and quality? 8. Is the expertise of the authors sufficient to fully cover the scope of the given risk? 9. Has the evidence report addressed previous recommendations made by the IOM in the 2008 letter report?

Scott-Conner, Carol E. H.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Identifying Emerging Safety Threats Through Topic Modeling in the Aviation Safety Reporting System: A Covid-19 Study

The NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) is a voluntary, confidential aviation safety reporting system. The ASRS receives reports from pilots, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, and others involved in aviation operations. The reports are de-identified and coded by ASRS expert safety analysts, and a short descriptive synopsis is written to describe the safety issue. The de-identified reports are then disseminated to the aviation community in many ways, including via an online database, Safety Alert Bulletins, For Your Information Notices, and the CALLBACK newsletter. In this work, we consider whether we can improve the grouping, linking, and understanding of safety concerns through topic modeling. Specifically, we use topic modeling as a building block to identify emerging safety threats over time. This unsupervised approach, we argue, offers the flexibility to identify new emerging themes in this large dataset by constructing different timelines based on the content similarity of ASRS report narratives. This method's unsupervised nature improves upon related research, which is limited to pre-defined labels and therefore can not fully capture emerging safety threats. We apply our method to all ASRS reports in 2020 to assess if the generated timelines can highlight COVID-19 as it is emerging as a safety threat in incoming ASRS reports. We perform both a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the automatically constructed timelines. The qualitative evaluation is performed by describing the evolution of top terms in the timelines, generated by our method, which we found explicitly convey the themes of COVID-19. Separately, we use a set of 1,213 COVID-19 reports from 2020 that were manually identified by ASRS analysts to quantitatively evaluate the COVID-19 reports distribution across the timelines. Our results have shown that COVID-19 emergence can be identified using the top terms that were generated by topic modeling. The top terms in topic modeling therefore can serve as a summary alternative to manually inspecting reports. Moreover, leveraging the manually identified COVID-19 reports, we found the manually identified timelines accounted for over 70% of the COVID-19 reports curated by the ASRS analysts, which demonstrates the potential of this approach for facilitating the understanding of safety concerns as they emerge and evolve. This method shows great potential to understand aerospace safety threats and other narrative- driven incident report databases.

ASRS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Identifying Emerging Safety Threats Through Topic Modeling in the Aviation Safety Reporting System: A COVID-19 Study

The NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) is a voluntary, confidential aviation safety reporting system. The ASRS receives reports from pilots, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, and others involved in aviation operations. The reports are de-identified and coded by ASRS expert safety analysts, and a short descriptive synopsis is written to describe the safety issue. The de-identified reports are then disseminated to the aviation community in many ways, including via an online database, Safety Alert Bulletins, For Your Information Notices, and the CALLBACK newsletter. In this work, we consider whether we can improve the grouping, linking, and understanding of safety concerns through topic modeling. Specifically, we use topic modeling as a building block to identify emerging safety threats over time. This unsupervised approach, we argue, offers the flexibility to identify new emerging themes in this large dataset by constructing different timelines based on the content similarity of ASRS report narratives. This method's unsupervised nature improves upon related research, which is limited to pre-defined labels and therefore can not fully capture emerging safety threats. We apply our method to all ASRS reports in 2020 to assess if the generated timelines can highlight COVID-19 as it is emerging as a safety threat in incoming ASRS reports. We perform both a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the automatically constructed timelines. The qualitative evaluation is performed by describing the evolution of top terms in the timelines, generated by our method, which we found explicitly convey the themes of COVID-19. Separately, we use a set of 1,213 COVID-19 reports from 2020 that were manually identified by ASRS analysts to quantitatively evaluate the COVID-19 reports distribution across the timelines. Our results have shown that COVID-19 emergence can be identified using the top terms that were generated by topic modeling. The top terms in topic modeling therefore can serve as a summary alternative to manually inspecting reports. Moreover, leveraging the manually identified COVID-19 reports, we found the manually identified timelines accounted for over 70% of the COVID-19 reports curated by the ASRS analysts, which demonstrates the potential of this approach for facilitating the understanding of safety concerns as they emerge and evolve. This method shows great potential to understand aerospace safety threats and other narrative- driven incident report databases.

ASRS↗
NASA NTRS1996

Space Studies Board Annual Report 1995

During 1995, the Space Studies Board and its committees and task groups gathered for a total of 40 meetings. Highlights of these meetings are presented. Formal study reports and short reports developed and approved during the meetings and issued during 1995 are represented in this annual report either by their executive summaries (for full-length reports), or by reproduction in full (for short reports). Nine full-length reports were distributed or delivered, including a congressionally mandated report by the Committee on the Future of Space Science and a comprehensive survey of Earth observation programs by the Committee on Earth Studies. Major research guidance reports were completed and published by the Committee on Microgravity Research and by the federated Committee on Solar and Space Physics/Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research. Several significant assessment reports were also published, including an assessment of small missions by the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration, a scientific evaluation of Gravity Probe B by the Task Group on Gravity Probe B, and an analysis of technologies for a 4-meter active optics telescope by the Task Group on BMDO New Technology Orbital Observatory. In addition, the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics Panel on Ground-based Optical and Infrared Astronomy released its report, and the Task Group on Priorities in Space Research issued its second and final report. Five short reports were also prepared and released during 1995. They addressed such diverse topics as reflight of shuttle-borne synthetic aperture radars, the role of NASA centers and center scientists in scientific research, guidelines for establishment of NASA research institutes, and clarification of findings of the microgravity research opportunities report and of the Future of Space Science Committee's management study.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2000

International VLBI Service for Geodesy and Astrometry 2000 Annual Report

This volume of reports is the 2000 Annual Report of the International Very Long Base Interferometry (VLBI) Service for Geodesy and Astrometry (IVS). The individual reports were contributed by VLBI groups in the international geodetic and astrometric community who constitute the permanent components of IVS. The IVS 2000 Annual Report documents the work of the IVS components for the period March 1, 1999 (the official inauguration date of IVS) through December 31, 2000. The reports document changes, activities, and progress of the IVS. The entire contents of this Annual Report also appear on the IVS web site at http://ivscc.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/ar2000. This book and the web site are organized as follows: (1) The first section contains general information about IVS, a map showing the location of the components, information about the Directing Board members, and the report of the IVS Chair; (2) The second section of Special Reports contains a status report of the IVS Working Group on GPS phase center mapping, a reproduction of the resolution making IVS a Service of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), and a reprint of the VLBI Standard Interface (VSI); (3) The next seven sections hold the component reports from the Coordinators, Network Stations, Operation Centers, Correlators, Data Centers, Analysis Centers, and Technology Development Centers; and (4) The last section includes reference information about IVS: the Terms of Reference, the lists of Member and Affiliated organizations, the IVS Associate Member list, a complete list of IVS components, the list of institutions contributing to this report, and a list of acronyms. The 2000 Annual Report demonstrates the vitality of the IVS and the outstanding progress we have made during our first 22 months.

Vandenberg, N. R.↗
NASA NTRS2024

Launch Complex 34, SWMU CC054 2023 DNAPL Source Zone Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring, Site-Wide Long-Term Monitoring, and Hot Spot 6 Air Sparge System Annual Performance Monitoring and Phase Two Expansion Construction Completion Report Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida

This Annual Performance Monitoring Report (PMR) for the Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Source Zone (DSZ), Site-Wide Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), and Hot Spot 6 (HS 6) Air Sparge (AS) System presents the results of Year 14 operations and performance monitoring of the hydraulic containment (HC) Interim Measure (IM), details associated with construction and implementation of the HS 6 AS system expansion (Phase Two), and the results of operations and performance sampling of the HS 6 AS IM at Launch Complex 34 (LC34), located at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), Florida. The timeframe for activities documented in this PMR extends from April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024. LC34 has been designated Solid Waste Management Unit CC054 under the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program. The objective of the HC IM at LC34 is to contain the shallow and deep DSZ and surrounding dissolved-phase trichloroethene (TCE) high concentration plume via operation of a hydraulic containment system (HCS). The pre-IM design 300 micrograms per liter (μg/L) TCE groundwater contour was used to establish the deep zone capture area for deep recovery wells, and the shallow zone capture area was defined by the DSZ. The system began operating in 2010, and in 2015, the system was expanded to provide HC for areas within the 300 μg/L TCE groundwater isocontours of HS 3 and 4. In 2018 and 2019, an investigation was conducted to recharacterize the DSZ, which included investigating TCE mass in Layer 7. This data was subsequently used to optimize the pumping rates of the HCS and install additional recovery wells in Layer 7 to more adequately capture residual contaminant mass. The operational period for Year 14 of the HCS was from April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024. Operational runtime for the system was 94 percent during Year 14, with downtime events attributed to planned maintenance, system repairs, and power outages. As of March 31, 2024, a total of 344,849,634 cumulative gallons of groundwater containing 94,656 pounds of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) have been removed by the HCS. During the reporting period covered under this report, the HCS recovered 31,176,393 gallons and approximately 6,319 pounds of CVOC mass. Total combined influent concentrations of TCE have decreased since startup from approximately 280,000 µg/L (January 2010) to 25,000 µg/L (March 2024). During the reporting period, all effluent concentrations from the HCS (aqueous and vapor) were below regulatory reporting limits, indicating the system continues to operate as intended. Performance monitoring was conducted in January 2024 within the DSZ to evaluate TCE contamination. Groundwater samples were collected via DPT at nine locations, consistent with previous events between 2017 and 2022. Full vertical profile sampling was completed at each DPT from 8 to 98 feet below land surface (bls), at 5-foot intervals. The DPT performance monitoring results are summarized in this PMR. The results revealed TCE remains at concentrations greater than 11,000 µg/L in the DSZ (1-percent solubility, indicative of DNAPL) at eight of the nine DPT locations and at depths ranging from 28 to 98 feet bls. An overall decreasing trend of TCE concentrations was observed in DPT samples during this reporting period, which is a reduction from the previous event (December 2022) and the peak event in December 2021, where TCE percentages appeared to increase in all depth zones because several recovery wells were turned off during the AS pilot study in the DSZ. The maximum TCE concentration in January 2024 was 1,600,000 µg/L in the 53 feet bls depth interval at DPT594 (previous maximum result in 2022 was 1,800,000 µg/L in the 48 feet bls depth interval at DPT599). This maximum concentration in the 53 feet bls depth interval is in the deep capture zone. During the January 2024 DPT event, the largest portion of TCE mass was observed in the 48 feet bls interval above/within Layer 4. This trend remains consistent with previous years and appears to indicate continued mass discharge from Layer 4 (fine-grained unit). In addition to DPT sampling, annual groundwater samples were collected from 11 deep monitoring wells in the DSZ area (Layers 7 and 8) in December 2023 to verify vertical and horizontal delineation. Three of the wells were also sampled biweekly to evaluate operations of recovery well RW21D (screened 86 to 106 feet bls), which was installed in January 2023. Of the Layer 7/8 monitoring sampled only annually, results were non-detect or less than groundwater cleanup target levels GCTLs in December 2023, with the exception of one well, IW45D2, which had a cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cDCE), detection greater than the GCTL. Of the three wells sampled biweekly during the operational period, the well located closest to Layer 7 recovery well RW21D (IW44D2, screened 105 to 115 feet bls) had concentrations of TCE, cDCE and vinyl chloride (VC) greater than GCTLs throughout the operational period, but displayed a decreasing trend since the peak concentrations in September 2023. The maximum TCE concentration during this operational period was 190,000 µg/L at IW44D2 in September 2023, but reduced to 700 µg/L in March 2024, indicating the HCS is still effectively removing mass from the source area. Expansion of the HCS and addition of new recovery wells is ongoing and will continue to be evaluated as the groundwater recovery scheme is optimized. Details of the expansion and optimization will be provided in a future PMR. The HS 6 AS IM was initiated in 2018 with 160 AS wells and expanded in 2019 with another 140 AS wells. An additional expansion of the HS 6 AS IM was completed during the reporting period covered under this report and details of the construction implementation and startup of the expansion are detailed in Section III of this report. The new expansion, referred to as Phase Two, was implemented between August 17, 2022 and August 28, 2023, and included the installation of 190 air sparge wells to treat an additional 11.2 acres. The original configuration (referred to as Phase One) operated until Phase Two came online, then all but 52 AS wells were turned off so the components could be moved and utilized in the Phase Two area. The 52 AS wells that remain on are in a barrier configuration preventing contaminated groundwater from impacting the treated area. The HS 6 AS system (both Phase One and Two) operated normally during the reporting period covered under this report. Semi-annual performance monitoring of the Phase One configuration was conducted in April and November 2023, consistent with previous years. For the Phase Two configuration, 21 new monitoring wells were installed and sampled quarterly, with a baseline event in July 2023, and quarterly events in November 2023 and February 2024 summarized in this report. Semi-annual monitoring results collected in April and October 2023 show concentrations of contaminants of concern (cDCE, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, and VC) have decreased to less than GCTLs in nearly all wells and not impacting the surface water drainage canal, indicating the HS 6 IM continues to meet objectives. The baseline and quarterly sampling for the Phase Two configuration indicate generally decreasing concentrations in wells within and around the perimeter of the treatment area. At least two more quarters of monitoring will be conducted and once those results are evaluated a reduced the sampling frequency may be considered. Overall, the tasks associated with Year 14 operation of the HC IM and operation of the HS 6 AS IM were performed in accordance with recommendations included in the previous 2022 LC34 (Year 13) PMR. Evaluation of results from the HC IM and HS 6 IM show that these systems are operating as designed and meeting performance objectives.

groundwater remediation↗
NASA NTRS1962

Studies in the Fields of Space Flight and Guidance Theory: Progress Report - No. 2

Compiled in this paper are 11 progress papers from 7 of the agencies working under contract to MSFC in the areas of guidance theory and space flight theory. This is the second paper of the "Progress Reports" and covers the period from December 1, 1961 to June 15, 1962. Extensive references are made to "Progress Report No. 1." This second progress report is referred to as "report" and "Progress Report No. 1" will be referred to as the "first report" in this introduction. Information given in the first report is not repeated herein. The reports of the various contractors will be referred to by index number as papers. There are two parallel series of publications covering the over-all activities at MSFC in the areas of guidance theory and space flight theory. One is the series of progress reports of which this paper is the second in the series. The other is the series of "Status Reports on Theory of Space Flight and Adaptive Guidance." These series along with a few other special reports, give a complete picture of the immediate objectives, accomplishments, and final goals of Aeroballistics Division and associated contr

FLIGHT OPTIMIZATION↗
NASA NTRS1996

NASA/DOD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project: Survey of Reader Preferences Concerning the Format of NASA Langley-Authored Technical Reports - Paper 58

The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded research and development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. Little is also known about the intermediary-based system that is used to transfer the results of federally funded R&D to the U.S. aerospace industry. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the NASA/DOD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. In this paper, we summarize the literature on the U.S. government technical report and present the results of a survey of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists that solicited their opinions concerning the format of NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC)-authored technical reports. To learn more about the preferences of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists concerning the format of NASA LaRC-authored technical reports, we surveyed 133 report producers (i.e., authors) and 137 report users in March-April 1996. Questions covered such topics as (1) the order in which report components are read, (2) components used to determine if a report would be read, (3) those components that could be deleted, (4) the placement of such components as the symbols list, (e) the de-sirability of a table of contents, (5) the format of reference citations, (6) column layout and right margin treatment, and (7) and person and voice. Mail (self-reported) surveys were used to collect the data. The response rates for report producers (i.e., authors) was 68% and for users was 62%.

Pinelli, Thomas E.↗
NASA NTRS1997

NASA/DOD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Paper 65: Survey of Reader Preferences Concerning the Format of NASA Langley-Authored Technical Reports

The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded research and development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. Little is also known about the intermediary-based system that is used to transfer the results of federally funded R&D to the U.S. aerospace industry. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. In this article, we summarize the literature on the U.S. government technical report and present the results of a survey of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists that solicited their opinions concerning the format of NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC)-authored technical reports. To learn more about the preferences of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists concerning the format of NASA LaRC-authored technical reports, we surveyed 133 report producers (i.e., authors) and 137 report users in March-April 1996. Questions covered such topics as: (a) the order in which report components are read; (b) components used to determine if a report would be read; (c) those components that could be deleted; (d) the placement of such components as the symbols list; (e) the desirability of a table of contents; (f) the format of reference citations; (g) column layout and right margin treatment; and (h) writing style in terms of person and voice. Mail (self-reported) surveys were used to collect the data. The response rates for report producers (i.e., authors) was 68% and for users was 62%.

Pinelli, Thomas E.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Technology Development Report: CDDF, Dual Use Partnerships, SBIR/STTR: Fiscal Year 2003 Activities

The FY2003 NASA John C. Stennis Stennis Space Center (SSC) Technology Development Report provides an integrated report of all technology development activities at SSC. This report actually combines three annual reports: the Center Director's Discretionary Fund (CDDF) Program Report, Dual Use Program Report, and the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program Report. These reports are integrated in one document to summarize all technology development activities underway in support of the NASA missions assigned to SSC. The Dual Use Program Report provides a summary review of the results and status of the nine (9) Dual Use technology development partnership projects funded and managed at SSC during FY2003. The objective of these partnership projects is to develop or enhance technologies that will meet the technology needs of the two NASA SSC Mission Areas: Propulsion Test and Earth Science Applications. During FY2003, the TDTO managed twenty (20) SBIR Phase II Projects and two (2) STTR Phase II Projects. The SBIR contracts support low TRL technology development that supports both the Propulsion Test and the Earth Science Application missions. These projects are shown in the SBIR/STTR Report. In addition to the Phase II contracts, the TDTO managed ten (10) SBIR Phase I contracts which are fixed price, six month feasibility study contracts. These are not listed in this report. Together, the Dual Use Projects and the SBIR/STTR Projects constitute a technology development partnership approach that has demonstrated that success can be achieved through the identification of the technical needs of the NASA mission and using various available partnership techniques to maximize resource utilization to achieve mutual technology goals. Greater use of these partnership techniques and the resource leveraging they provide, is a goal of the TDTO, providing more support to meet the technology development needs of the mission areas at SSC.

Bailey, John W.↗
NASA NTRS2005

International VLBI Service for Geodesy and Astrometry 2004 Annual Report

Contents include the following: Combination Studies using the Cont02 Campaign. Coordinating Center report. Analysis coordinator report. Network coordinator report. IVS Technology coordinator report. Algonquin Radio observatory. Fortaleza Station report for 2004. Gilmore Creek Geophysical Observatory. Goddard Geophysical and Astronomical observatory. Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory (HartRAO). Hbart, Mt Pleasant, station report for 2004. Kashima 34m Radio Telescope. Kashima and Koganei 11-m VLBI Stations. Kokee Park Geophysical Observatory. Matera GGS VLBI Station. The Medicina Station status report. Report of the Mizusawa 10m Telescope. Noto Station Activity. NYAL Ny-Alesund 20 metre Antenna. German Antarctic receiving Station (GARS) O'higgins. The IVS network station Onsala space Observatory. Sheshan VLBI Station report for 2004. 10 Years of Geodetic Experiments at the Simeiz VLBI Station. Svetloe RAdio Astronomical Observatory. JARE Syowa Station 11-m Antenna, Antarctica. Geodetic Observatory TIGO in Concepcion. Tsukuba 32-m VLBI Station. Nanshan VLBI Station Report. Westford Antenna. Fundamental-station Wettzell 20m Radiotelescope. Observatorio Astroonomico Nacional Yebes. Yellowknife Observatory. The Bonn Geodetic VLBI Operation Center. CORE Operation Center Report. U.S. Naval Observatory Operation Center. The Bonn Astro/Geo Mark IV Correlator.

Behrend, Dirk↗
NASA NTRS2011

An Interim Report on NASA's Draft Space Technology Roadmaps

NASA has developed a set of 14 draft roadmaps to guide the development of space technologies under the leadership of the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT). Each of these roadmaps focuses on a particular technology area (TA). The roadmaps are intended to foster the development of advanced technologies and concepts that address NASA's needs and contribute to other aerospace and national needs. OCT requested that the National Research Council conduct a study to review the draft roadmaps, gather and assess relevant community input, and make recommendations and suggest priorities to inform NASA's decisions as it finalizes its roadmaps. The statement of task states that "based on the results of the community input and its own deliberations, the steering committee will prepare a brief interim report that addresses high-level issues associated with the roadmaps, such as the advisability of modifying the number or technical focus of the draft NASA roadmaps." This interim report, which does not include formal recommendations, addresses that one element of the study charge. NASA requested this interim report so that it would have the opportunity to make an early start in modifying the draft roadmaps based on feedback from the panels and steering committee. The final report will address all other tasks in the statement of task. In particular, the final report will include a prioritization of technologies, will describe in detail the prioritization process and criteria, and will include specific recommendations on a variety of topics, including many of the topics mentioned in this interim report. In developing both this interim report and the final report to come, the steering committee draws on the work of six study panels organized by technical area, loosely following the organization of the 14 roadmaps, as follows: A Panel 1: Propulsion and Power TA01 Launch Propulsion Systems TA02 In-Space Propulsion Technologies TA03 Space Power and Energy Storage Systems TA13 Ground and Launch Systems Processing B Panel 2: Robotics, Communications, and Navigation TA04 Robotics, TeleRobotics, and Autonomous Systems TA05 Communication and Navigation Systems C Panel 3: Instruments and Computing TA08 Science Instruments, Observatories, and Sensor Systems TA11 Modeling, Simulation, Information Technology, and Data Processing D Panel 4: Human Health and Surface Exploration TA06 Human Health, Life Support, and Habitation Systems TA07 Human Exploration Destination Systems E Panel 5: Materials Panel TA10 Nanotechnology TA12 Materials, Structures, Mechanical Systems, and Manufacturing TA14 Thermal Management Systems F Panel 6: Entry, Descent, and Landing Panel TA09 Entry, Descent, and Landing Systems In addition to drawing on the expertise represented on the steering committee and panels, the committee obtained input from each of 14 public workshops held on each of the 14 roadmaps. At these 1-day workshops, invited speakers, guests, and members of the public engaged in discussions on the different technology areas and their value to NASA. Broad community input was also solicited from a public website, where more than 240 public comments were received on the draft roadmaps in response to application of criteria (such as benefit, risk and reasonableness, and alignment with NASA and national goals) that the steering committee established. This interim report reflects the results of deliberations by the steering committee in light of these public inputs as well as additional inputs from the six panels. The steering committee's final report will be completed early in 2012. That report will prioritize the technologies that span the entire scope of the 14 roadmaps and provide additional guidance on crosscutting themes and other relevant topics.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2004

Lessons Learned Study Final Report for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate

This report is the final product of a 90-day study performed for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. The study was to assemble lessons NASA has learned from previous programs that could help the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate pursue the Exploration vision. It focuses on those lessons that should have the greatest significance to the Directorate during the formulation of program and mission plans. The study team reviewed a large number of lessons learned reports and data bases, including the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and Rogers Commission reports on the Shuttle accidents, accident reports from robotic space flight systems, and a number of management reviews by the Defense Sciences Board, Government Accountability Office, and others. The consistency of the lessons, findings, and recommendations validate the adequacy of the data set. In addition to reviewing existing databases, a series of workshops was held at each of the NASA centers and headquarters that included senior managers from the current workforce as well as retirees. The full text of the workshop reports is included in Appendix A. A lessons learned website was opened up to permit current and retired NASA personnel and on-site contractors to input additional lessons as they arise. These new lessons, when of appropriate quality and relevance, will be brought to the attention of managers. The report consists of four parts: Part 1 provides a small set of lessons, called the Executive Lessons Learned, that represent critical lessons that the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate should act on immediately. This set of Executive Lessons and their supporting rationale have been reviewed at length and fully endorsed by a team of distinguished NASA alumni; Part 2 contains a larger set of lessons, called the Selected Lessons Learned, which have been chosen from the lessons database and center workshop reports on the basis of their specific significance and relevance to the near-term work of the Exploration Directorate. These lessons frequently support the Executive lessons but are more general in nature; Part 3 consists of the reports of the center workshops that were conducted as part of this activity. These reports are included in their entirety (approximately 200 pages) in Appendix G and have significance for specific managers; Part 4 consists of the remainder of the lessons that have been selected by this effort and assembled into a database for the use of the Explorations Directorate. The database is archived and hosted in the Lessons Learned Knowledge Network, which provides a flexible search capability using a wide variety of search terms. Finally, a spreadsheet lists databases searched and a bibliography identifies reports that have been reviewed as sources of lessons for this task. NASA has been presented with many learning opportunities. We have conducted numerous programs, some extremely successful and others total failures. Most have been documented with a formal lessons learned activity, but we have not always incorporated these learning opportunities into our normal modes of business. For example, the Robbins Report of 2001 clearly indicates that many project failures of the past two decades were the result of violating well documented best practices, often in direct violation of management instructions and directives. An overarching lesson emerges: that disciplined execution in accordance with proven best practices is the greatest single contributor to a successful program. The Lessons Learned task team offers a sincere hope that the lessons presented herein will be helpful to the Exploration Systems Directorate in charting and executing their course. The success of the Directorate and of NASA in general depends on our collective ability to move forward without having to relearn the lessons of those who have gone before.

Van Laak, Jim↗
NASA NTRS2001

International Space Station Increment-2 Quick Look Report

The objective of this quick look report is to disseminate the International Space Station (ISS) Increment-2 reduced gravity environment preliminary analysis in a timely manner to the microgravity scientific community. This report is a quick look at the processed acceleration data collected by the Microgravity Acceleration Measurement System (MAMS) during the period of May 3 to June 8, 2001. The report is by no means an exhaustive examination of all the relevant activities, which occurred during the time span mentioned above for two reasons. First, the time span being considered in this report is rather short since the MAMS was not active throughout the time span being considered to allow a detailed characterization. Second, as the name of the report implied, it is a quick look at the acceleration data. Consequently, a more comprehensive report, the ISS Increment-2 report, will be published following the conclusion of the Increment-2 tour of duty. NASA sponsors the MAMS and the Space Acceleration Microgravity System (SAMS) to support microgravity science experiments, which require microgravity acceleration measurements. On April 19, 2001, both the MAMS and the SAMS units were launched on STS-100 from the Kennedy Space Center for installation on the ISS. The MAMS unit was flown to the station in support of science experiments requiring quasisteady acceleration data measurements, while the SAMS unit was flown to support experiments requiring vibratory acceleration data measurement. Both acceleration systems are also used in support of the vehicle microgravity requirements verification. The ISS reduced gravity environment analysis presented in this report uses mostly the MAMS acceleration data measurements (the Increment-2 report will cover both systems). The MAMS has two sensors. The MAMS Orbital Acceleration Research Experiment Sensor Subsystem, which is a low frequency range sensor (up to 1 Hz), is used to characterize the quasi-steady environment for payloads and vehicle. The MAMS High Resolution Acceleration Package is used to characterize the ISS vibratory environment up to 100 Hz. This quick look report presents some selected quasi-steady and vibratory activities recorded by the MAMS during the ongoing ISS Increment-2 tour of duty.

Jules, Kenol↗
NASA NTRS2022

Launch Complex 34, SWMU Cc054 2021 DNAPL Source Zone Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring, and Hot Spot 6 Air Sparge System Annual Performance Monitoring Report Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida

This Annual Performance Monitoring Report (PMR) for the Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Source Zone (DSZ) and Hot Spot 6 (HS 6) Air Sparge (AS) System presents the results of Year 12 operation of the hydraulic containment (HC) Interim Measure (IM), the results of performance monitoring direct-push technology (DPT) sampling and monitoring well sampling conducted in the DSZ, and the results of operations and performance sampling of the HS 6 AS IM at Launch Complex 34 (LC34), located at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), Florida. Site-wide biennial LTM sampling was not conducted during this reporting period and is scheduled to be conducted in December 2022. The timeframe for activities documented in this PMR extends from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. LC34 has been designated Solid Waste Management Unit CC054 under the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program. The objective of the HC IM at LC34 is to contain the DSZ and deep dissolved-phase trichloroethene (TCE) high concentration plume via operation of a hydraulic containment system (HCS). The pre-IM design 300 micrograms per liter (μg/L) TCE groundwater contour was used to establish the deep zone capture area for deep recovery wells, and the shallow zone capture area was defined by the DSZ. The system began operating in 2010, and in 2015, the system was expanded to provide HC for areas within the 300 μg/L TCE groundwater isocontours of HS 3 and 4. In 2018 and 2019, an investigation was conducted to re-characterize the DSZ, which included investigating TCE mass in Layer 7. This data was subsequently used to optimize the pumping rates of the HCS to more adequately capture residual contaminant mass. The operational period for Year 12 of the HCS was from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. Operational runtime for the system was 94 percent during Year 12, with downtime events attributed to planned maintenance, system repairs, and power outages. As of March 31, 2022, a total of 285,712,801 gallons of groundwater containing 84,933 pounds of VOCs have been removed by the HCS. Influent concentrations of TCE have decreased since startup from approximately 280,000 µg/L (January 2010) to 12,000 µg/L (March 2022). During the reporting period, all effluent concentrations from the HCS (aqueous and vapor) were below regulatory reporting limits, indicating the system continues to operate as intended. Performance monitoring was conducted in December 2021 within the DSZ to evaluate TCE contamination. Groundwater samples were collected via DPT at nine locations, consistent with previous events in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. Full vertical profile sampling was completed at each DPT from 8 to 98 ft bls, at 5 foot intervals. The DPT performance monitoring results are summarized in this PMR. The results revealed TCE remains at concentrations greater than 11,000 µg/L in the DSZ (1-percent solubility, indicative of DNAPL) at eight of the nine DPT locations at depths ranging from 8 to 98 ft bls. An overall increasing trend of TCE concentrations was observed in DPT samples during this reporting period, which may be due to several recovery wells that were turned off during the AS Pilot Study in the DSZ that operated from July 2021 to February 2022 (documented separately from this report). The maximum TCE concentration in 2021 was 15,400,000 µg/L in the 58 ft bls depth interval at DPT597 (previous maximum result in 2020 was 1,690,000 at 48 ft bls at DPT596). During the 2021 DPT event, the overall majority of TCE contamination was identified in the 58 ft bls interval (below Layer 4), where in the previous year the majority of mass was observed in Layer 4. This trend appears to indicate continued mass discharge from Layer 4 (fine-grained unit). In addition to DPT sampling, monitoring well samples were collected from deep wells in the DSZ area (Layers 7 and 8) to verify vertical delineation. All monitoring well results were non-detect or below cleanup levels, with exception of one well (IW0162, screened 105 to 115 ft bls, which is below the existing recovery well capture zone) where TCE was identified above cleanup target levels. The HS 6 AS system remained operational during the reporting period covered under this report. The HS 6 AS IM was initiated in 2018 with 160 AS wells, and expanded in 2019 with an additional 140 AS wells. Quarterly performance monitoring was reduced to semi-annual prior to this operational period. The results of the HS 6 system operation and semi-annual performance monitoring are summarized in this report. Semi-annual monitoring results collected in April and October 2021 show concentrations of contaminants of concern (cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,2- dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride) are generally decreasing and not impacting the surface water drainage canal, indicating the HS 6 IM is meeting objectives. Overall, the tasks associated with Year 12 operation of the HC IM and operation of the HS 6 AS IM were performed in accordance with the recommendations of the 2020 LC34 (Year 11) Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Report for DNAPL Source Zone, Site Wide LongTerm Monitoring, and Hot Spot 6 Air Sparging System PMR (NASA, 2021c). Evaluation of results from the HC IM and HS 6 IM show that these systems are operating as designed and meeting performance objectives.

trichloroethene↗
DOE OSTI2024

Annual Site Environment Report for Calendar Year 2023 - Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

This report provides the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the public with information on the level of radioactive and non-radioactive pollutants (if any) that are added to the environment as a result of Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s (PPPL) operations. This report fulfills the annual public reporting requirements of DOE Order 231.1B. The results of PPPL’s 2023 environmental surveillance and monitoring program are presented and discussed. The report also summarizes environmental initiatives, assessments, and community involvement programs that were undertaken in 2023. This report provides the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the public with information on the level of radioactive and non-radioactive pollutants (if any) that are added to the environment as a result of Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s (PPPL) operations. This report fulfills the annual public reporting requirements of DOE Order 231.1B. The results of PPPL’s 2023 environmental surveillance and monitoring program are presented and discussed. The report also summarizes environmental initiatives, assessments, and community involvement programs that were undertaken in 2023. In 2023, PPPL’s radiological environmental monitoring program measured tritium in the air at onsite sampling stations. Using highly sensitive air monitors, PPPL is capable of detecting small changes in the ambient levels of tritium. The operation of monitors located on D-site is used to demonstrate compliance with the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) regulations. Also included in PPPL’s radiological environmental monitoring program, are water monitoring – ground, surface, and waste waters. PPPL’s radiological monitoring program characterized the background levels of tritium in the environment and those data are presented in this report. Ground water monitoring continued under New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) Site Remediation Program regulations. PPPL monitored for non-radiological contaminants, mainly volatile organic compounds (components of common degreasing solvents). In 2023, PPPL complied with permit limits for surface water and sanitary wastewater discharges. PPPL was honored with an award for EPEAT-certified electronics purchasing from the Global Electronics Council on July 27, 2023.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
NASA NTRS1985

NASA's New Technology Reporting System: A Review and Future Prospects

This report represents a systematic effort to describe how NASA's new technology reporting system operates today, and how that system might be enhanced. Although the system has run for more than two decades, it is not well documented in terms of organization, operational practices, or other program benchmarks. The study seeks to identify and assess incentives or disincentives to reporting, program management, program follow through, and the feasibility of various means for improving the general process. Initially, it was hoped that the study team might uncover the kind of information that would permit the determination of some 'average' sequence of events (or a time line) from the point of identifying a solution to technical 'need' to the point where its solution was actually reported to NASA. Information regarding this objective proved to be too elusive, primarily because early probes revealed that con- tractor awareness of the new technology requirements generally was too poor to provide useful information. The report that follows is based primarily upon documents furnished by NASA Headquarters, by Field Center technology utilization officers, and interviews with persons knowledgeable about the system. Visits were made to seven Field Centers: Ames Research Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Johnson Space Center, Langley Research Center, Lewis Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center. Other documents were furnished by officials of major aerospace corporations. Detailed interviews were conducted with Field Center technology utilization officials, project engineers or scientists, patent counsels, and other Field Center officials who had knowledge about the new technology reporting system. Interviews also were conducted with knowledgeable officials from a number of the primary aerospace companies. Numeric data was obtained from regular NASA reports, from original sources such as, NASA Tech Briefs, or from contractor reports. I am indebted to dozens of persons in both NASA and industry who took time to assist in the data collection by being interviewed, and through answering follow up questions on the telephone. Individuals interviewed and their affiliations are shown in Appendix A. I am most grateful to them for their kind assistance. A note of thanks is due to the other members of the DRI study team: Jody Briles, Kathy Hirst, and Joel Johnson. The responsibility for this report, its accuracy, and the nature of the observations and conclusions rest solely with the author. Text or citations in the numbered footnotes are to be found at the end of each chapter.

Chapman, Richard L.↗