Results for “Architecture Gaps” — Page 3

DOE OSTI2021

IoT Intrusion Detection Taxonomy, Reference Architecture, and Analyses

This paper surveys the deep learning (DL) approaches for intrusion-detection systems (IDSs) in Internet of Things (IoT) and the associated datasets toward identifying gaps, weaknesses, and a neutral reference architecture. A comparative study of IDSs is provided, with a review of anomaly-based IDSs on DL approaches, which include supervised, unsupervised, and hybrid methods. All techniques in these three categories have essentially been used in IoT environments. To date, only a few have been used in the anomaly-based IDS for IoT. For each of these anomaly-based IDSs, the implementation of the four categories of feature(s) extraction, classification, prediction, and regression were evaluated. We studied important performance metrics and benchmark detection rates, including the requisite efficiency of the various methods. Four machine learning algorithms were evaluated for classification purposes: Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision Tree (DT), and an Artificial Neural Network (ANN). Therefore, we compared each via the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. The study model exhibits promising outcomes for all classes of attacks. The scope of our analysis examines attacks targeting the IoT ecosystem using empirically based, simulation-generated datasets (namely the Bot-IoT and the IoTID20 datasets).

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

NASA NTRS2000

BOREAS TE-6 Multiband Vegetation Imager Data

The BOREAS TE-6 team collected data in support of its efforts to examine the influence of vegetation and climate on the major carbon fluxes in boreal tree species. A newly developed ground-based canopy imaging system called an MVI was tested and used by the BOREAS TE-06 team to collect measurements of the canopy crap fraction (sky fraction), canopy gap-size distribution (size and frequency of gaps between foliage in canopy), branch architecture, and leaf angle distribution (fraction of leaf area in specific leaf inclination classes assuming azimuthal symmetry). Measurements of the canopy gap-size distribution are used to derive canopy clumping indices that can be used to adjust indirect LAI measurements made in nonrandom forests. These clumping factors will also help to describe the radiation penetration in clumped canopies more accurately by allowing for simple adjustments to Beer's law. Measurements of the above quantities were obtained at BOREAS NSA-OJP site in IFC-2 in 1994, at the SSA-OA in July 1995, and at the SSA-OBS and SSA-OA sites in IFC-2 in 1996. Modeling studies were also performed to further validate MVI measurements and to gain a more complete understanding of boreal forest canopy architecture. By using MVI measurements and Monte Carlo simulations, clumping indices as a function of zenith angle were derived for the three main boreal species studied during BOREAS. The analyzed data are stored in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distrobuted Activity Archive Center (DAAC).

Hall, Forrest G.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Developments in Cryogenic Fluid Management Technology

NASA has been pursuing the development and demonstration of enabling and enhancing technologies for Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) in collaboration with the US industry. NASA’s vision for current and future space exploration requires high-performance chemical and nuclear propulsion solutions that utilize cryogens. The Agency will use cryogenic fluids for Earth-to-orbit transportation, human missions to the Moon and Mars, planetary exploration, and in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) production. All these architectures will require state-of-the-art long-duration storage on the surface and in-space transfer for refueling. This paper focuses on key CFM technology developments completed or ongoing by the Cryogenic Fluid Management Portfolio Office within NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate. The CFM Portfolio Office, partnered with US aerospace industry, has invested in CFM technology ground and flight demonstrations, focused on maturing CFM hardware and operations for Artemis and Moon to Mars activities. These demonstrations additionally provide NASA with data to inform numerical modeling activities for verification and validation of design tools and approaches for future missions. This paper includes discussion on remaining high-priority open CFM technology gaps for Mar-forward architectures and initiatives for closure.

Cryogenic Fluid Management↗

NASA NTRS1993

Alternative Cross-Section Towpregs For Robotic Layups

Proposed process suggests robotic placement processing improvements realized by altering cross-sectional shape of wide and flat ribbon materials. Angled cross-section helps composite ribbons to align themselves and correct adjacent tow gaps and overlaps. New prepreg architectures include isosceles triangles, parallelograms, hexagons, and variations of trapezoids.

Baucom, Robert M.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Overview of the Contributing Factor Map and How it can Support your Research

The Contributing Factor Map (CFM) is a visual representation of a taxonomy of factors influencing human health and performance in space. This presentation will give an overview of its development and its structure. It will describe various uses of the CFM that can support researchers working within the Human Research Program (HRP) Architecture of Evidence-Risk-Gap-Task-Deliverable. For example, during the Risk phase, the CFM can be used as a "menu" to help formulate a qualitative model of the factors contributing to specific consequences of concern. It provides a reference set of factors from across the operational, vehicle design, and human domains that otherwise might not be considered if approaching a risk from a specific domain perspective. Using the CFM as a reference can increase awareness of potential cross-disciplinary collaborations for overall risk mitigation. The CFM can also be used as a framework for identifying gaps in knowledge about a risk. This identification can support the subsequent development of gaps and tasks comprising the research plan aimed at risk mitigation. Examples of these types of applications of the CFM will be discussed and information on the support available to researchers in using it will be provided.

Mindock, Jennifer A.↗

DOE OSTI2025

Data Centers and Digital Assurance Workshop 2 – Prioritizing Digital Assurance Challenges, Session 2

The second session of the TADA (Technical Assistance for Digital Assurance) Data Centers Cohort, held on November 10, 2025, focused on prioritizing digital assurance challenges at the intersection of data centers and the electric grid. Building on the foundational concepts introduced in Workshop 1, this session deepened the application of the Threat–Vulnerability–Consequence (TVC) framework and emphasized the urgency of addressing cybersecurity, supply chain integrity, and operational reliability. Participants explored the growing convergence of digital and physical systems, the expanding attack surface due to global supply chain dependencies, and the implications of AI-driven load behavior. Real-world incidents—including the Volt Typhoon campaign and vulnerabilities in Solarman and Deye platforms—were analyzed to illustrate the risks of unpatched systems, insecure APIs, and inadequate vendor oversight. Key themes included architecture and interface weaknesses, governance gaps, and human and procedural shortcomings. The workshop also examined the evolving regulatory landscape, highlighting new federal mandates around Foreign Entity of Concern (FEOC) compliance and large-load reliability standards. Through interactive exercises, stakeholders ranked and mapped digital assurance risks from their respective perspectives—utilities, operators, and vendors—laying the groundwork for mitigation strategies and shared accountability models to be developed in Workshop 3. Session 2 of 3.

24 - POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2022

Enabling cooperative adaptive cruise control on strings of vehicles with heterogeneous dynamics and powertrains

Recent studies have shown that positive impact of Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) can only be guaranteed as market penetration rate increases. Removing the string homogeneity constraint is essential to encourage widespread adoption. In this work, a hierarchical architecture is proposed to enable CACC on vehicles with not only mixed dynamics but also different powertrain types. A low-level layer deals with the vehicle and powertrain dynamics to provide accurate and consistent reference speed tracking response. The high-level layer uses: (1) a Linear Parameter Varying feedback system to provide loop stability, robustness and enforce a variable time gap policy and (2) a feedforward system that processes Vehicle-to-Vehicle information to enhance string stability and response bandwidth, by dealing with the string heterogeneity. A gap management strategy is built on top of the CACC architecture to handle gap setting changes or cut-in/out situations, via a dynamics constrained time gap trajectory planning algorithm. We report the proposed work has been designed, developed and validated on three different real passenger vehicles on public highways and test tracks, showing the potential of the proposed algorithm to enable robust string stable CACC, despite the different dynamics and powertrains considered.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

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 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

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

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 NTRS2018

Blockchain Application Within a Multi-Sensor Satellite Architecture

With the thrust towards multi-sensor satellite architectures for earth and space exploration, such as constellations and swarms, new technologies are required to enable the transition to this future capability. One of the areas of interest is establishing secure, efficient and prioritized data and command communication pathways among ground and space-based sources for such systems. This paper presents early research results on the potential role, capabilities and value of blockchain usage within constellation and swarm satellite architectures. It demonstrates the use of blockchain's smart contract and distributed ledger capabilities for secure and prioritized multi-sensor satellite collaborative data exchanges, as well as the logging and tracking of command and control events. Adapting and utilizing this emerging technology will aid in addressing technology gaps expected from future constellation flight architectures, such as managing collective computational operations (correlation), dynamic and autonomous observation planning, time-critical events, and provenance tied to ground and space-based autonomous operations and control recordkeeping. In this scenario blockchain is applied in encrypted command transmittal to multiple, yet specific, entities enabling acknowledgement transmittals, performance scalability, and automatic event-based triggering.

Mital, Rohit↗

DOE OSTI2020

Cybersecurity Vulnerability Mitigation Framework through Empirical Paradigm: Enhanced Prioritized Gap Analysis

Existing cybersecurity vulnerability assessment tools were designed based on the policies and standards defined by organizations such as the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Frameworks such as the cybersecurity capability maturity model (C2M2) and the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) are often used by the critical infrastructure owners and operators to determine the cybersecurity maturity of their facility. Although these frameworks are exceptional at performing qualitative cybersecurity analysis and identifying vulnerabilities, they do not provide a means to perform prioritized mitigation of those vulnerabilities in order to achieve a desired cybersecurity maturity. To address that challenge, we developed a framework and software application called the cybersecurity vulnerability mitigation framework through empirical paradigm (CyFEr). This paper presents the detailed architecture of CyFEr’s enhanced prioritized gap analysis (EPGA) methodology and its application to CSF. The efficacy of the presented framework is demonstrated by comparing against existing similar models and testing against the cyber injects from a real-world cyber-attack that targeted industrial control systems (ICS) in critical infrastructures.

Gourisetti, Sri Nikhil G.↗

NASA NTRS2010

L(sub 1) Adaptive Flight Control System: Flight Evaluation and Technology Transition

Certification of adaptive control technologies for both manned and unmanned aircraft represent a major challenge for current Verification and Validation techniques. A (missing) key step towards flight certification of adaptive flight control systems is the definition and development of analysis tools and methods to support Verification and Validation for nonlinear systems, similar to the procedures currently used for linear systems. In this paper, we describe and demonstrate the advantages of L(sub l) adaptive control architectures for closing some of the gaps in certification of adaptive flight control systems, which may facilitate the transition of adaptive control into military and commercial aerospace applications. As illustrative examples, we present the results of a piloted simulation evaluation on the NASA AirSTAR flight test vehicle, and results of an extensive flight test program conducted by the Naval Postgraduate School to demonstrate the advantages of L(sub l) adaptive control as a verifiable robust adaptive flight control system.

Xargay, Enric↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In-Situ Resource Utilization Options for the Moon and Mars

In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) is key to enabling extended presence at exploration locations. NASA’s focus for ISRU to date has been human exploration locations: the Moon and Mars. Likewise the primary target for ISRU has been the production of mission consumables for propulsion and life support. Producing oxygen alone from minerals on the Moon or atmosphere on Mars can provide the majority of these consumables. However, accessing water at either location allows for full propellant production (fuel and oxidizer) as well as other applications (eg life support). Current and previous study efforts have looked at mission architectures and ISRU mass payback for these options. Studies have also identified gaps in information needed to design effective ISRU hardware and choose best architectures

In-Situ Resource Utilization↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗

DOE OSTI2025

A critical review of electrochemical heat pump technologies: Status, challenges, and perspectives

The development of advanced heat pump technologies is critical for reducing global energy consumption in the building sector, where space heating and cooling account for nearly 50% of energy use. Electrochemical heat pumps (EHPs) offer a promising alternative to vapor compression systems by enabling direct electrochemical-to-thermal energy conversion, often with environmentally benign working fluids that exhibit low or zero global warming potential (GWP). Prior literature has predominantly focused on chemically reactive heat pumps, while comprehensive assessments of electrochemical mechanisms remain limited. Here, this review addresses this gap by systematically evaluating the underlying principles, architectures, and performance metrics of EHP systems. Compared to conventional vapor compression systems, EHPs can achieve 10%-30% higher energy efficiency, with reported cooling coefficients of performance (COP c ) ranging from 3.5 to 14.3 under standard operating conditions. Despite these advantages, widespread adoption is hindered by challenges including membrane degradation, electrode fouling, sluggish redox kinetics, and elevated system-level capital costs. To address these limitations, the review outlines three research priorities: (i) the development of advanced membranes, catalysts, and electrode materials with enhanced chemical and mechanical stability; (ii) the application of molecular-level simulations for the rational design of high-performance redox-active working fluids; and (iii) the integration of advanced diagnostic techniques for real-time monitoring and sustained operation of EHPs. By consolidating recent advances and explicitly identifying technological and scientific gaps, this work uniquely contributes a comprehensive framework for guiding future electrochemical heat pump research and facilitating the transition to sustainable thermal management technologies.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗