Results for “KPP” — Page 2

NASA NTRS2010

Performance Characterization of High Energy Commercial Lithium-ion Cells

The NASA Glenn Research Center Electrochemistry Branch performed characterization of commercial lithium-ion cells to determine the cells' performance against Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) Key Performance Parameters (KPP). The goals of the ETDP Energy Storage Project require significant improvements in the specific energy of lithium-ion technology over the state-of-the-art. This work supports the high energy cell development for the Constellation customer Lunar Surface Systems (LSS). In support of these goals, testing was initiated in September 2009 with high energy cylindrical cells obtained from Panasonic and E-One Moli. Both manufacturers indicated the capability of their cells to deliver specific energy of at least 180 Wh/kg or higher. Testing is being performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center to evaluate the performance of these cells under temperature, rate, and cycling conditions relevant to the ETDP goals for high energy cells. The cell-level specific energy goal for high energy technology is 180 Wh/kg at a C/10 rate and 0 C. The threshold value is 165 Wh/kg. The goal is to operate for at least 2000 cycles at 100 percent DOD with greater than 80 percent capacity retention. The Panasonic NCR18650 cells were able to deliver nearly 200 Wh/kg at the aforementioned conditions. The E-One Moli ICR18650J cells also met the specific energy goal by delivering 183 Wh/kg. Though both cells met the goal for specific energy, this testing was only one portion of the testing required to determine the suitability of commercial cells for the ETDP. The cells must also meet goals for cycle life and safety. The results of this characterization are summarized in this report.

Schneidegger, Brianne T.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) to defining gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities, gaps, and KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Coupled Reactor Multiphysics and Mass Scalability Assessment for Crewed Megawatt-Class NEP System Architectures

Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) is an in-space propulsion technology capable of enabling opposition and conjunction class crewed Mars missions. NEP subsystems include the reactor for heat generation, a power conversion system (PCS), power management and distribution (PMAD), electric propulsion subsystem (EPS), and a primary heat rejection system. Specific mass, or αe (kg / kWe), is a key performance parameter (KPP) of the propulsion system which is directly scalable with the performance and mass estimates for individual components. To inform technology maturation planning, full system and component level parametric modeling is ongoing to explore the design trade space and illustrate the effect of subsystem design choices on the system KPPs. In this study, scaling of high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU) reactor designs is assessed through coupled reactor physics and thermal hydraulics analyses. Scaling analyses evaluate the impact of system performance parameters (power level, interface temperatures) on mass for direct gas cooled, pumped liquid metal, and passively cooled heat pipe reactor concepts. Each concept requires specific geometries and working fluids to reach the performance goals of PCS interface conditions (temperature, pressure, flow rate) and system mass. The reactor assembly includes the active core (fuel, moderator, cladding, working fluid), axial and radial neutron reflectors, control drums, structural support / pressure vessel, and external radiation shielding. Each of these components are parametrically sized based on performance parameters for a megawatt-class power cycle. Results of this scaling analysis increase NEP propulsion system modeling fidelity and ultimately aim to support technology down-selection along with related technology development planning. The reactor and shield αe are a function of several PCS design choices, and reactor scaling with these parameters must be considered to enable an informed decision on reactor geometry and working fluid combination.

Nuclear Electric Propulsion↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Coupled Reactor Multiphysics and Mass Scalability Assessment for Crewed Megawatt-Class NEP System Architectures

Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) is an in-space propulsion technology capable of enabling opposition and conjunction class crewed Mars missions. NEP subsystems include the reactor for heat generation, a power conversion system (PCS), power management and distribution, electric propulsion system, and heat rejection system. Specific mass, or α (kg/kWe), is a key performance parameter (KPP) of the propulsion system which is directly scalable with the performance and mass predictions for each individual component. To inform technology maturation planning activities, full system and component level parametric modeling is ongoing to explore the design trade space and illustrate the effect of subsystem design choices on the system KPPs. In this study, scaling of high-assay, low-enriched uranium reactor designs is assessed through coupled reactor physics and thermal hydraulics analyses. Scaling analyses evaluate the impact of system performance parameters (power level, interface temperatures) on mass for direct gas cooled, pumped liquid metal, and passively-cooled heat pipe reactor concepts. Each concept requires specific geometries, fluids, and power conversion interface conditions (temperature, pressure, flow rate) to meet desired performance and mass. The reactor assembly includes the active core (fuel, moderator, cladding, working fluid), axial and radial neutron reflectors, control drums, structural support / pressure vessel, and external radiation shielding. Each of these components are parametrically sized based on performance parameters for a megawatt-class power cycle. Results of this scaling analysis increase NEP propulsion system modeling fidelity and ultimately aim to support concept down-selection along with related technology development planning. The reactor and shield α are a function of several PCS and heat rejection system design choices, and reactor scaling with these parameters must be considered to enable an informed decision on an optimal reactor geometry and working fluid combination.

Nuclear Electric Propulsion↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology vs when a mission element is also a strong consideration in which technologies should be pursued. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) capability areas include: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. These capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of ECLSS gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Crew Health and Performance Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

System Engineering & Integration (SE&I) In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Modeling and Analysis (SIMA) Tool for Subsystem Integration into Full-Scale Architectures

In situ resource utilization (ISRU) is the practice of producing mission consumables from local lunar/planetary resources, thereby minimizing system launch mass requirements, mainly through the production of propellant fuel components and life support resources. Modeling full ISRU technology architectures significantly impacts the design and optimization of individual unit processes and facilitates their introduction into service with the Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) logistical planning and operation space. The Mission Analysis and Integration Tool (MAIT) is a modeling framework that connects individual ISRU subsystem models for the purposes of technology down select, scaling & optimization, and end-to-end process planning. The development project team seeks to address specific STMD capability gaps by simulating ISRU systems in MAIT. The goal is to produce system architectures for the Moon and Mars that are linked to Key Performance Parameters (KPP) and environmental requirements. To that end, the framework is adaptive, flexible, and suitable for collaboration among government, private sector, and international entities. Our approach currently provides conventional outputs, such as mass, power, and volume, to analyze whole system trade spaces. However, the framework was designed to validate current breadboard subsystems, simulate future process design capacity, and allow flexibility to any external developer-driven subsystem model that is in a state of evolution.

SE&I↗

DOE OSTI2022

MFIX-Exa: Performance prediction of multiphase energy conversion devices

MFIX-Exa targets the high-fidelity CFD-DEM model in which particles are unresolved by the fluid grid (typically using a fluid mesh approximately twice the particle diameter) but discrete particle dynamics including collisions are resolved with a simple linear-spring dashpot model. The fluid field is solved with a modern low Mach number formation of a cell-centered, nodal-pressure approximate projection method using a Godunov scheme . Physics capabilities include: complex geometries via embedded boundaries (EBs), open and closed system ideal gas equations of state, species transport and heterogeneous chemi- cal reactions. MFIX-Exa is built on the AMReX software framework, the ECP Block-Structured Adaptive Mesh Refinement (AMR) Co-Design Center, which allows the code to be portable and performant.Further integration into the ECP ecosystem includes HYPRE linear solvers and Ascent for in situ visualization. Current project efforts focus on scaling up realistic simulations to the KPP of the challenge problem: NETs 50kW chemical looping reactor, shakedown and scaling on JSLE and OLCF TDS systems and reaching for any remaining performance improvements.

Musser, Jordan↗

DOE OSTI2026

LAMP Technical Readiness Evaluation Report: LAMP-ENG-RPT-003 (Revision 2)

An internal preliminary evaluation of Critical Technology Elements (CTEs) for the LANSCE Modernization Project (LAMP) was completed in 2023. This included determining corresponding Technical Readiness Levels (TRLs) for all subsystems using the criteria of DOE G 413.3-4A, Technical Readiness Assessment Guide. This revised report includes a summary of the recent design modifications required to meet the project Key Performance Requirements (KPPs), some of which may reduce technical risks to the project. These recent design modifications are based on the LAMP Conceptual Design which is the design evaluated in this document and include: • Further optimization of the low-energy and medium-energy beam transport regions (LEBT and MEBT, respectively), including relocation of various functional elements (i.e. choppers, kickers, and bunchers). • An additional 100-keV H - ion source to separate ion-source function based on beam delivery requirements. • A high-repetition-rate pulsed kicker magnet to select/merge the two H - ion beams into a common low-energy beam transport. • Modification and further optimization to a more conventional 3-MeV Radio Frequency Quadrupole (RFQ) design. Performance of the RFQ has been optimized to deliver the required three types of beams while meeting the project Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). • The addition of a second chopper in the medium-energy beam transport (MEBT) line to reduce the required pulser voltages.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗