Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Company level organizations”

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 55 records · Page 3

Paths Forward: Approaches to Achieve Plug and Process Load Efficiency and Control in Commercial Buildings: Preprint

To accomplish net-zero carbon in the built environment by 2050, we must equitably decarbonize commercial buildings, which includes reducing plug and process loads (PPLs). PPLs are plug-in or hardwired electric and gas loads that are not directly associated with major building end uses like lighting and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning. PPLs account for a growing portion of U.S. commercial building energy consumption. Although commercial building PPL strategies and technologies are available today, they have not been adopted at a level sufficient to achieve significant savings and load flexibility across the building stock. In our "Pathways to Plug and Process Load Efficiency and Control" study, we investigated why these technologies and strategies have not seen widespread adoption and identified five behavior and technology pathways to increase PPL reduction in commercial buildings. In this paper, we expand beyond identifying the pathways and discuss approaches for achieving them. We discuss the importance of collecting and sharing data and case studies on PPL energy consumption and savings from control technology implementation, including code-required measures, for increasing adoption. Centralizing case studies and data, engaging industry organizations, and promoting awareness of PPL efficiency benefits to relevant groups are also key approaches. Additionally, funding, incentives, and rebate programs play important roles in driving PPL efficiency and control adoption. Finally, we discuss integrating PPL efficiency into broader company goals, such as environmental, social and governance (ESG) strategies and green building certifications, to further drive adoption.

adoption pathways↗

Updates to a Preliminary Probabilistic Performance Assessment Model for Radiological and Chemical Contamination at the West Valley Site, New York - 20420

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is the owner of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center (WNYNSC), a 1,351-ha site located approximately 48 km south of Buffalo, New York. In 1962, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) entered into agreements with the Atomic Energy Commission and New York State to construct the first commercial reprocessing plant of nuclear fuel in the United States at the WNYNSC. NFS built and operated the spent fuel reprocessing plant and waste disposal facilities, processing 640 Mg (640 metric tons) of spent nuclear fuel from 1966 to 1972 under an Atomic Energy Commission license. Nuclear fuel reprocessing operations halted in 1972 and never restarted, leaving behind radioactive and chemical wastes. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was required to complete certain waste management activities under the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) Act of 1980 including decommissioning of WVDP facilities. As collaborating agencies, NYSERDA and the DOE are tasked with making decisions about decommissioning and risk reduction for the West Valley Site. Neptune and Company, Inc. (Neptune) was contracted to develop a probabilistic performance assessment (PPA) model to assist the agencies in their decision making process for decommissioning the WVDP and WNYNSC. One important tool that is needed in order to inform the decision-making process is a science-based model of the West Valley Site that evaluates potential future consequences for human health and the environment. This forms the core of the spatial domain of the West Valley PPA Model. The PPA Model, developed using the GoldSim system modeling software, is a tool intended to provide support for decision making that evaluates uncertainty, in a manner that is transparent, defensible, and robust. The PPA Model includes contaminant transport and health effects components, and is organized around geographically-grouped contaminated facilities. These include the waste disposal areas licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of New York, a waste tank farm for storage of high level radioactive waste resulting from reprocessing operations, and several areas contaminated with radioactive and chemical constituents. The PPA Model evaluates contaminant transport from these sources to points of exposure across the site and into receiving surface waters and sediments. Hypothetical people and wildlife could be exposed to contamination at these locations, and the effects of these exposures are evaluated. Contaminant transport processes to be evaluated in the PPA Model include groundwater and surface water transport, contaminant translocation by plants and animals, diffusion, and erosion. The evaluation of exposures to people in this preliminary model is limited to a resident farmer scenario, and ecological assessment is performed at the level of a screening analysis. The results of these preliminary evaluations inform future model developments. PPA Model results are subjected to sensitivity analysis in order to determine those pathways and parameters that are most significant in influencing the results. This information allows analysts and decision makers to focus on those aspects of Site behavior and processes. With this information, the decision makers can drive informed, defensible decisions regarding decommissioning of the Site. This paper includes an update of the information presented at WM2019 [1]. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

A Novel Sediment Passage Module Design in Support of Standard Modular Hydropower

This document is the Final Technical Report (FTR) for University of Minnesota (UMN) project on the development of a novel sediment (e.g., sand) bypass technology for new stream reach development (NSD). The project duration was slightly over four years and organized over two budget periods (BPs), i.e., BP1 and BP2, with a Go/No-Go review at the end of BP1. The initial technology had a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of two (2) and, over the life of the project, advanced substantially to TRL 3 or 4.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Terrestrial Proving Ground Capabilities Needed for Lunar In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) & Construction Concepts of Operation

Incorporating any new technology or system into a human exploration mission or architecture requires development well in advance of the mission to eliminate technology, cost, and schedule risk concerns. It is often stated that technologies need to be at a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 6, i.e. ‘system/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space)’, by Authority To Proceed (ATP) or by the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) for the mission at the latest. There are two game changing capabilities for sustained human exploration of space that can have a significant effect on the overall exploration architecture and the technologies and systems included in the architecture. The first game changing capability, known as In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), involves the search for, acquisition, and processing of resources on the Moon and Mars into mission consumables and usable products, and the second is the ability to utilize space resources in the construction of roads, structures, and surface infrastructure. ISRU and surface construction capabilities have the potential to greatly reduce the cost and risk of human exploration while enabling sustained lunar surface and commercial operations. However, ISRU and surface construction systems are complex and must operate in extremely harsh environments, with abrasive regolith and pervasive dust, for long-periods of time, with potentially limited opportunities for maintenance and repair by humans. The complexity of these capabilities and operations also means that there are a limited number of companies that can design, build, and operate end-to-end systems on their own. The majority of the technologies being developed for these systems are by small companies and at the component or subsystem level. With the overarching strategy of the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) to enable industry to implement ISRU and surface infrastructure for Artemis and space commercialization, it is therefore important to establish processes and capabilities to promote and foster collaborations among large and small companies involved in ISRU and surface infrastructure development. For ISRU and infrastructure systems and capabilities to be used in Artemis missions and future commercial lunar surface operations, a coordinated framework with virtual/physical integration and testing locations, or ‘Proving Grounds’, needs to be established and operated on a regular basis and open to all. This paper will discuss the ISRU and surface construction near and long-term concepts of operations, and review operations and lessons-learned from the previous ISRU analog field tests. From this information, requirements and capabilities will be proposed to support and enable the integration and testing of ISRU and construction systems with industry, academia, and international agencies, as well as what facilities and organizations could help establish these Proving Grounds.

ISRU↗

How To Determine and Verify Operations and Maintenance Savings in Energy Savings Performance Contracts

Operations and maintenance (O&M) savings frequently occur in energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs). During FY 2022, 37% of reported annual cost savings for projects awarded under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) ESPC indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts and in the performance period were due to O&M or other energy- and/or water-related cost savings, with the balance (63%) from utility cost savings (i.e., energy or water cost savings). Sometimes the energy- and water-related cost savings are acknowledged and included in payments within ESPCs; other times, for various reasons, they are not. As presented in this guide, FEMP recommends including energy- and water-related cost savings that are O&M (including related repair and replacement) savings in the financial aspects of an ESPC, to the extent such savings can be documented. Inclusion of these savings will help augment project scopes and/or lower interest costs (by shortening financing terms). However, there is a burden of proof as to what constitutes acceptability in O&M savings that needs to be carefully considered and documented in individual projects. Beyond promoting a key tenet used in U.S. federal performance contracting—that savings must be from actual budgets and therefore based on the level of O&M that is actually occurring, not what should have been performed—FEMP also recommends good practice in establishing and documenting O&M baselines, formulating the rationale for baseline adjustments during the performance period, and conducting ongoing verification activities. This document concludes with five examples of how O&M savings may be handled, in situations ranging from the partial displacement of O&M contracts to consolidation and “virtualization” of servers in data centers. A key theme that permeates this guide is the importance of thoroughly documenting all conditions and assumptions used in the development of and accounting for O&M costs and savings throughout the ESPC life cycle, from baseline-setting to measurement and verification (M&V) of the savings during each year of the performance period. Doing so not only prevents internal claims of non-performance (especially in the case of staff turnover during the contract term), but also simplifies ordering agency and energy service company (ESCO) response in the event of scrutiny from oversight organizations, such as government audits. While this guide focuses on federal ESPCs, it may also be applicable when O&M savings are included in utility energy service contracts (UESCs) and non-federal ESPCs.

Voss, Phil↗

Development of a Western U.S. Fusion Energy Commercialization Hub

Fusion energy, if successfully commercialized and globally adopted, could substantially increase U.S. energy dominance and provide essentially unlimited baseload power for the national grid. It also stands to provide the U.S. with a strong source of economic growth through the 2030s and 2040s, giving the U.S. a new and highly internationally competitive industry for export. Fusion can also provide the increased electrical power generation capacity required to power current and future artificial intelligence (AI) activities. In October 2024, the CleanTech Alliance held a fusion energy commercialization regional hub workshop alongside its annual Seattle Fusion Week conference. The event brought together fusion companies, researchers, economic development experts, federal and state government representatives, and power utilities from the western states of Washington, California, Colorado and Nevada. Attendees discussed the potential of regionally focused commercialization of fusion energy in three pillars: technology, workforce, and economic development. Mel Clark, President & CEO, CleanTech Alliance, and Dr. Javier Garay, Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, at the University of California San Diego (UCSD) and Founding Director of the UCSD Fusion Engineering institute, are co-PIs for this project. The project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) through a Field Work Proposal to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) with Karl Mueller as point-of-contact. Chris Ajemian (Principal, Ajemian Consulting, LLC) and Dr. Christopher Keane (Professor of Physics and former Vice-President for Research, Washington State University) co-organized the workshop and were the editors for this report. This report details the current state of the work of the four western states to develop industry-led collaboration with national laboratories, universities, and government at all levels to hasten the commercialization of fusion energy. It provides a summary of fusion energy R&D needs, presents the ideas the attendees at the workshop identified for deepening regional collaboration, and makes findings and recommendations for next steps.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

The False Dilemma: Rethinking AF Science and Technology Officer Talent Management

In 2019, Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) Heather Wilson launched the 2030 Science and Technology (S&T) Strategy by stating, “The advantage will go to those who create the best technologies and who integrate and field them in creative operational ways that provide military advantages.” In 2021, 15% of Air Force general officers responsible for creating and integrating this technological edge had a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) graduate degree, and less than 1% of generals had a STEM doctorate. As one point of comparison, at least 32% and 13% of founding CEOs of Fortune 500 technology companies had a master’s and doctoral STEM degree, respectively. The gulf is larger when you consider that these CEOs used their technical degrees throughout their careers whereas most general officers do not. In large organizations, if the leader does not possess technical knowledge, it is difficult to drive innovation systems and connect ideas to reality. The evidence for this disconnect is abundant in acquisition challenges for high-tech systems, significant pushback to the “revolution in military affairs”, and failure of the “Third Offset” to take hold and deliver capabilities to offset Chinese and Russian capabilities. Indeed, when the former Air Force and Space Force Chief Software Officer, Nicolas M. Chaillan, offered his resignation, one of the main reasons for leaving was “the failure of OSD and the Joint Staff to deliver on their own alleged top ‘priority’, JADC2 – they couldn’t ‘walk the walk.’” Senior leaders have recognized this disconnect, and several inquiries and studies regarding STEM competency have been conducted. Many have posed a false dilemma: a large, STEM-cognizant or small, STEM-expert force. However, current and future STEM human capital needs are managed at the unit and functional area level. This leads to “silos” and the tactical “needs of the present” dominating the strategic “needs of the future”, highlighted by only two functional areas systematically tracking future STEM needs. Therefore, the decision on force structure appears to have been historically made by default through these and other perceived structural realities, and a vast majority of recommendations have focused on the small STEM community – an exercise in diminishing returns. In essence, the solution often boils down to finding unicorns – officers that have chartered the unforgiving pathway through the traditional “gates” to general officer while obtaining sufficient STEM proficiency along the way. Fortunately for the Air Force, these officers exist, albeit at a rate below what the evidence would suggest is necessary. However, this approach fundamentally limits the ability to develop a deep pool of officers with the ability to create and integrate technologies and ensures the Dunning-Kruger effect is prevalent. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where those with limited knowledge in an area lack the expertise necessary to recognize their lack of expertise and consequently are prone to overestimate their knowledge and performance. In short, we need less leaders overestimating their STEM knowledge and more with hard-earned STEM competency required to “walk the walk” to create and integrate technologies for military advantage. This will not be accomplished by restricting the emphasis to the traditional scientists and engineering (S&E) career fields – the pool, only 10% of line officers, and general officer progression is just too small. Fortunately, the recent SECAF’s Management Initiatives and Chief of Staff’s (CSAF) Action Orders, both containing emphasis on organic expertise to “accrue advantage in military-technological competition,” present an opportunity to truly develop a framework for the force of the future.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

UAM Vision Concept of Operations (ConOps) UAM Maturity Level (UML) 4

This Vision ConOps is intended as a foundation to engage members of the UAM community and provide a consensus on the future vision of UAM operations. It provides a concept for more detailed discussion and a basis for the exploration of ideas using a common framework to inform the continued development and integration of UAM as part of the broader transportation system. Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) encompasses a range of innovative aviation technologies (small drones, electric aircraft, automated air traffic management, etc.) that are transforming aviation’s role in everyday life, including the movement of goods and people. Urban Air Mobility (UAM) represents one of the most exciting and complex AAM concepts with highly automated aircraft, providing commercial services to the public over densely populated cities. This concept has generated tremendous interest and industry investment. UAM envisages a future in which advanced technologies and new operational procedures enable practical, cost-effective air travel as an integral mode of transportation in metropolitan areas. It represents one of the most exciting and complex AAM concepts with highly automated aircraft providing commercial services to the public over densely populated cities. For this reason, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) selected UAM as the initial goal of its AAM efforts and the focus of this Vision Concept of Operations (ConOps) document. UAM Community Vision ConOps: This Vision ConOps effort was led by experts from NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) in collaboration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Deloitte’s Ecosystem Advisory Group (a cohort of advisers with aviation, aerospace, and regulatory expertise). To develop this Vision ConOps, NASA, FAA, and Deloitte built upon the current body of aeronautical research and consulted with more than 100 stakeholder organizations. This UAM community includes entities ranging from legacy aviation leaders to innovators and new market entrants. Stakeholders consulted included the federal government, state and local government, aerospace original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), local transportation organizations, prospective UAM operators, academia, industry standards-setting bodies, airports, service suppliers, and others (as described in Appendix G). This input was captured through the following methods: • A series of more than two dozen interviews with industry experts, federal regulators, state and local governments, and industry trade groups provided insight into the challenges of UAM integration into the National Airspace System (NAS), as well as technology developments and a variety of perspectives as to how UAM systems will integrate. • A series of two-day community workshops enabling active, detailed engagement of nearly 100 industry, academic, federal, and state stakeholder individuals. These workshops, hosted by NASA and Deloitte, explored UAM concepts in detail, and stakeholders were invited to collaboratively analyze and propose solutions to some of the greatest conceptual challenges behind UAM at an intermediate state. • A review of more than 160 sources of UAM literature from across government, industry, and academia, which are listed in Appendix H. • The public sharing of workshop input and document drafts for review and input across the UAM community. Feedback in the form of more than 1,000 comments and inputs on the document was received from industry groups, individual companies, academia, and government (federal, state, and local), among others. Although effort was made to incorporate inputs from across the UAM stakeholder group, not all comments could ultimately be incorporated in this version. The team resolved conflicting comments or ideas while maintaining consistency with the known direction of regulators and ensuring the document was coherent and consistent. It is recognized that this is a rapidly evolving area and that concepts will likely change over time; as such, this Vision ConOps is a living document and is expected to evolve as concepts mature. The ConOps does, however, provide a vision of UAM concepts and solutions based on the broad insights from across the UAM stakeholder community at the time of its publication and is intended to serve as a UAM North Star for continued research and development of UAM. As a broad Vision ConOps, is not a detailed engineering document; rather, it focuses primarily on outlining a broad, high-level vision across all aspects of a UAM transportation system.

Urban Air Mobility↗

Software-defined Networking for Energy Delivery Systems (SDN4EDS): An Architectural Blueprint (Final Summary Report)

This is the initial version of a reference for suppliers and energy companies of all sizes to deploy networks based on software-defined networking technology (SDN) to improve reliability, reduce cyber security attack surface, and facilitate mitigation of adversarial behavior. It is a living document and will progress over the life cycle of the Software-Defined Networking for Energy Delivery Systems (SDN4EDS) project. Version 2 of this report provides information on the Red Team tabletop assessment performed against the initial reference architecture. Version 3 of this report updates the reference architecture with lessons learned from the Red Team tabletop assessment, as well as provides additional details for the use cases. It also provides information on the decision process that could be used by an organization when considering deploying SDN in their environment. The final version of this report consolidates all the interim reports generated by the project into a final report. It also draws from PNNL’s experience in deploying SDN to make recommendations on how SDN could be deployed in a utility environment, and provides rationale for those decisions allowing individual utilities to make risk-based and knowledge-based decisions on how to best deploy SDN in their own environment. This summary report provides a higher-level overview of the project reports. Readers interested in additional detail, including results of the Red Team assessments and the final configuration, are encouraged to read the full final report.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

SISO Space Reference FOM - Tools and Testing

The Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO) Space Reference Federation Object Model (SpaceFOM) version 1.0 is nearing completion. Earlier papers have described the use of the High Level Architecture (HLA) in Space simulation as well as technical aspects of the SpaceFOM. This paper takes a look at different SpaceFOM tools and how they were used during the development and testing of the standard.The first organizations to develop SpaceFOM-compliant federates for SpaceFOM development and testing were NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC), the University of Calabria (UNICAL), and Pitch Technologies.JSC is one of NASA's lead centers for human space flight. Much of the core distributed simulation technology development, specifically associated with the SpaceFOM, is done by the NASA Exploration Systems Simulations (NExSyS) team. One of NASA's principal simulation development tools is the Trick Simulation Environment. NASA's NExSyS team has been modifying and using Trick and TrickHLA to help develop and test the SpaceFOM.The System Modeling And Simulation Hub Laboratory (SMASH-Lab) at UNICAL has developed the Simulation Exploration Experience (SEE) HLA Starter kit, that has been used by most SEE teams involved in the distributed simulation of a Moon base. It is particularly useful for the development of federates that are compatible with the SpaceFOM. The HLA Starter Kit is a Java based tool that provides a well-structured framework to simplify the formulation, generation, and execution of SpaceFOM-compliant federates.Pitch Technologies, a company specializing in distributed simulation, is utilizing a number of their existing HLA tools to support development and testing of the SpaceFOM. In addition to the existing tools, Pitch has developed a few SpaceFOM specific federates: Space Master for managing the initialization, execution and pacing of any SpaceFOM federation; EarthEnvironment, a simple Root Reference Publisher; and Space Monitor, a graphical tool for monitoring reference frames and physical entities.Early testing of the SpaceFOM was carried out in the SEE university outreach program, initiated in SISO. Students were given a subset of the FOM, that was later extended. Sample federates were developed and frameworks were developed or adapted to the early FOM versions.As drafts of the standard matured, testing was performed using federates from government, industry, and academia. By mixing federates developed by different teams the standard could be tested with respect to functional correctness, robustness and clarity.These frameworks and federates have been useful when testing and verifying the design of the standard. In addition to this, they have since formed a starting point for developing SpaceFOM-compliant federations in several projects, for example for NASA, ESA as well as SEE.

Möller, Björn↗

Enhancing Lifetime and Reducing Costs for Fish Diversion Netting Structures (Abstract)

This effort will focus on technology transfer and commercialization of antifouling coatings with an enthusiastic and engaged industrial team. Environmental requirements and operational demands call for a nontoxic coating/paint to prevent fouling on fish passage guidance netting at hydropower facilities. For example, one netting customer estimated the capital cost for compliance at $\$12$ million to $\$15$ million. This project will build partnerships between PNNL and private companies to optimize, demonstrate, mature, and commercialize a novel PNNL-developed technology that addresses this critical coating need of the hydropower industry. This effort will support modification of existing coatings for application to flexible netting structures. Industrial partners include commercial coating development specialist (Lorama), hydrophobic material manufacturer and paint developer (Dry Surface Technologies), aquatic applications specialists (Prometheus Innovations and River Connectivity Systems), and hydropower netting producer (Pacific Netting Products). Engagement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), two hydropower operators, throughout the project will provide expertise and field test sites that will provide crucial proof of real-world performance data (additional details provided in Teaming section). Taylor Shellfish Farms will provide organisms and fouling expertise as well as a perspective of potential broader impacts for the blue economy. Sample netting will demonstrate performance in a range of environments for key hydropower applications. PNNL will work with industrial partners to overcome commercialization barriers as well as resolving any manufacturing or regulatory issues. This Phase 1 effort is focused on technology optimization for application to fish passage guidance netting and technology validation as verified by independent testing (through USACE, BOR, Taylor Shellfish and Prometheus Innovations). Through this effort, SLIC will be demonstrated for netting applications at technology readiness level (TRL) 5. The field test data will allow optimization of SLIC formulation and performance which is key to enabling technology transfer of a mature proven technology to industry and production of a viable commercial product specifically focused for hydropower needs.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Development of the IES Plug-and-Play Framework

This report discusses the status of the flexible plug-and-play framework development currently ongoing that aims to integrate Modelica/Dymola with the Risk Analysis and Virtual ENvironment (RAVEN) software in terms of both Functional Mock-Up Interface (FMI)/Functional Mock-Up Unit (FMU) construction and repository structures that aim to ease the sharing and simulation of complex dynamic models. This report aims to provide an overview of all the performed activities resolving around the deployment of methods, software infrastructures, guidelines and workflow for the construction and usage of models, encapsulated using the FMI/FMU protocols and standards. In particular, the report is organized in three main macro-subjects, which are connected to each other: - FMI/FMU adaptors for modelica models - HYBRID repository new structure and open-source deployment - RAVEN FMI/FMU exporting capabilities and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based analysis acceleration. The first part of the report discusses the FMI/FMU adaptors that have been created within the HYBRID repository to allow users to quickly export models, such as FMUs. Several examples are shown that highlight the step-by-step process of converting an existing Modelica model into an FMU for use within the Dymola platform. Simulation results demonstrate that, while minor differences may occur, the overall control, trends, and solution integrity are maintained between standard Modelica simulation and FMU simulation results. However, it is worth noting that, for small systems, the FMU results have a slower simulation time than the Modelica only simulation. Using this process, a company can provide models that contain proprietary information to entities without disclosing any of the information about the model that could be considered business sensitive. Such an ability would allow institutions to bypass the necessity of “whitewashing” data. In the second part of the report, the new structure of the HYBRID repository is discussed with a major focus on the series of updates that has been completed. These updates include the addition of Modelica system-level regression tests and software quality assurance documentation that ensure that modifications to the Modelica models do not alter system-level model results. The third and final part of the report aims to report the work that has been performed for the deployment of methods and workflows for the construction of RAVEN AI-based models compliant with the FMI/FMU standard. Such development represents the key for the deployment of the concept of “Flexible ecosystem” since it allows for the replacement of high-fidelity modelica models (or any other FMI/FMU compliant model) with RAVEN generated AI surrogate models. Overall, extensive work has been completed on developing FMUs and FMIs from existing models, understanding the requirements and limitations of FMUs, and open-sourcing the HYBRID repository with an integrated regression system.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Development of the IES Plug-and-Play Framework

This report discusses the status of the flexible plug-and-play framework development currently ongoing that aims to integrate Modelica/Dymola with the Risk Analysis and Virtual ENvironment (RAVEN) software in terms of both Functional Mock-Up Interface (FMI)/Functional Mock-Up Unit (FMU) construction and repository structures that aim to ease the sharing and simulation of complex dynamic models. This report aims to provide an overview of all the performed activities resolving around the deployment of methods, software infrastructures, guidelines and workflow for the construction and usage of models, encapsulated using the FMI/FMU protocols and standards. In particular, the report is organized in three main macro-subjects, which are connected to each other: - FMI/FMU adaptors for modelica models - HYBRID repository new structure and open-source deployment - RAVEN FMI/FMU exporting capabilities and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based analysis acceleration. The first part of the report discusses the FMI/FMU adaptors that have been created within the HYBRID repository to allow users to quickly export models, such as FMUs. Several examples are shown that highlight the step-by-step process of converting an existing Modelica model into an FMU for use within the Dymola platform. Simulation results demonstrate that, while minor differences may occur, the overall control, trends, and solution integrity are maintained between standard Modelica simulation and FMU simulation results. However, it is worth noting that, for small systems, the FMU results have a slower simulation time than the Modelica only simulation. Using this process, a company can provide models that contain proprietary information to entities without disclosing any of the information about the model that could be considered business sensitive. Such an ability would allow institutions to bypass the necessity of “whitewashing” data. In the second part of the report, the new structure of the HYBRID repository is discussed with a major focus on the series of updates that has been completed. These updates include the addition of Modelica system-level regression tests and software quality assurance documentation that ensure that modifications to the Modelica models do not alter system-level model results. The third and final part of the report aims to report the work that has been performed for the deployment of methods and workflows for the construction of RAVEN AI-based models compliant with the FMI/FMU standard. Such development represents the key for the deployment of the concept of “Flexible ecosystem” since it allows for the replacement of high-fidelity modelica models (or any other FMI/FMU compliant model) with RAVEN generated AI surrogate models. Overall, extensive work has been completed on developing FMUs and FMIs from existing models, understanding the requirements and limitations of FMUs, and open-sourcing the HYBRID repository with an integrated regression system.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Center for Gas Separations (CGS)

The total energy consumption in the U.S. has been rising steadily for decades, and it currently amounts to ~98,000 TBtu/yr, with approximately 30% of this total attributable to the industrial sector. Reasonable estimates indicate that 45–55% of total industry energy consumption derives from chemical separations, and for example, over 120 TBtu/yr alone is used in carrying out olefin/paraffin separations via energy-intensive cryogenic distillation. Therefore, the pursuit of new, even radically different approaches to some of the most energy-intensive industrial separations processes is an imperative scientific pursuit for reducing energy consumption toward a more sustainable future. Adsorbent and membrane-based separations can require a fraction of the energy needed for distillation methods, and as such are considered promising solutions for balancing increasing energy demand in the U.S. with the need for a massive reduction in energy consumption. Although considerable research effort has been devoted to the design of materials capable of carrying out various gas separations, usually operating through size-selective, chemisorptive, or physisorptive mechanisms, it remains a great challenge to design materials that function adequately for real-world applications. Indeed, the chemical and physical differences between molecules in gas mixtures of interest are often small, and therefore it is necessary, through the use of nanoscience and synthetic chemistry, to engineer unprecedented molecular-level control in adsorbate–adsorbent interactions. The overarching mission of the Center for Gas Separations (CGS) was to discover fundamental innovations that have the potential to dramatically reduce the energy associated with critical gas separations. In particular, the CGS developed novel synthetic routes, guided by molecular chemistry principles, as well as advanced characterization and computational methods, that have enabled the discovery of new materials and membranes tailor-made to exhibit exceptional performance for a range of gas separations processes, as required in the clean use of fossil fuels and in reducing CO 2 emissions from industry. A challenge of this magnitude required the collaboration and synergy of a large team of researchers with expertise in materials synthesis, characterization, and computations. During the 11-year project period, the CGS created a range of new materials within the family of highly-tunable, porous solids known as metal–organic frameworks (MOFs). These new frameworks demonstrate novel mechanisms for key industrial gas separations, including revolutionary new cooperative adsorption processes that enable low-energy CO 2 and CO capture, and are capable of efficiently separating olefins from paraffins, O 2 from air, and the shape-selective separation of alkane isomers. In addition, the CGS developed new strategies for incorporating these materials into composite membranes toward highly efficient and selective membrane-based separations. As a testament to the success of the CGS, two start-up companies, Mosaic Materials,4 Inc. and Flux Technology, Inc., grew out of these research efforts, and these companies are seeking to commercialize MOF and composite membranes materials for key separations in industry, including large-scale CO 2 capture and hydrocarbon separations, respectively. Another company, framergy, Inc., licensed IP resulting from CGS research toward the commercialization of adsorbents for various energy-relevant applications.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

Life-cycle analysis of lithium chemical production in the United States

To achieve its ambitious national decarbonization goals, the United States has incentivized the domestic production of materials critical to decarbonization technologies, including lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). These materials include battery-grade lithium chemicals (Li-chemicals), for which the U.S. is encouraging domestic production from resources (sedimentary clays and low Li-content brines (LLCBs)) that differ substantially from conventional sources (Salar brines and spodumene ores). Here, we conduct the first-ever comparative life-cycle analysis of Li-chemical production from all alternative resources (in the U.S.) and conventional sources based on data from company literature for U.S.-related production efforts. Two energy sources (electricity and natural gas), four material inputs (HCl, NaOH, Na 2 CO 3 , and CaO), and process carbon emissions dominate the life-cycle impacts (≥90% share) of U.S.-based Li-chemical production. Comparatively, the life-cycle impacts of alternative sources-based Li-chemicals lie between those for Li-chemical production from Salar brines and from spodumene ores. At the battery level, the shift in Li-chemical sourcing causes a notable change in LIB's life-cycle impacts (by ~5–15%), independent of the cathode chemistry employed. Our study highlights the relevance of a decarbonized electric grid and the capture and sequestration of process carbon emissions generated during Li-chemical and upstream material production in decarbonizing Li-chemical production from alternative sources. Further decarbonization would necessitate using decarbonized material inputs and a shift away from natural gas towards renewable energy for alternative resource-based Li-chemical production processes.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

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↗

Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuit (MMIC) Phased Array Demonstrated With ACTS

Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuit (MMIC) arrays developed by the NASA Lewis Research Center and the Air Force Rome Laboratory were demonstrated in aeronautical terminals and in mobile or fixed Earth terminals linked with NASA's Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS). Four K/Ka-band experimental arrays were demonstrated between May 1994 and May 1995. Each array had GaAs MMIC devices at each radiating element for electronic beam steering and distributed power amplification. The 30-GHz transmit array used in uplinks to ACTS was developed by Lewis and Texas Instruments. The three 20-GHz receive arrays used in downlinks from ACTS were developed in cooperation with the Air Force Rome Laboratory, taking advantage of existing Air Force integrated-circuit, active-phased-array development contracts with the Boeing Company and Lockheed Martin Corporation. Four demonstrations, each related to an application of high interest to both commercial and Department of Defense organizations, were conducted. The location, type of link, and the data rate achieved for each of the applications is shown. In one demonstration-- an aeronautical terminal experiment called AERO-X--a duplex voice link between an aeronautical terminal on the Lewis Learjet and ACTS was achieved. Two others demonstrated duplex voice links (and in one case, interactive video links as well) between ACTS and an Army high-mobility, multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV, or "humvee"). In the fourth demonstration, the array was on a fixed mount and was electronically steered toward ACTS. Lewis served as project manager for all demonstrations and as overall system integrator. Lewis engineers developed the array system including a controller for open-loop tracking of ACTS during flight and HMMWV motion, as well as a laptop data display and recording system used in all demonstrations. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory supported the AERO-X program, providing elements of the ACTS Mobile Terminal. The successful performance of experimental, proof-of-concept MMIC K/Ka-band arrays developed with U.S. industry in field demonstrations with ACTS indicates that high density MMIC integration at 20 and 30 GHz is indeed feasible. The successful development and demonstration of the MMIC array systems was possible only because of significant intergovernmental and Government/industry cooperation and the high level of teamwork within Lewis. The results provide a strong incentive for continuing the focused development of MMIC-array technology for satellite communications applications, with emphasis on packaging and cost issues, and for continuing the planning and conducting of other appropriate demonstrations or experiments of phased-array technology with ACTS. Given the present pressures on reducing funding for research and development in Government and industry, the extent to which this can be continued in a cooperative manner will determine whether MMIC array technology will make the transition from the proof-of-concept level to the operational system level.

Source record↗

Total metals, sulfur and organic carbon data; Slate River floodplain, Crested Butte, CO; March 2021-October 2021

This data package includes processed and undiluted measurements for metal, sulfur and organic carbon concentrations from pore water (groundwater) samples from the Slate River floodplain of Crested Butte, CO, a focus field site for the SLAC Floodplain Hydro-Biogeochemistry SFA. The data was generated as part of the work targeting the overarching research question for the SLAC SFA: How do ubiquitous subsurface interfaces mediate molecular-scale biogeochemical processes and groundwater quality in floodplains and watersheds? Samples were collected between March and October of 2021. These measurements were all recorded at the Environmental Measurements Facility (EM-1) at Stanford University in Stanford, CA. Groundwater samples were extracted from a network of installed rhizon (Rhizosphere Research Products, part no. 19.60.21F, 0.6 micrometer mesh size) and piezometer wells within the river floodplain. All water samples were shaded from sun exposure during extraction from the subsurface and preserved at 2C until measured at EM-1.Analysis by ICP-MS:Measurements for total metals were performed on an inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometer (ICP-OES; iCAP 6300, Thermo Scientific, Cambridge, U.K.). Calibration standards were prepared from the mulit element stock solution (Sigma-Aldrich Multielement standard for ICP, St. Louis, MO) using matrix matched to sample solutions (2% HNO3). Calibration curves included 5 points with correlation coefficients of >0.99. The QC protocol includes a continuing calibration blank and quality control samples that are analyzed just after calibration and again every 20 samples and at the completion of the run. Acceptable QC responses must be between 90-110% of the certified value. Analysis by Total Organic Carbon:Dissolved organic carbon concentrations were quantified on a total organic carbon (TOC) analyzer (TOC-L, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) running the NPOC method. Standard curves were developed using an Organic Carbon Standard from RICCA Chemical Company (Arlington,TX). A series of 4 to 6 standards were automatically diluted by the instrument in a concentration range that spans that of the samples. A blank sample was run just after the calibration curve and at the end of the run. A QC sample was run every 25 samples. Acceptable QC responses must be between 90-110% of the certified value.All files are in csv format.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗