Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “virtual field testing”

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.

296 records · Page 17
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2017

Recent Measurement of Flavor Asymmetry of Antiquarks in the Proton by Drell–Yan Experiment SeaQuest at Fermilab

A measurement of the flavor asymmetry of the antiquarks ($\bar{d}$ and $\bar{u}$) in the proton is described in this thesis. The proton consists of three valence quarks, sea quarks, and gluons. Antiquarks in the proton are sea quarks. They are generated from the gluon splitting: g → q + $\bar{q}$. According to QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics), the gluon splitting is independent of quark flavor. It suggests that the amounts of $\bar{d}$ and $\bar{u}$ should be the same in the proton. However, the NMC experiment at CERN found that the amount of $\bar{d}$ is larger than that of $\bar{u}$ in the proton using the deep inelastic scattering in 1991. This result is obtained for $\bar{d}$ and $\bar{u}$ integrated over Bjorken x. Bjorken x is the fraction of the momentum of the parton to that of the proton. The NA51 experiment (x ~ 0.2) at CERN and E866/NuSea experiment (0.015 < x < 0.35) at Fermilab measured the flavor asymmetry of the antiquarks ($\bar{d}$/$\bar{u}$) in the proton as a function of x using Drell–Yan process. The experiments reported that the flavor symmetry is broken over all measured x values. Understanding the flavor asymmetry of the antiquarks in the proton is a challenge of the QCD. The theo- retical investigation from the first principle of QCD such as lattice QCD calculation is important. In addition, the QCD effective models and hadron models such as the meson cloud model can also be tested with the flavor asymmetry of antiquarks. From the experimental side, it is important to measure with higher accuracy and in a wider x range. The SeaQuest (E906) experiment measures $\bar{d}$/$\bar{u}$ at large x (0.15 < x < 0.45) accurately to understand its behavior. The SeaQuest experiment is a Drell–Yan experiment at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab). In the Drell–Yan process of proton-proton reaction, an antiquark in a proton and a quark in another proton annihilate and create a virtual photon, which then decays into a muon pair (q$\bar{q}$ → γ* → µ + µ - ). The SeaQuest experiment uses a 120 GeV proton beam extracted from Fermilab’s Main Injector. The proton beam interacts with hydrogen and deuterium targets. The SeaQuest spectrometer detects the muon pairs from the Drell–Yan process. The $\bar{d}$/$\bar{u}$ ratio at 0.1 < x < 0.58 is extracted from the number of detected Drell–Yan muon pairs. After the detector construction, commissioning run and detector upgrade, the SeaQuest experiment started the physics data acquisition from 2013. We finished so far three periods of physics data acquisition. The fourth period is in progress. The detector construction, detector performance evaluation, data taking and data analysis for the flavor asymmetry of the antiquarks $\bar{d}$/$\bar{u}$ in the proton are my contribution to SeaQuest. The cross section ratio of Drell–Yan process in p- p and p-d reactions is obtained from dimuon yields. In the experiment with high beam intensity, it is important to control the tracking efficiency of charged particles through the magnetic spectrometer. The tracking efficiency depends on the chamber occupancy, and the appropriate method for the correction is important. The chamber occupancy is the number of hits in drift chambers. A new method of the correction for the tracking efficiency is developed based on the occupancy, and applied to the data. This method reflects the real response of the drift chambers. Therefore, the systematic error is well controlled by this method. The flavor asymmetry of antiquarks is obtained at 0.1 < x < 0.58. At 0.1 < x < 0.45, the result is $\bar{d}$/$\bar{u}$ > 1. The result at 0.1 < x < 0.24 agrees with the E866 result. The result at x > 0.24, however, disagrees with the E866 result. The result at 0.45 < x < 0 the statistical errors. u¯ results extracted from experiments are used to investigate the validity of the theoretical models. The present experimental result provides the data points in wide x region. It is useful for understanding the proton structure in the light of QCD and effective hadron models. The present result has a practical application as well. Antiquark distributions are important as inputs to simulations of hadron reactions such as W± production in various experiments. The new knowledge on antiquark distributions helps to improve the precision of the simulations.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2011

International Linear Collider Reference Design Report Volume 2: Physics at the ILC

The triumph of 20th century particle physics was the development of the Standard Model and the confirmation of many of its aspects. Experiments determined the particle constituents of ordinary matter, and identified four forces that hold matter together and transform it from one form to another. Particle interactions were found to obey precise laws of relativity and quantum theory. Remarkable features of quantum physics were observed, including the real effects of 'virtual' particles on the visible world. Building on this success, particle physicists are now able to address questions that are even more fundamental, and explore some of the deepest mysteries in science. The scope of these questions is illustrated by this summary from the report Quantum Universe: (1) Are there undiscovered principles of nature; (2) How can we solve the mystery of dark energy; (3) Are there extra dimensions of space; (4) Do all the forces become one; (5) Why are there so many particles; (6) What is dark matter? How can we make it in the laboratory; (7) What are neutrinos telling us; (8) How did the universe begin; and (9) What happened to the antimatter? A worldwide program of particle physics investigations, using multiple approaches, is already underway to explore this compelling scientific landscape. As emphasized in many scientific studies, the International Linear Collider is expected to play a central role in what is likely to be an era of revolutionary advances. Discoveries from the ILC could have breakthrough impact on many of these fundamental questions. Many of the scientific opportunities for the ILC involve the Higgs particle and related new phenomena at Terascale energies. The Standard Model boldly hypothesizes a new form of Terascale energy, called the Higgs field, that permeates the entire universe. Elementary particles acquire mass by interacting with this field. The Higgs field also breaks a fundamental electroweak force into two forces, the electromagnetic and weak forces, which are observed by experiments in very different forms. So far, there is no direct experimental evidence for a Higgs field or the Higgs particle that should accompany it. Furthermore, quantum effects of the type already observed in experiments should destabilize the Higgs boson of the Standard Model, preventing its operation at Terascale energies. The proposed antidotes for this quantum instability mostly involve dramatic phenomena at the Terascale: new forces, a new principle of nature called supersymmetry, or even extra dimensions of space. Thus for particle physicists the Higgs boson is at the center of a much broader program of discovery, taking off from a long list of questions. Is there really a Higgs boson? If not, what are the mechanisms that give mass to particles and break the electroweak force? If there is a Higgs boson, does it differ from the hypothetical Higgs of the Standard Model? Is there more than one Higgs particle? What are the new phenomena that stabilize the Higgs boson at the Terascale? What properties of Higgs boson inform us about these new phenomena? Another major opportunity for the ILC is to shed light on the dark side of the universe. Astrophysical data shows that dark matter dominates over visible matter, and that almost all of this dark matter cannot be composed of known particles. This data, combined with the concordance model of Big Bang cosmology, suggests that dark matter is comprised of new particles that interact weakly with ordinary matter and have Terascale masses. It is truely remarkable that astrophysics and cosmology, completely independently of the particle physics considerations reviewed above, point to new phenomena at the Terascale. If Terascale dark matter exists, experiments at the ILC should be able to produce such particles in the laboratory and study their properties. Another list of questions will then beckon. Do these new particles really have the correct properties to be the dark matter? Do they account for all of the dark matter, or only part of it? What do their properties tell us about the evolution of the universe? How is dark matter connected to new principles or forces of nature? A third cluster of scientific opportunities for the ILC focus on Einstein's vision of an ultimate unified theory. Particle physics data already suggests that three of the fundamental forces originated from a single 'grand' unified force in the first instant of the Big Bang. Experiments at the ILC could test this idea and look for evidence of a related unified origin of matter involving supersymmetry. A theoretical framework called string theory goes beyond grand unification to include gravity, extra spatial dimensions, and new fundamental entities called superstrings. Theoretical models to explain the properties of neutrinos, and account for the mysterious dominance of matter over antimatter, also posit unification at high energies.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
NASA NTRS2014

Robonaut 2 - IVA Experiments On-Board ISS and Development Towards EVA Capability

Robonaut 2 (R2) has completed its fixed base activities on-board the ISS and is scheduled to receive its climbing legs in early 2014. In its continuing line of firsts, the R2 torso finished up its on-orbit activities on its stanchion with the manipulation of space blanket materials and performed multiple tasks under teleoperation control by IVA astronauts. The successful completion of these two IVA experiments is a key step in Robonaut's progression towards an EVA capability. Integration with the legs and climbing inside the ISS will provide another important part of the experience that R2 will need prior to performing tasks on the outside of ISS. In support of these on-orbit activities, R2 has been traversing across handrails in simulated zero-g environments and working with EVA tools and equipment on the ground to determine manipulation strategies for an EVA Robonaut. R2 made significant advances in robotic manipulation of deformable materials in space while working with its softgoods task panel. This panel features quarter turn latches that secure a space blanket to the task panel structure. The space blanket covers two cloth cubes that are attached with Velcro to the structure. R2 was able to open and close the latches, pull back the blanket, and remove the cube underneath. R2 simulated cleaning up an EVA worksite as well, by replacing the cube and reattaching the blanket. In order to interact with the softgoods panel, R2 has both autonomously and with a human in the loop identified and localized these deformable objects. Using stereo color cameras, R2 identified characteristic elements on the softgoods panel then extracted the location and orientation of the object in its field of view using stereo disparity and kinematic transforms. R2 used both vision processing and supervisory control to successfully accomplish this important task. Teleoperation is a key capability for Robonaut's effectiveness as an EVA system. To build proficiency, crewmembers have attempted increasingly difficult tasks using R2 inside the Station. After donning motion capture equipment and a virtual reality visor, Expedition 34/35 flight engineer Tom Marshburn began operations with simple hand movements. Having gained confidence, Marshburn guided R2's arms in a leader-follower exercise with crewmate Chris Cassidy. He was also able to use the hand to grab a tumbling roll of tape, a task only demonstrable in microgravity. Later efforts saw Cassidy handle softgoods through shared control with ground operators, mimicking an activity previously achieved using only autonomy. Robotic climbing through the ISS on handrails requires both precision motion and compliant grasps in order to both position grippers on handrails/seat track and prevent large internal forces. R2 climbs using actively controlled compliance and torque limiting to meet both the precision and softness requirements. During a step, the attached leg is controlled to be strong and stiff in order to maintain precision trajectory tracking. The swing leg is controlled to be stiff but weak to minimize unintentional impact forces while maintaining precision. During a simulated dual limb grasp (as shown in Figure 1), the R2 controller maintains one limb rigid and one limb soft to prevent large internal forces from building up. R2's grippers also use a form of force control to limit grip force while not fully closed on either a handrail or seat track thus limiting unintentional forces on cables/objects that may be present in R2's translational path. The on-board torso R2 safety system relies on a single end-effector velocity limit to prevent potential impact forces from exceeding Station maximum load requirements. R2's mobile configuration required modifications to the velocity limiting safety function due to its large, dynamic inertia. R2's legs maneuver the robot's mass creating configuration dependent, joint-relative inertias. A single all-encompassing velocity limit to cover worst case inertia is prohibitively low. The upgraded R2 control and safety systems solve this problem using momentum limiting, momentum control, and kinetic energy minimization. Momentum and kinetic energy take the robot mass into account relieving low velocity restrictions on low inertia end-effectors while ensuring that the overall mass of R2 is limited from hazardous velocities. The momentum of R2's five safety nodes (each of the four end-effectors and the body) is monitored and compared to a single momentum limit. If any of the five nodes exceeds the safety limit, the motor power is removed and the robot comes to a stop. Momentum control/limiting also provides a simple, reliable method to integrate hand held tools into the safety system by providing the tool mass to the control system thus automatically reducing the allowable velocity of the end-effector with the tool. Work on the ground continues to build the skill set for an EVA Robonaut. Recent experiments (Figure 2) demonstrate how a teleoperator can use R2 to manipulate a tether hook, an important safety precaution on spacewalks. Another task displayed Robonaut's ability to pull back a protective jacket over a hose and search for damage, as well as inspect a quick-disconnect fitting for debris. Demonstrations such as these are indicative of EVA work done on ISS, specifically seen during a series of spacewalks over 2012 and 2013 where astronauts searched for an ammonia leak in one of the external cooling loops. Through experiments both on ISS and on the ground, R2 is evolving and providing the information needed to plan out the upgrades that will make an EVA Robonaut an effective tool. With the addition of legs, R2 will start climbing inside the space station and supply invaluable information on how the climbing strategies and task stabilization techniques must be refined. Ground R2 systems will continue to work with additional EVA tools and equipment in preparation for onboard IVA testing and future EVA applications.

Diftler, Myron↗
DOE OSTI2025

MPEX AI Digital Twins

All magnetically confined plasma fusion power plant concepts (Tokamak, Spherical Tokamak, Stellarator, Mirror, ...) must exhaust the heat and plasma from the core confinement region to the material walls. The primary channel for this exhaust is through a plasma divertor which directs plasma along open magnetic field lines to a material target. The Material Plasma Exposure eXperiment (MPEX) illustrated in Figure 1, is a high-power, steady-state linear plasma device designed to produce the plasma material interaction (PMI) conditions of the divertor of future magnetic confinement fusion power plants: energy flux 20MW/m 2 , ion fluence 1031/m 2 , pulse duration 106 sec. These goals of plasma exposure in MPEX are well beyond those achieved in magnetic fusion experimental devices. Successfully achieving these high power steady state conditions for long pulses requires operational control of the heating and particle sources and the plasma flux to the walls and target. The MPEX AI Hot Spot Controller, proposed in this project, will help achieve the operational milestones of MPEX. The MPEX device will begin commissioning at the end of FY26. A smaller proto-MPEX was operated for 14,666 plasma discharges and will resume operation in September of 2025 as proto-MPEX-lite, with reduced capability, to test a new window for the Helicon plasma source. The proto-MPEX data has undergone surrogate modeling with machine learning methods (R. Archibald, 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data). This proto-MPEX data will be used to begin development of the AI digital twins described in this white paper. The scientific mission of MPEX is to qualify materials of different composition for use in the high energy and plasma flux conditions of a fusion power plant. The materials exposed in MPEX will in some cases be exposed to high neutron fluxes at other ORNL facilities to measure the changes to their PMI properties. The targets exposed in MPEX will be transported under vacuum to a Surface Analysis Station (SAS). The SAS will be equipped with the following diagnostics: Focused Ion Beam (FIB) for trench milling, 100-400 angstrom resolution scanning electron microscope (SEM), surface mapping x-ray spectrometer, high resolution camera, and a future upgrade to a laser induced breakdown spectroscopy quadruple mass spectrometer (LIBS-QMS). The MPEX experiments will generate diverse pre- and post-exposure measurement data of detailed material properties down to the crystal grain level in 3D for post-exposure assessment of PMI damage (e.g. cracking, melting, erosion and redeposition of the material). Physics models for the PMI, and how the material composition and manufacturing impact its performance under high energy plasma exposure, need to be validated with MPEX data to guide the selection of new candidate materials. Our vision for the MPEX AI Digital Twins project is to supply experimental and physics model simulation data to train Artificial Intelligence (AI) models for data processing, analysis, operational control, PMI and materials simulation to maximize the scientific output of the MPEX device. Ultimately, an AI digital twin of MPEX material assessment metrics for tested and synthetic material types with simulated PMI will be trained by the AI Modeling Teams on the experimental and physics simulation data submitted to the American Science Cloud by this project. A purely empirical search for the best material is inefficient given the finite number of samples that can be tested on MPEX. In order to expand the material properties database for training the MPEX Material Assessment AI Digital Twin, and to gain physics understanding of the PMI processes, physics models of the material properties and PMI processes are required. The physics simulations provide detailed simulation data, like impact angles for plasma ions, sputtering yields, transport of the ionized sputtered target material in the plasma, and redeposition locations. This simulation data expands the measurement data for deeper physics understanding. The experimental data is essential to validate the PMI and material structure simulation models. The validated models can then be used to generate new simulation data of MPEX material assessments for synthetic material compositions that have not been exposed in MPEX. These predictive simulations, plus the whole experimental dataset, will be used to train the MPEX Material Assessment AI Digital Twin allowing a rapid generative AI search for new materials with reduced PMI damage by interpolating the domain of the training set. These new optimum materials can be simulated with the physics codes and/or tested in MPEX. The ability of AI neural networks to interpolate multi-dimensional parameter spaces and generate virtual data is exploited for a more efficient search for optimum materials. The advent of the Transformational AI Models Consortium (TAIMC) is an opportunity to engage with state of the art private and public AI developers to achieve the goals of the AI digital twins and AI accelerated physics models proposed in this project. Our partners at ORNL from the Advance Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) organization will collaborate in accelerating the integrated plasma material interaction simulation framework. This simulation framework will provide a platform for generating simulation data across a range of physical fidelities, including hybrid methods that produce multi-fidelity results. This data will be leveraged for AI model development, both for generation of surrogates and the automation of simulation campaigns. A part of the research below will include collaborative efforts with the TAIMC to (i) adapt data storage approaches to ensure AI-readiness, (ii) provide a protypical exemplar to inform and exercise constructed workflows, and (iii) generate and share data, using the TAIMC unified AI data standard, for foundational models that will be trained from multiple sources across the DOE complex. We will also collaborate with the TAIMC, as well as the planned AI modeling teams, to develop approaches for reducing the cost of data generation. These include tailored multi-fidelity approaches as well as fine-tuning strategies to augment general, large-scale foundational models.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Commercial Building Technology Demonstration (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The background for this project was a unique and innovative concept that had been proposed and demonstrated by enVerid Systems, reducing the energy consumption in HVAC systems in commercial and public buildings by up to 50% at peak loads. The concept involves selective scrubbing of gas contaminants from indoor air as a practical substitute for outside air ventilation, the latter being the conventional practice today. This scrubbing enables recycling of most of the indoor air and significantly decreasing the amount of outside air, resulting in a reduced HVAC load and commensurate energy savings for the facility. Key to our approach is low cost scrubbing of all gas contaminants from indoor air using novel, efficient and regenerable sorbent materials. The total solution, labeled HLR (HVAC Load Reduction) is implemented by means of compact modules that can be retrofitted onto virtually any building, and utilizes novel sorbents that have been developed and brought to scale production by enVerid. Although the technology had been deployed and demonstrated, the US commercial building and HVAC markets, famously conservative with respect to innovation and new technologies, had yet to embrace the idea or the product. The overarching goal of the project was to help overcome market hesitancy and enable widespread adoption, by creating a critical mass of success stories across different regions and building types, all under oversight and verification of the DOE and NREL, to ensure credibility and accuracy. The project, overall, was a resounding success. Several installations were deployed and tested comprehensively for the impact on both energy consumption and indoor air quality, and results were not only excellent, but quantitatively in line with expectations. A total number of eight (8) installations were attempted, with 2 aborted due to building issues. Of the six successful installations, however, complete M&V was performed by NREL on 2 (Miami and NYC) and partial analysis on a third site (ArcBest), and these three, along with their results, were therefore presented from a financial and reporting standpoint. Although the number of case studies fell short of the original target of 10, we nevertheless had excellent demonstrations in vastly different climate zones: Southeast, Northeast and Midwest, and in very different building types. This included a modern high-rise office building in New York City and a University Campus health center in Miami, and a mid-rise high-density office in Arkansas. The cooling load reduction was shown to be significant, averaging 37% during the final cooling season in the Miami site. In the NYC site, the cooling energy savings were generally less, at around 12%, as expected. While this is a lower number for average/total savings, two comments are important to note: (i) the outside airflow (OA) reduction was not consistent during the data collection period, at least in part understating the attainable savings through incorrect measurement of the “high energy” reference state; and (ii) the peak impact in NYC is almost certainly as high as Miami, with critical ramifications for peak load reduction and equipment downsizing ability. Importantly, the measured energy savings in all locations were related to the outdoor climate conditions and the actual achievable reduction in outside air, very much in line with models and calculations; this leaves us with increased confidence in our understanding of the interaction between the technology and the building, and our ability to project the impact of this innovation in the future, through broad adoption. Simply put: the energy savings and load reduction impact of the HLR solution has been confirmed quantitatively. The results also confirmed the air quality objective. This may be even more significant, in that air quality is more complex and harder to measure and quantify, and the performance of the HLR as an air scrubber is the linchpin of the entire solution. In all sites, indoor air quality met or exceeded the required parameters, in terms of achieving the target (low) levels of indoor pollutants. Furthermore, the concentrations of outdoor sourced pollutants were markedly lower, as expected, mostly due to the reduction in outside air intake although in part also due to the scrubbing. The success was not immediate nor easy, and early challenges with the systems, especially (but not only) around controls and communication, caused delays in commissioning and undermined some of our M&V schedules. The good news is no fundamental issues were encountered and the number of such glitches was declining quickly by the end of the project. Other challenges had to do with coordinating the control of the building OA dampers, which the HLR needs to have in order to deliver the load reduction, but which the facility manager controls regularly and independently. This is not necessarily a problem for normal HLR operation but interferes with accurate M&V, where switching OA settings back and forth on a precise timetable is essential for clean data. The project provided valuable experience in retrofitting buildings that had been originally designed to operate with less recirculation and more outside air, and some key learnings related to the cyclical regeneration of the sorbents in the operational environment of the building. Some of these learnings gave already been incorporated into ongoing improvements in the design of the HLR module as well as the software that is used to control its operation. The cost and time of retrofit installations is much better understood; so is the test and balance procedure of the building that determines the available range of outside air reduction, which in turn determines the amount of load reduced. We had also implemented at least one annual cycle of sorbent cartridge replacement in the field, after which we tested the used sorbent to assess the rate of degradation of sorbent potency – an important factor affecting the long-term economics of HLR deployments. A notable shortfall of the project, other than the fact that the number of sites was below target, was that we had not (yet) completed testing to measure and verify (M&V) the winter energy savings. This is primarily due to late start on the NYC sites (Miami does not portend any heating savings associated with reduced outside air), combined with the issues of OA damper control. It is by no means suggested that such savings cannot be captured, only that the M&V with respect to winter in NYC has been incomplete. The value of this project and its interest to the general public are hard to overstate. The case studies created from Miami and especially from NYC have, without a doubt, opened up the interest of the broad HVAC industry to HLR in the past year. Major manufacturer reps have signed up to represent and promote the product, and dozens of top tier engineering consultants have introduced HLR as a base of design in upcoming construction and renovation projects – precisely the overarching goal of this project. These would not have happened without the highly visible installation in NYC and its ultimately satisfied customer. Furthermore, the DOE itself issued a report in late 2017 analyzing hundreds of candidate technologies for reducing energy consumption in HVAC; remarkably, the budding HLR solution ranked among the top 3(!); no doubt, its status as a viable and significant contender on this list is informed by the success of these demonstrations. And furthermore, in the wake of these demos, several major energy utilities, led by ConEdison in NYC, have endorsed the HLR solution and now routinely provide substantial cash rebates for customers choosing to incorporate the HLR in their buildings and reap the benefit of the reduced peak load as well as reduced cumulative energy demand. Last but not least, in January of 2019, as this report was being written, the HLR module won the AHR Expo Innovation Award for Green Buildings and, remarkably, the prestigious and only Product of the Year 2019, being selected by an independent professional panel of judges from AHR and ASHRAE. Given the confirmation of the enormous energy saving potential of HLR in widescale deployment, as well as ancillary but significant benefits in terms of equipment downsizing and indoor air quality, the benefit of this effort to the public speaks for itself. Accelerating adoption of HLR, without dependence on subsidies and driven by the private sector, is well under way. There is still much work to be done in terms of educating the HVAC and construction ecosystems and improving the product’s robustness and simplicity, to further facilitate the adoption of this technology and the capture of its potential value. But the American public will greatly benefit both directly and indirectly in the immediate future and beyond.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
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 OSTI2022

Atomic-Scale Surface Studies of Bulk Metallic Glasses. Final Report

Bulk metallic glasses (BMGs) are of both scientific and technological interest because the absence of periodic atomic arrangements provides them with unique physical, chemical, and mechanical properties. Their high strength, superior elasticity, and an ability to be easily formed into virtually unlimited shapes with feature sizes from centimeters to Angstroms by blow molding and thermoplastic forming makes them an attractive choice for more and more practical applications and products. Due to their complex internal structure, however, experiments that yield insight into their exact atomic arrangements have been scarce. As a result, glass physics is one of the last remaining unexplored fields of materials science despite the scientific and technological importance of glasses in our daily lives, and the question how to characterize and control matter away from equilibrium, as glasses are, was listed as one of five Grand Challenges in a recent DoE report. The main reason for the slow progress in glass physics is the lack of experimental tools that enable access to atomic-scale structural and behavioral information for disordered materials. Such atomic-scale knowledge is mandatory to establish structure-property relationships that ultimately could allow to custom-design alloys featuring specific desired characteristics. With no such relationships available, theory development in glass remains basic and the few that exist are often untested. The aim of this research was to enable progress in our understanding of BMGs by developing a new approach that will allow a meaningful application of local surface science methods to specially prepared BMG samples to obtain a wealth of quantitative information on their atomic arrangements. Key was the availability of specially prepared samples whose surfaces feature large atomically flat terraces despite being entirely amorphous, which we have produced from a Pt 57.5 Cu 14.7 Ni 5.3 P 22.5 alloy (‘Pt-BMG’) both under ambient conditions as well as in ultrahigh vacuum using a unique setup that has been specially developed within this grant. Our approach starts with the in-situ preparation of oxide crystals that are terminated by large terraces, from which exact mirror images out of BMG will be produced using thermoplastic forming (TPF); for the research within this grant, we have successfully used (001)-oriented SrTiO 3 single crystal surfaces as well as (100)-, (110)-, and (111)-oriented single crystals made from LaAlO 3 . Since the resulting BMG replicas display all features of the original crystal with sub-Angstrom fidelity, thereby mimicking the original crystal’s termination by atomically flat terraces without being crystalline themselves, they are ideally suited for further investigation. The following atomic-scale local studies were then carried within this proposal: (i) high-resolution surface imaging and local spectroscopy using scanning probe microscopy, which showed disordered atom-like features and revealed changes in the gradient of the local surface potential on a 1-2 nm length scale; (ii) characterization of atomic-scale plastic flow with affected volumes as low as 1000 atoms, which showed local hardness near or above the theoretically predicted maximum and, once plastic deformation was initiated, homogeneous flow of the atoms involved; (iii) characterization of surface relaxation processes and the onset of crystallization induced by annealing, which showed that upon heating over the material’s glass transition temperature, the surface rearranges and relaxes towards a more stable, denser packed glass, which increases on-terrace surface roughness, while surface tension smoothens step edges; and (iv) studies that investigate the dependence of the material’s mechanical properties and structure on processing parameters, revealing that relaxed glasses get denser, harder, and more elastic. In combination, this information allows to combine structural models with mechanical properties and preparation history, thereby facilitating the development of preparation-structure-property relationships for metallic glasses. With the availability of such information, bulk metallic glasses can be further optimized to be used in more and more applications in industry.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Measurement of the Higgs boson mass and width using the four-lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ =13 TeV

A measurement of the Higgs boson mass and width via its decay to two 𝑍 bosons is presented. Proton-proton collision data collected by the CMS experiment, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb −1 at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, is used. The invariant mass distribution of four leptons in the on-shell Higgs boson decay is used to measure its mass and constrain its width. This yields the most precise single measurement of the Higgs boson mass to date, 125.04 ± 0.12 GeV, and an upper limit on the width Γ 𝐻 < 330 MeV at 95% confidence level. A combination of the on- and off-shell Higgs boson production decaying to four leptons is used to determine the Higgs boson width, assuming that no new virtual particles affect the production, a premise that is tested by adding new heavy particles in the gluon fusion loop model. This result is combined with a previous CMS analysis of the off-shell Higgs boson production with decay to two leptons and two neutrinos, giving a measured Higgs boson width of 3.0$^{+2.0}_{−1.5}$ MeV, in agreement with the standard model prediction of 4.1 MeV. The strength of the off-shell Higgs boson production is also reported. The scenario of no off-shell Higgs boson production is excluded at a confidence level corresponding to 3.8 standard deviations.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗