SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “ITERATIVE NETWORK”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

299 records · Page 17

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

Leveraging operator learning to accelerate convergence of the preconditioned conjugate gradient method

We propose a new deflation strategy to accelerate the convergence of the preconditioned conjugate gradient (PCG) method for solving parametric large-scale linear systems of equations. Unlike traditional deflation techniques that rely on eigenvector approximations or recycled Krylov subspaces, we generate the deflation subspaces using operator learning, specifically the Deep Operator Network (DeepONet). To this aim, we introduce two complementary approaches for assembling the deflation operators. The first approach approximates near-null space vectors of the discrete PDE operator using the basis functions learned by the DeepONet. The second approach directly leverages solutions predicted by the DeepONet. To further enhance convergence, we also propose several strategies for prescribing the sparsity pattern of the deflation operator. Here, a comprehensive set of numerical experiments encompassing steady-state, time-dependent, scalar, and vector-valued problems posed on both structured and unstructured geometries is presented and demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed DeepONet-based deflated PCG method, as well as its generalization across a wide range of model parameters and problem resolutions.

Deflation↗

DOE OSTI2025

Technical Report on Subsurface Monitoring of the Brady Hot Spring Geothermal Site, Nevada, based upon Full Waveform Inversion

Abilities to accurately characterize the subsurface in a geothermal setting is key to assess and support production. An important element of geothermal reservoir monitoring is also the ability to investigate fluid transport within fracture network. This report focuses on improving subsurface imaging and monitoring in geothermal settings using full waveform inversion based on the adjoint method and time-lapse imaging. To assess our method, we rely on a dense seismic dataset collected in 2016 at the Brady Hot Springs geothermal site in Nevada for the DOE-funded project Poroelastic Tomography by Adjoint Inverse Modeling of Data from Seismology, Geodesy, and Hydrology. This dataset captures subsurface changes across four stages of geothermal power plant operations, which involve varying rates of fluid injection and extraction. Two velocity models were previously derived from this dataset using different methods: one based on travel times and another on sweep interferometry. Our first step is to refine these models using adjoint tomography, which has been applied successfully at global and regional-scales but is less common at the reservoir-scale. Two approaches are then explored for time-lapse analysis: directly comparing refined tomographic models from different stages or backpropagating waveform differences relative to a baseline tomographic model. The main take away is that both approaches highlight similar reservoir behaviors, but the latter approach is more computationally effective in capturing small-scale changes in subsurface properties. For this work, we leverage the use of Salvus (www.mondaic.com), an end-to-end seismic imaging solution, relying on the spectral element method to compute forward and adjoint simulations, and developed by Mondaic Ltd. It includes integrated workflow management that handles waveform and metadata, launches simulations, computes waveform misfits and adjoint sources, and iterates for model updates by nonlinear optimization.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Fox Trails

1. This software utilizes python pandas to pull data from P6 databases or XER files. The software transforms the datasets into multiple main tables by joining, filtering, iteratively flattening hierarchical structured data, and pivoting datasets to give simple flat output tables. The activity table includes all of the information related to an activity including activity codes, global, EPS, and project codes, UDFs, and WBS information as separate columns. This includes the code id, code value and sequence number for all levels in hierarchical codes. The resource table is similar to the activity table and includes all of the information related to resources on activities including UPFs and resource codes. The resource time phased table takes the resource information and time phases it for the budget, forecast, late, and actual dates/units/costs that closely matches P6's user interface's values as it implements the resource curve and calendars. The wbs table contains the WBS structure broken out by levels and includes UDFs, codes, and notebook topics. The final P6 data table is the relationships table which simply contains the relationships. 2. When a user updates the tool with data (via giving it P6 project names with database username/password information or XER files) the system creates the data in #1, then creates a networkx graph with the activity data imbedded in the node data and the relationships added as edges. Each edge also has it's float calculated (working time distance between the predecessor and successor) and attached to the edge. Activities are also tagged as a potential start of a path based on their constraints, constraint dates, remaining start date, and activity status. When a user enters an activity ID into the UI, it runs a shortest path calculation on the network graph between each node tagged as potential start to the entered activity id based on the float tagged on the edge. Each path returned by the algorithm contains all of the nodes on the path in order, as well as the total float of the edges that make the path. This data is then collected and returned to the user in the form of a gantt chart with groupings for each path that includes the total float for each group. 3. Similar to 2, if the user passes through a reference dataset each activity set in the path is checked to see if it had a path in the reference dataset, if that path was the primary path between the start and end activities, and what has changed regarding logic and durations. These changes are color coded and summarized before sent to the user to be displayed by the UI for simple discovery. 4. Utilizing the data from #1, the user can submit desired grouping code(s) and filters to the system. The system will then pull the activities, resources, and relationships and create a gantt chart based on the groupings sent and filtered based on the filters sent. 5. The system will produce a gantt chart in a similar method to #4, but allows interactivity with the data. As the user interacts with the gantt chart, the software captures the changes and stores it with the user making the change so that project controls and implement those changes in P6.

Fox, Ben↗

NASA NTRS2012

Greenhouse Gas Concentration Data Recovery Algorithm for a Low Cost, Laser Heterodyne Radiometer

The goal of a coordinated effort between groups at GWU and NASA GSFC is the development of a low-cost, global, surface instrument network that continuously monitors three key carbon cycle gases in the atmospheric column: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), as well as oxygen (O2) for atmospheric pressure profiles. The network will implement a low-cost, miniaturized, laser heterodyne radiometer (mini-LHR) that has recently been developed at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. This mini-LHR is designed to operate in tandem with the passive aerosol sensor currently used in AERONET (a well established network of more than 450 ground aerosol monitoring instruments worldwide), and could be rapidly deployed into this established global network. Laser heterodyne radiometry is a well-established technique for detecting weak signals that was adapted from radio receiver technology. Here, a weak light signal, that has undergone absorption by atmospheric components, is mixed with light from a distributed feedback (DFB) telecommunications laser on a single-mode optical fiber. The RF component of the signal is detected on a fast photoreceiver. Scanning the laser through an absorption feature in the infrared, results in a scanned heterodyne signal io the RF. Deconvolution of this signal through the retrieval algorithm allows for the extraction of altitude contributions to the column signal. The retrieval algorithm is based on a spectral simulation program, SpecSyn, developed at GWU for high-resolution infrared spectroscopies. Variations io pressure, temperature, composition, and refractive index through the atmosphere; that are all functions of latitude, longitude, time of day, altitude, etc.; are modeled using algorithms developed in the MODTRAN program developed in part by the US Air Force Research Laboratory. In these calculations the atmosphere is modeled as a series of spherically symmetric shells with boundaries specified at defined altitudes. Temperature, pressure, and species mixing ratios are defined at these boundaries. Between the boundaries, temperature is assumed to vary linearly with altitude while pressure (and thus gas density) vary exponentially. The observed spectrum at the LHR instrument will be the integration of the contributions along this light path. For any absorption measurement the signal at a particular spectral frequency is a linear combination of spectral line contributions from several species. For each species that might absorb in a spectral region, we have pre-calculated its contribution as a function of temperature and pressure. The integrated path absorption spectrum can then by calculated using the initial sun angle (from location, date, and time) and assumptions about pressure and temperature profiles from an atmospheric model. The modeled spectrum is iterated to match the experimental observation using standard multilinear regression techniques. In addition to the layer concentrations, the numerical technique also provides uncertainty estimates for these quantities as well as dependencies on assumptions inherent in the atmospheric models.

Miller, J. Houston↗

NASA NTRS2009

DSN Beowulf Cluster-Based VLBI Correlator

The NASA Deep Space Network (DSN) requires a broadband VLBI (very long baseline interferometry) correlator to process data routinely taken as part of the VLBI source Catalogue Maintenance and Enhancement task (CAT M&E) and the Time and Earth Motion Precision Observations task (TEMPO). The data provided by these measurements are a crucial ingredient in the formation of precision deep-space navigation models. In addition, a VLBI correlator is needed to provide support for other VLBI related activities for both internal and external customers. The JPL VLBI Correlator (JVC) was designed, developed, and delivered to the DSN as a successor to the legacy Block II Correlator. The JVC is a full-capability VLBI correlator that uses software processes running on multiple computers to cross-correlate two-antenna broadband noise data. Components of this new system (see Figure 1) consist of Linux PCs integrated into a Beowulf Cluster, an existing Mark5 data storage system, a RAID array, an existing software correlator package (SoftC) originally developed for Delta DOR Navigation processing, and various custom- developed software processes and scripts. Parallel processing on the JVC is achieved by assigning slave nodes of the Beowulf cluster to process separate scans in parallel until all scans have been processed. Due to the single stream sequential playback of the Mark5 data, some ramp-up time is required before all nodes can have access to required scan data. Core functions of each processing step are accomplished using optimized C programs. The coordination and execution of these programs across the cluster is accomplished using Pearl scripts, PostgreSQL commands, and a handful of miscellaneous system utilities. Mark5 data modules are loaded on Mark5 Data systems playback units, one per station. Data processing is started when the operator scans the Mark5 systems and runs a script that reads various configuration files and then creates an experiment-dependent status database used to delegate parallel tasks between nodes and storage areas (see Figure 2). This script forks into three processes: extract, translate, and correlate. Each of these processes iterates on available scan data and updates the status database as the work for each scan is completed. The extract process coordinates and monitors the transfer of data from each of the Mark5s to the Beowulf RAID storage systems. The translate process monitors and executes the data conversion processes on available scan files, and writes the translated files to the slave nodes. The correlate process monitors the execution of SoftC correlation processes on the slave nodes for scans that have completed translation. A comparison of the JVC and the legacy Block II correlator outputs reveals they are well within a formal error, and that the data are comparable with respect to their use in flight navigation. The processing speed of the JVC is improved over the Block II correlator by a factor of 4, largely due to the elimination of the reel-to-reel tape drives used in the Block II correlator.

Rogstad, Stephen P.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Finding Every Root of a Broad Class of Real, Continuous Functions in a Given Interval

One of the most pervasive needs within the Deep Space Network (DSN) Metric Prediction Generator (MPG) view period event generation is that of finding solutions to given occurrence conditions. While the general form of an equation expresses equivalence between its left-hand and right-hand expressions, the traditional treatment of the subject subtracts the two sides, leaving an expression of the form Integral of(x) = 0. Values of the independent variable x satisfying this condition are roots, or solutions. Generally speaking, there may be no solutions, a unique solution, multiple solutions, or a continuum of solutions to a given equation. In particular, all view period events are modeled as zero crossings of various metrics; for example, the time at which the elevation of a spacecraft reaches its maximum value, as viewed from a Deep Space Station (DSS), is found by locating that point at which the derivative of the elevation function becomes zero. Moreover, each event type may have several occurrences within a given time interval of interest. For example, a spacecraft in a low Moon orbit will experience several possible occultations per day, each of which must be located in time. The MPG is charged with finding all specified event occurrences that take place within a given time interval (or pass ), without any special clues from operators as to when they may occur, for the entire spectrum of missions undertaken by the DSN. For each event type, the event metric function is a known form that can be computed for any instant within the interval. A method has been created for a mathematical root finder to be capable of finding all roots of an arbitrary continuous function, within a given interval, to be subject to very lenient, parameterized assumptions. One assumption is that adjacent roots are separated at least by a given amount, xGuard. Any point whose function value is less than ef in magnitude is considered to be a root, and the function values at distances xGuard away from a root are larger than ef, unless there is another root located in this vicinity. A root is considered found if, during iteration, two root candidates differ by less than a pre-specified ex, and the optimum cubic polynomial matching the function at the end and at two interval points (that is within a relative error fraction L at its midpoint) is reliable in indicating whether the function has extrema within the interval. The robustness of this method depends solely on choosing these four parameters that control the search. The roots of discontinuous functions were also found, but at degraded performance.

Tausworthe, Robert C.↗

DOE OSTI2026

Toward real-time optimization through model reduction and model discrepancy sensitivities

Optimization problems arise in a range of scenarios, from optimal control to model parameter estimation. In many applications, such as the development of digital twins, it is essential to solve these optimization problems within wall-clock-time limitations. However, this is often unattainable for complex systems, such as those modeled by nonlinear partial differential equations. One strategy for mitigating this issue is to construct a reduced-order model (ROM) that enables more rapid optimization. In particular, the use of nonintrusive ROMs—those that do not require access to the full-order model at evaluation time—is popular because they facilitate the computation of optimization solutions within the wall-clock time requirements. However, the optimization solution will be unreliable if the iterates move outside the ROM training data. This article proposes the use of hyper-differential sensitivity analysis with respect to model discrepancy (HDSA-MD) as a computationally efficient tool to augment ROM-constrained optimization and improve its reliability. The proposed approach consists of two phases: (i) an offline phase where several full-order model evaluations are computed to train the ROM, and (ii) an online phase where a ROM-constrained optimization problem is solved, a limited number of full-order model evaluations are computed, and HDSA-MD is used to enhance the optimization solution. Numerical results are demonstrated for two examples, atmospheric contaminant control and wildfire ignition location estimation, in which a ROM is trained offline using inaccurate atmospheric data. In conclusion, the HDSA-MD update yields a significant improvement in the ROM-constrained optimization solution using only one full-order model evaluation online with corrected atmospheric data.

PDE-constrained optimization↗

NASA NTRS2022

National Campaign (NC)-1 Strategic Conflict Management Simulation (X4) Community Based Rules

Projected demand for transportation services in the urban environment has led to the development of several Concepts of Operation for Urban Air Mobility, or UAM. UAM is a concept for the transportation of people and goods in the metropolitan environment using small, efficient aircraft over short distances as part of an expanding multimodal transportation network. UAM will leverage emerging technologies including electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) aircraft, increasing levels of automation and a new operational paradigm in dense airspace where a set of agreed-upon rules govern the procedures and interactions defining a cooperative environment in which operators are entrusted with a range of functions typically conducted by Air Traffic Control (ATC). These rules, proposed in the FAA NextGen Office’s UAM Concept of Operations [1], were originally termed Community Based Rules or Community Business Rules (CBRs), and will in the future termed Cooperative Operating Practices (COPs); this document uses the original term, CBR. CBRs are a set of rules, developed by the UAM community and (where necessary) approved by the FAA that govern the interactions between UAM entities and limit the need for ATC services including, but not limited to, separation control by ATC, addressing a fundamental challenge to scaling UAM operations. UAM community development of CBRs is anticipated to accelerate the adoption of new practices while retaining the regulatory authority of the FAA within required domains (e.g., NAS safety, security and equal access). However, there currently exists no agreed industry forum or defined procedures for CBR development. Investigation of best practices for the development of UAM CBRs was identified by NASA and the FAA NextGen Office as a research need. In collaboration with seven industry partners, NASA participated in a series of simulations that investigated elements of the envisioned UAM operations, with a primary focus on Strategic Conflict Management (SCM). The development and conduct of cooperative UAM simulations with seven industry partners provided a unique opportunity to investigate CBR development practices. Development of CBRs for the UAM SCM simulations was conducted in parallel with simulation capability development and was closely related to requirements definition for the simulations. As such, the CBR development effort presented herein had two objectives: explore CBR development practices in collaboration with the industry partners and develop an initial set of UAM CBRs to support simulation requirements definition and development. Consensus was achieved among NASA and the industry partners on 24 CBRs that were developed to support the cooperative simulation operations across five topic areas: General (related to test requirements), Operational Intent, Conformance Monitoring, Demand Capacity Balancing, and Airspace Constraint Management. Additional topic areas and CBRs were discussed but were deemed outside the scope of the simulation; these are included in the appendices. A collaborative, iterative process was employed for developing the CBRs engaging both NASA and Industry; because CBR development is envisioned to be community-driven, opportunities were sought that provided industry partners leadership roles in developing CBRs. The following key observations and recommendations may aid the UAM industry in future CBR development efforts: - The lack of a defined process proved challenging initially. Stakeholder engagement in the early stages of CBR development was intermittent and may have been due to the lack of a clear definition of roles and responsibilities of those involved in the effort. - Industry leadership of CBR topic areas proved successful. Discussions in these topic areas were engaging, with alternate viewpoints freely discussed and detailed CBRs resulting. This points to the importance of identifying the best-suited leadership in technical areas for CBR development. - Discussions within a CBR topic area were typically dominated by only a few participants. Whereas all industry partners contributed to CBR development, within each topic area, technical leadership was evident even when not formally established. This observation may indicate that smaller, focused groups may be more effective in initial CBR development than an open forum or large standards development effort (although both maybe required prior to FAA review and approval for some CBRs). - Identifying suitable forums for initial UAM CBR development and identifying the most effective industry participants and leadership will be crucial for successful CBR development. Although the operational need for UAM CBRs may not be immediate, establishing the forums and leadership to define the processes for CBR development is a prudent early step to UAM realization.

Community Based Rules↗

NASA NTRS2023

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗

DOE OSTI2026

Microchannel-based Membrane-less Extraction of Li from Unconventional Lithium Sources & the Separation of REE

This final report provides an overview of the Project's entire duration, covering July 1, 2021 to December 31, 2023. It primarily focuses on the achievements, technological developments, and unique challenges the team faced while working on separating and extracting Lithium from produced waters. The project's primary aim was to create an integrated, high-throughput, membrane-less, and modular microfluidic platform that could extract Lithium from unconventional sources. We have successfully met all goals and milestones envisioned in the SOPO document. The most critical primary milestones, including the Go-No-Go milestone (refer to the Gantt chart in the Appendices), were successfully accomplished. We demonstrated phase separation (>90%) and extraction (>85%) performance in the MPSE using synthetic, and representative produced water composition feed at 50 ml/min total flow through MPSE 36. We have also performed a parametric study of the MPSE operations, beyond the scope of SOPO, exploring operating conditions of current and broader interest. The extended investigation of operational parameters is concurrent with our efforts to seek further development of the MPSE technology beyond the scope of the Project. Along these lines of development, we have made efforts to be responsive to DOE calls for technological developments of other types of resources (beyond PW) for the recovery of Critical Materials and higher TRL development (beyond TRL 4). During the work on this Project, we developed and implemented three innovative technical approaches that emerged from our efforts to successfully meet the Project milestones. The innovative & original technical approaches developed and implemented in this Project are now the contributions to process engineering that could be clearly credited to the Project. First, Convergent Design Approach is a comprehensive feedforward & feedback loop of four design phases: i) design for functionality, ii) design for manufacturing, iii) design for sustainability, and iv) design for market. Next was Process Intensification. A major aim of this Project was to create an innovative phase separation & extraction microscale-based technology for Li separation – thus the words microchannel-based in the Project title. A microscale-based technology is intrinsically in the center of the Process Intensification domain as defined by its unique principles. Therefore, Process Intensification was implicitly envisioned in the Project’s SOPO. Lastly, Time Scale Analysis is a novel tool for discovering the needs and directions of Process Intensification implementations in any process technology. This Project is fully credited for developing and implementing the three novel technical approaches mentioned above. These are general contributions to process engineering that emerged from this Project. Beyond the original SOPO scope, the OSU-U.Pitt research group utilized a Convergent Design methodology, integrating first-principles mathematical modeling with experimental validation on the Minimum Development Vehicle. By creating these Digital Twins, the team rapidly assessed manufacturing iterations to support TEA analysis. This framework further enabled the development of advanced Surface Modification Techniques, where hydrophobic and oleophobic coating strategies were optimized via Digital Twin tools and validated through rigorous 100-hour longevity testing. TEA Analysis: The closing efforts of this Project were focused on the TEA analysis. TEA analysis had two primary functions: i) enabling critical assessments of design variations withing 10 the Concurrent Design Approach, thus enabling evolution of the MPSE design to reach faster- better-cheaper alternatives; and ii) to create a bridge between the accomplishments of this Project and future projects of higher TRL, beyond TRL 6 level. It is important to note that the TEA model created in the Project stirred the technological solutions for the recovery of critical materials toward a vision of a very profitable modular plant that has unique zero-waste water discharge signature. More importantly, thanks to our experimental performance data and conservative assumptions, the TEA model predicts minimal technological and investment risks. Low cost of a modular unit of a nominal capacity of [1000 tons of Li 2 CO 3 /year] positions the MPSE based technology within the reach of community investors, thus offering a paradigm shift in the development of critical technologies. The project successfully navigated two primary challenges: solvent selection and manufacturing adaptation. Restricted by the SOPO to existing literature for lithium recovery, the team identified a critical need for a "material excellence program" to develop next-generation solvents, eventually concluding with a preliminary investigation into promising Ionic Liquids (ILs). Simultaneously, COVID-19 supply chain disruptions forced a pivot from traditional manufacturing to advanced additive methods at ATAMI-OSU. By transitioning from stainless steel to 3D-printed polymer substrates, the team achieved a transformative three-order-of- magnitude reduction in manufacturing costs and compressed prototyping timelines from several months to just two days. The MPSE technology offers significant energy, environmental, and economic advantages by overcoming the traditional bottlenecks of phase-separation hardware and contactor size. Unlike conventional mixer-settlers or membrane-based systems, MPSE operates without moving parts or fouling-prone membranes, achieving robust performance even with challenging, viscous, or particulate-heavy feeds. Key performance metrics include an energy intensity reduction of 5–50x (3–40 kJ/m 3 ) compared to incumbent technologies and a dramatic reduction of processing time to under 60 seconds, which drastically reduces the physical plant footprint. These technical efficiencies translate into superior economic outcomes; for a 100 t/year Li 2 CO 3 facility, implementing MPSE is projected to nearly halve contactor CAPEX (from $\$$6.08M to $\$$3.01M) and significantly increase the project's Net Present Value (NPV), derisking new investment and enabling distributed critical-mineral processing configurations. The commercialization of MPSE technology is being spearheaded by Vigsur Dynamics Inc., which has adopted a structured, parallel approach to technical and business development since its formation in January 2026. Following extensive customer discovery and engagement with the Oregon State University accelerator, Vigsur Dynamics is working to establish a business model that transitions from pilot demonstrations to modular hardware sales, ultimately aiming for a "build-own-operate" service strategy. Current technical milestones—including 100 hours of continuous operation, superior energy efficiency, and successful 6-unit modular scale-up— provide a foundation for this transition. Backed by ongoing IP licensing and a growing network of industrial and venture advisors, the company is actively de-risking the platform to replace conventional mixer-settler systems in the critical minerals market.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration

Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.

Science Operations↗