Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “technical levels”

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

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

At least 523 records · Page 29
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2010

Evaluation of the NASA Arc Jet Capabilities to Support Mission Requirements

NASA accomplishes its strategic goals through human and robotic exploration missions. Many of these missions require launching and landing or returning spacecraft with human or return samples through Earth's and other planetary atmospheres. Spacecraft entering an atmosphere are subjected to extreme aerothermal loads. Protecting against these extreme loads is a critical element of spacecraft design. The safety and success of the planned mission is a prime concern for the Agency, and risk mitigation requires the knowledgeable use of thermal protection systems to successfully withstand the high-energy states imposed on the vehicle. Arc jets provide ground-based testing for development and flight validation of re-entry vehicle thermal protection materials and are a critical capability and core competency of NASA. The Agency's primary hypersonic thermal testing capability resides at the Ames Research Center and the Johnson Space Center and was developed and built in the 1960s and 1970s. This capability was critical to the success of Apollo, Shuttle, Pioneer, Galileo, Mars Pathfinder, and Orion. But the capability and the infrastructure are beyond their design lives. The complexes urgently need strategic attention and investment to meet the future needs of the Agency. The Office of Chief Engineer (OCE) chartered the Arc Jet Evaluation Working Group (AJEWG), a team of experienced individuals from across the Nation, to capture perspectives and requirements from the arc jet user community and from the community that operates and maintains this capability and capacity. This report offers the AJEWG's findings and conclusions that are intended to inform the discussion surrounding potential strategic technical and investment strategies. The AJEWG was directed to employ a 30-year Agency-level view so that near-term issues did not cloud the findings and conclusions and did not dominate or limit any of the strategic options.

Calomino, Anthony↗
NASA NTRS2011

An Interim Report on NASA's Draft Space Technology Roadmaps

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

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2018

Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) Observatory Overview

NASA's Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) is being designed to deliver unprecedented capability in dark energy and exoplanet science, and to host a technology demonstration coronagraph for exoplanet imaging and spectroscopy. The observatory design has matured since 2013; we present a comprehensive description of the observatory configuration as refined during the WFIRST Phase-A study. The observatory is based on an existing, repurposed 2.4 meter space telescope coupled with a 288 megapixel near-infrared (0.6 to 2 microns) HgCdTe focal plane array with multiple imaging and spectrographic modes. Together they deliver a 0.28 square degree field of view, which is approximately 100 times larger than the Hubble Space Telescope, and a sensitivity that enables rapid science surveys. In addition, the coronagraph technology demonstration will prove the feasibility of new techniques for exoplanet discovery, imaging, and spectral analysis. A composite truss structure meters both instruments to the telescope assembly, and the instruments and the spacecraft are flight serviceable. We present configuration changes since 2013 that improved interfaces, improved testability, and reduced technical risk. We provide an overview of our Integrated Modeling results, performed at an unprecedented level for a phase-A study, to illustrate performance margins with respect to static wavefront error, jitter, and thermal drift.

Casey, T.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Optical Design and Predicted Performance of the WFIRST Phase-B Imaging Optics Assembly and Wide Field Instrument

Now in Phase-B, the architecture of the Wide-Field Infra-Red Survey Telescope (WFIRST) payload has matured since 2013 to accommodate various opto-mechanical constraints. Based on a 2.4-meter aperture Forward Optical Assembly (FOA), the Imaging Optics Assembly (IOA) provides corrected optical fields to each on-board instrument. Using a Three Mirror Anastigmat (TMA) optical design, the Wide-Field Channel (WFC) provides ~1/3-square degree of instantaneous field coverage at 0.11 arcsecond pixel scale. The WFC as-built predictive analysis anticipates near diffraction-limited imaging over a focal plane of 300.8 million pixels, operating in seven panchromatic bands between 0.48 - 2.0μm, or a 1-octive multi-spectral imaging mode from ~0.95-1.93μm. The IOA provides the Coronagraph Instrument (CGI) a collimated beam with very specific wavefront constraints. We present configuration changes since 2013 that improved interfaces, improved testability, and reduced technical risk. We provide an overview of our Integrated Modeling results, performed at an unprecedented level for a phase-A study, to illustrate performance margins with respect to static wavefront error, jitter, and thermal drift.

Dark Energy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and key performance parameters (KPPs). KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the projects that are supporting gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

James Lee Broyan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This PowerPoint presentation supports the following paper submission's abstract (STRIVES 20210015025). This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and key performance parameters (KPPs). KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the projects that are supporting gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Standards Roadmapping for Mission Assurance in Commercial Spaceflight

This paper explores the application of established roadmapping approaches in standards planning and roadmap development to support mission assurance objectives. Mission assurance requires proactive planning across multiple domains including technical, schedule, cost, organizational, and policy. The intersection of these domains happens at the enterprise level, and enterprise systems engineering processes can systematically guide mission assurance activities, including development of standards roadmaps. Standards planning and development is a critical contributor to an effective mission assurance strategy, although standards are often developed and adopted reactively. Technology and standards planning is a key Enterprise Process Management activity, as identified by the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge, and technology and standards roadmaps are strategic tools used to enable that process. Technology roadmapping has proven effective in guiding enterprise architecture and concept design, and standards planning supports enterprise requirements definition and management. However, there are limited methodologies to guide such standards planning activities. The application of technology roadmapping principles to standards planning formalizes the process and establishes a repeatable framework for standards development and integration. The framework development described in this paper fills a methodological gap by adapting proven roadmapping techniques to standards planning. Through a comparison of roadmapping methodologies and a case study analysis, this approach outlines a systematic process for anticipating and planning standards needs. In the case of developing a standards integration roadmap for NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA), technology roadmapping principles were adapted to develop a roadmap framework to allow NASA and OSMA to define an agency-wide standards integration plan for commercial and industry safety and mission assurance standards. The outcome highlights key adaptations required for roadmapping in a standards context and describes the process steps to formalize a standards planning activity. The roadmapping framework adapted for standards development and integration enables more strategic, forward-looking standards planning and allows for better alignment between evolving capabilities and mission assurance requirements. Beyond its application to mission assurance, this methodology can be transferred to other domains requiring standards development, providing a systematic approach that integrates systems engineering principles into policy strategy and decision-making processes.

Enterprise Systems Engineering↗
NASA NTRS2011

Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) Flight System Integration at Its Best

The Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) element integrates all the subsystems needed for ascent flight, entry, and recovery of the combined Booster and Motor system. These include the structures, avionics, thrust vector control, pyrotechnic, range safety, deceleration, thermal protection, and retrieval systems. This represents the only human-rated, recoverable and refurbishable solid rocket ever developed and flown. Challenges included subsystem integration, thermal environments and severe loads (including water impact), sometimes resulting in hardware attrition. Several of the subsystems evolved during the program through design changes. These included the thermal protection system, range safety system, parachute/recovery system, and others. Because the system was recovered, the SRB was ideal for data and imagery acquisition, which proved essential for understanding loads, environments and system response. The three main parachutes that lower the SRBs to the ocean are the largest parachutes ever designed, and the SRBs are the largest structures ever to be lowered by parachutes. SRB recovery from the ocean was a unique process and represented a significant operational challenge; requiring personnel, facilities, transportation, and ground support equipment. The SRB element achieved reliability via extensive system testing and checkout, redundancy management, and a thorough postflight assessment process. However, the in-flight data and postflight assessment process revealed the hardware was affected much more strongly than originally anticipated. Assembly and integration of the booster subsystems required acceptance testing of reused hardware components for each build. Extensive testing was done to assure hardware functionality at each level of stage integration. Because the booster element is recoverable, subsystems were available for inspection and testing postflight, unique to the Shuttle launch vehicle. Problems were noted and corrective actions were implemented as needed. The postflight assessment process was quite detailed and a significant portion of flight operations. The SRBs provided fully redundant critical systems including thrust vector control, mission critical pyrotechnics, avionics, and parachute recovery system. The design intent was to lift off with full redundancy. On occasion, the redundancy management scheme was needed during flight operations. This paper describes some of the design challenges and technical issues, how the design evolved with time, and key areas where hardware reusability contributed to improved system level understanding.

Wood, T. David↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Developing a Medical System Concept of Operations for Level of Care IV: Long-Duration Lunar Orbital and Surface Operations

A goal of the Human Research Program (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element Systems Engineering (SE) team is to define the technical system needed to support crew medical system capabilities for future exploration missions, including a mission with lunar orbital and long duration surface operations. The medical system concept of operations (ConOps) is the starting point of creating a foundation for a medical system that meets Level of Care IV requirements, as defined by NASA’s space flight human-system standards. This ConOps illustrates how NASA can provide a Level of Care IV medical system for crews within the various cis-lunar orbit and lunar surface habitat environments. The use case scenarios included in this ConOps illustrate required medical system capabilities for Level of Care IV and enable the ExMC SE team to develop integrated medical system requirements and identify capabilities required to meet those requirements. This discussion will focus on how this concept of operations was constructed – by utilizing the lessons learned from ExMC’s existing Short-Duration Lunar Orbit Medical System Concept of Operations, by employing Model-Based Systems Engineering, and by collaborating with stakeholders in order to ensure the necessary assumptions were made.

M. Kaetzer↗
NASA NTRS1980

Technology requirements for future Earth-to-geosynchronous orbit transportation systems. Volume 2: Technical results

Technologies either critical to performance of offering cost advantages compared to the investment required to bring them to usable confidence levels are identified. A total transportation system is used as an evaluation yardstick. Vehicles included in the system are a single stage to orbit launch vehicle used in a priority cargo role, a matching orbit transfer vehicle, a heavy lift launch vehicle with a low Earth orbit delivery capability of 226, 575 kg, and a matching solar electric cargo orbit transfer vehicle. The system and its reference technology level are consistent with an initial operational capability in 1990. The 15 year mission scenario is based on early space industrialization leading to the deployment of large systems such as power satellites. Life cycle cost benefits in discounted and undiscounted dollars for each vehicle, technology advancement, and the integrated transportation system are calculated. A preliminary functional analysis was made of the operational support requirements for ground based and space based chemical propulsion orbit transfer vehicles.

Caluori, V. A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Tailoring Early Concept Maturity Levels for Small Satellite Missions

The Concept Maturity Level (CML) framework has gained widespread acceptance as a process to assess mission concept maturity, particularly for early mission concepts in the formulation phase. Popularized by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory almost 15 years ago to evaluate large NASA science mission concepts, the CML method offers wide-ranging programmatic and technical evaluation criteria to assess and measure the progress of mission concepts at all stages of maturity. It also provides a useful tool to facilitate stakeholder relationships through effective engagement, interaction, and communication. The CML approach is modeled largely after the widespread Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale, a measure of how new technology progresses from early concept through to being operational at the mission flight system level. Tailoring the CML framework for small satellites allows for more relevant technical and programmatic evaluations for these missions. Given the diversity of small satellite mission objectives, cost constraints, complexity, and risk tolerance, this modified CML framework enables study teams and stakeholders to determine the appropriate CML fidelity to implement based upon the opportunity and strategic investment approach. A decision process flow method is proposed to guide teams through the logic of determining what CML fidelity to implement in evaluating small satellite mission concepts. The goal is to provide enhanced stakeholder engagement such that CML assessments are clearly articulated and understood early in the design study. This would allow for more appropriate application of CML methodology by study teams developing University led missions, technology demonstrations, commercial constellations, and more complex planetary science missions.

Concept Maturity Level↗
DOE OSTI2025

Stomata in-sight: Integrating live confocal microscopy with leaf gas exchange and environmental control

Stomatal anatomy (aperture area, length, and width) influences leaf-level physiology traits including conductance to water vapor. Stomatal anatomy can be visualized in situ by microscopy, but the difficulty of regulating the atmospheric environment of a microscope stage means that the conditions under which imaging is done are rarely physiologically relevant. Alternatively, leaf gas exchange instruments that measure gas fluxes reflect stomatal anatomical characteristics in aggregate, but the relative strengths of anatomical traits to control water use (e.g. size vs density) cannot be firmly established. To reconcile the microscopic stomatal characteristics with leaf-level gas exchange, we describe a tool that combines laser scanning confocal microscopy, gas exchange instruments, and machine-learning image analysis to simultaneously observe anatomical characteristics of many (>40) stomata alongside leaf-level traits like photosynthesis, transpiration, and stomatal conductance. We demonstrate how the tool has the resolution capable of quantifying aperture sizes and variability in maize (Zea mays) leaves under 5 steady-state light/pCO 2 treatments while tightly controlling other environmental variables like relative humidity and temperature. A model used to calculate stomatal conductance from measured apertures and stomatal density accurately matched stomatal conductance measured by gas exchange. This technical advancement will provide insight on how stomatal anatomy and function trade off to influence stomatal conductance and leaf-level water use efficiency.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1995

The 1994 Fiber Optic Sensors for Aerospace Technology (FOSAT) Workshop

The NASA Lewis Research Center conducted a workshop on fiber optic technology on October 18-20, 1994. The workshop objective was to discuss the future direction of fiber optics and optical sensor research, especially in the aerospace arena. The workshop was separated into four sections: (1) a Systems Section which dealt specifically with top level overall architectures for the aircraft and engine; (2) a Subsystems Section considered the parts and pieces that made up the subsystems of the overall systems; (3) a Sensor/Actuators section considered the status of research on passive optical sensors and optical powered actuators; and (4) Components Section which addressed the interconnects for the optical systems (e.g., optical connectors, optical fibers, etc.). This report contains the minutes of the discussion on the workshop, both in each section and in the plenary sessions. The slides used by a limited number of presenters are also included as presented. No attempt was made to homogenize this report. The view of most of the attendees was: (1) the government must do a better job of disseminating technical information in a more timely fashion; (2) enough work has been done on the components, and system level architecture definition must dictate what work should be done on components; (3) a Photonics Steering Committee should be formed to coordinate the efforts of government and industry in the photonics area, to make sure that programs complimented each other and that technology transferred from one program was used in other programs to the best advantage of the government and industry.

Baumbick, Robert↗
NASA NTRS2007

Definition and Development of Habitation Readiness Levels (HRLs) for Planetary Surface Habitats

One could argue that NASA has never developed a true habitat for a planetary surface, with only the Lunar Module from the 1960's-era Apollo Program providing for a sparse 2 person, 3 day capability. An integral part of NASA's current National Vision for Space Exploration is missions back to the moon and eventually to Mars. One of the largest leaps i11 lunar surface exploration beyond the Apollo lunar missions will be the conduct of these extended duration human missions. These missions could range from 30 to 90 days in length initially and may eventually range up to 500 days in length. To enable these extended duration human missions, probably the single-most important lunar surface element is the Surface Habitat. The requirements that must be met by the Surface Habitat will go far beyond the safety, performance and operational requirements of the Lunar Module, and NASA needs to develop a basis for making intelligent, technically correct habitat design decisions. This paper will discuss the possibilities of the definition and development of a Habitation Readiness Level (HRL) scale that might be mapped to current Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) for technology development. HRLs could help measure how well a particular technology thrust is advanced by a proposed planetary habitat concept. The readiness level would have to be measured differently than TRLs, and may include such milestones as habitat design performance under simulated mission operations and constraints (including relevant field testing), functional allocation demonstrations, crew interface evaluation and post-occupancy evaluation. With many concepts for planetary habitats proposed over the past 20 years, there are many strategic technical challenges facing designers of planetary habitats that will support NASA's exploration of the moon and Mars. The systematic assessment of a variety of planetary habitat options will be an important approach and will influence the associated requirements for human design, volumetrics, functionality, systems hardware and operations.

Connolly, Janis H.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Direct Drive Solar-Powered Arcjet Thruster

Electric thrusters typically require a power processing unit (PPU) to convert the spacecraft-provided power to the voltage and current that a thruster needs for operation. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center has initiated fundamental studies on whether an arcjet thruster can be operated directly with the power produced by solar arrays without any additional conversion. Elimination of the PPU significantly reduces system-level complexity of the propulsion system, and lowers developmental cost and risk. The proposed work will aim to refine the proof-of-concept presently being assembled and begin to identify and address technical questions related to power conditioning and noise suppression in the system, and heating of the thruster in long-duration operation. The apparatus proposed for investigation has a target power level of 400 to 1,000 W. The proposed direct-drive arcjet is potentially a highly scalable concept, applicable to spacecraft with up to hundreds of kilowatts and beyond. The design of the arcjet built for this effort was based on previous low power (1 kW class) arcjets.1-3 It has a precision machined 99.95% pure tungsten anode that also serves as the nozzle with a 0.040-in- (1-mm-) diameter, 0.040-in-long constrictor region. An additional anode with a 0.020-in- (0.5-mm-) diameter, 0.020-inlong constrictor region was purchased, but has not yet been used. The cathode is a 0.125-in-diameter tungsten welding electrode doped with lanthum-oxygen; its tip was precision ground to a 308deg angle and terminates in a blunt end. The two electrodes are separated by a boron-nitride insulator that also serves as the propellant manifold; it ends in six small holes which introduce the propellant gas in the diverging section of the nozzle, directly adjacent to the cathode. The electrodes and insulator are housed in a stainless-steel outer body, with a Macor insulator at the mid-plane to provide thermal isolation between the front and back halves of the device. The gas seals were made using Grafoil gaskets. Figure 1(a) shows the assembled thruster; figure 1(b) shows the thruster in the vacuum chamber with electrical and propellant connections.

Polzin, Kurt↗
DOE OSTI2025

The development and evolution of biological AMS at Livermore: a perspective

Biological accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) provides ultrasensitive carbon-14 isotopic analysis enabling a deeper understanding of human health concerns by enabling quantification of pharmacokinetics and other molecular endpoints directly in humans. It enables environmentally and human relevant studies of metabolic pathways through the use of very low concentrations of labeled metabolic substrates in cells and organisms. Here, we discuss why AMS is an important tool for the biosciences, the development and evolution of biological AMS at Livermore and discuss technical refinements that will improve the efficiency of operation for the measurement of ultra-trace levels of 14 C, which, long term, will enable greater ease of use and sample throughput.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Gas-Cooled High-Temperature Pebble-Bed Reactor Reference Plant Model Updates

This work presents the latest improvements to, and investigations performed with, the pebble-bed high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (PB-HTGR) reference plant models for the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These models serve as the foundation for the future development of detailed design evaluation models based on license applications. The reference plant models have been developed with the Comprehensive Reactor Analysis Bundle, or BlueCRAB, which is the code suite proposed for non-light-water reactor systems safety analysis. It incorporates various simulation tools developed by the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation program, including the Griffin code for reactor physics, the Pronghorn and SAM codes for core thermal fluids, the BISON code for solid conduction and fuel performance, and the SAM code for system analysis. The primary objective of the work that was performed was to assess BlueCRAB’s level of readiness for modeling a PB-HTGR. To do so, we first developed numerical models in BlueCRAB that include the key physics for this technology to ensure an adequate level of fidelity for modeling PB-HTGR core performance and for performing multiphysics simulations for equilibrium core conditions and different accident scenarios. Then we simulated transient scenarios, including depressurized and pressurized loss of forced cooling accidents, over-cooling, and control rod withdrawal events with delayed and prompt supercritical reactivity insertions. The analysis in this report includes comparisons of the 2D thermal fluid porous media models in Pronghorn and SAM, and comparisons of coupled SAM/Griffin/SAM and coupled Pronghorn/Griffin for depressurized and pressurized loss of forced cooling, over-cooling, and control rod withdrawal events. In addition, we compare 3D, 2D, and 0D/PKE neutronic models for the two control rod withdrawal scenarios with coupled Pronghorn/Griffin. The comparisons show that the BlueCRAB models lead to physically intuitive solutions for the scenarios examined. The changes in the various scalar and vector fields, such as neutron flux, power, temperature, density, pressure, and velocity, are within the expected ranges, and their distributions can be explained by the system response of the transients and the geometric and material variations. Several comparisons suggest that the porous media models in Pronghorn and SAM can lead to similar solutions, even though they are based on different methodologies. This work further highlights the need for flexible tools with various levels of fidelity to cover the breadth and depth of needs that may arise in future technical evaluations of the PB-HTGR. We believe that the BlueCRAB capabilities will be a significant asset for confirmatory analyses in order to resolve important safety questions.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS1965

<general dynamics of physical-chemical systems in mammals< fourth quarterly progress report, may 21 - aug. 20, 1965

Work is continuing on the mathematical modelling of the hydrodynamics of the arterial system. Discussion with Dr. McDonald has raised some questions relative to the geometric model of the arterial system. This area is considered important to provide a suitable base for consideration of the actual events taking place in the arteries. Attempts are being made to develop a model which will describe the geometry in terms of diameters against length, changes in cross-sectional area with division, and number of levels of arteries according to diameter. This work will be described in some detail in a technical report which is being prepared and will be submitted during the next quarter.

ARTERY↗