National Lab-Centered Innovation Institutes for Creating the Next Generation of Innovation Leaders.
Abstract Not Provided
Stinnett, Regan W↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “INNOVATION”
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.
National Lab-Centered Innovation Institutes for Creating the Next Generation of Innovation Leaders.
Abstract not provided.
Stinnett, Regan W↗
National Laboratory Centered Innovation Institutes as Vehicles for Creating the Next Generation of Innovation Leaders.
Abstract not provided.
Stinnett, Regan W↗
Cultivating a Grassroots Aerospace Innovation Culture at NASA Ames Research Center
This paper details the adaptation of specific 'knowledge production' methods to implement a first of its kind, grassroots event that provokes a cultural change in how the NASA Ames civil servant community engages in the creation and selection of innovative ideas. Historically, selection of innovative proposals at NASA Ames Research Center is done at the highest levels of management, isolating the views and perspectives of the larger civil servant community. Additionally, NASA innovation programs are typically open to technical organizations and do not engage non-technical organizations to bring forward innovative processes/business practices. Finally, collaboration on innovative ideas and associated solutions tend to be isolated to organizational silos. In this environment, not all Ames employees feel empowered to innovate and opportunities for employee collaboration are limited. In order to address these issues, the 'innovation contest' method was adapted to create the NASA Ames Innovation Fair, a unique, grassroots innovation opportunity for the civil servant community. The Innovation Fair consisted of a physical event with a virtual component. The physical event provided innovators the opportunity to collaborate and pitch their innovations to the NASA Ames community. The civil servant community then voted for the projects that they viewed as innovative and would contribute to NASA's core mission, making this event a truly grassroots effort. The Innovation Fair website provided a location for additional knowledge sharing, discussion, and voting. On March 3rd, 2016, the 'First Annual NASA Ames Innovation Fair' was held with 49 innovators and more than 300 participants collaborating and/or voting for the best innovations. Based on the voting results, seven projects were awarded seed funding for projects ranging from innovative cost models to innovations in aerospace technology. Surveys of both innovators and Fair participants show the Innovation Fair was successful in fostering cross-organizational collaborations, soliciting participation of non-technical innovations, and increasing employee engagement in influencing the future of NASA Ames Research Center. The grassroots component of the Innovation Fair has been bench marked by the agency as a solid foundation for increasing employee engagement in the development of game changing aerospace technology and processes in support of NASA's mission.
Innovation↗
Does geography matter? A study of technological learning and innovation in the U.S. Solar photovoltaic balance-of-systems (PV BOS) industry
Different learning channels (i.e., learning from upstream actors, local network, global codified knowledge, etc.) coexist in firms’ technological innovation processes. Although firms are exposed to globalization and convenient communication and transportation tools, researchers still argue about the role of geography in technology innovation. Geographic proximity can facilitate knowledge spillover and network-building. Localized learning and the significance of geography indicate the importance of local knowledge in innovative activities. Local knowledge tends to be more closely aligned with local firms’ technological demand and easier to understand and absorb, because they are created and applied in the same context. However, following Schumpeter, innovation researchers believe that diverse knowledge, especially knowledge from external industries and geographically distant places, is a valuable source for innovation, especially disruptive innovation. Therefore, firms must balance different learning channels, especially between localized learning and global learning. However, it is still unclear about the extent to which localized learning is important for technology innovations and which factors influence the degree of localized learning. Meanwhile, most studies in the area of localized learning usually take no account of the international dimension and the interdependent of knowledge at different geographic scales. Different learning channels (i.e., learning from upstream actors, local network, global codified knowledge, etc.) coexist in firms’ technological innovation processes. Although firms are exposed to globalization and convenient communication and transportation tools, researchers still argue about the role of geography in technology innovation. Geographic proximity can facilitate knowledge spillover and network-building. Localized learning and the significance of geography indicate the importance of local knowledge in innovative activities. Local knowledge tends to be more closely aligned with local firms’ technological demand and easier to understand and absorb, because they are created and applied in the same context. However, following Schumpeter, innovation researchers believe that diverse knowledge, especially knowledge from external industries and geographically distant places, is a valuable source for innovation, especially disruptive innovation. Therefore, firms must balance different learning channels, especially between localized learning and global learning. However, it is still unclear about the extent to which localized learning is important for technology innovations and which factors influence the degree of localized learning. Meanwhile, most studies in the area of localized learning usually take no account of the international dimension and the interdependent of knowledge at different geographic scales. To address this research gap, this paper empirically investigated firms’ learning and innovation processes in relation to the geography. The aim is to answer the following three questions: 1) how does geographic distance influence knowledge spillover; 2) how technological characteristics influence knowledge acquisition choices as regards local vs. non-local knowledge? and 3) how do local and non-local knowledge affect the quality of innovation? The subject of our empirical inquiry is photovoltaic balance-of-systems (PV BOS) components. This choice is primarily motivated by two factors: (1) large-scale deployment of distributed solar PV technologies is widely considered to be an important piece in addressing the environmental impacts of the electricity sector, making PV an important technology to study; furthermore, there is a general consensus that the biggest barrier for a wider deployment of PV is the high price of non-module components, and (2) technological aspects of non-module components of PV systems make local conditions (climate, regulation, learning networks, etc.) salient, thus affording a rich empirical setting to explore the geography-innovation-economy interactions at the local level. We find that the localization effect of technological learning in the solar PV BOS industry is at state level, the number of citations-based linkages decreases with distance, and we also find that international knowledge significantly contributes to the quality of patents, which suggests that state border might be a barrier of current knowledge spillover, and only focusing on local innovation networks is not sufficient for promoting PV BOS innovation.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
Nature of innovations affecting photovoltaic system costs
Innovations improve technology costs through various kinds of engineering advancements, including changes to materials choices and device or process designs. Understanding how these innovations relate to cost change can reveal aspects of the process of technology evolution, yet developing such understanding is often not possible with a strictly quantitative approach due to data limitations. In this paper we develop a hybrid quantitative-qualitative framework for relating specific innovations to cost change by using the variables in a quantitative technology cost change model as an organizing principle. We demonstrate this framework by applying it to the cost decline in photovoltaic (PV) systems over the last five decades. This framework generates new understanding of a set of innovations that contributed to PV modules’ sustained cost decline and the more modest trends observed in balance-of-system (BOS) costs. The results show the great diversity of innovations that affected PV costs, drawing on wide-ranging fields of expertise within scientific research and practice. We find that there are differences in the characteristics of innovations that reduced the cost of PV modules compared to innovations influencing BOS costs. Numerous module innovations reduced costs by advancing manufacturing tools and processes that improved material quality. Many BOS innovations reduced costs through a combination of component design changes, integration, automation, digitalization, and standardization. Overall, most innovations in our sample affected PV hardware. However, some also target ‘soft technologies’ such as task durations through innovations like fast-track permitting, which require improved collaboration and process streamlining. This framework also provides insight into the nature of knowledge spillovers between technologies. Both module and BOS hardware innovations show the benefits of PV’s position within an ‘ecosystem’ of continuously advancing technologies in many industries, in particular semiconductors and electronics, and also point to the importance of public institutions for accelerating testing, permitting, and training.
14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA
Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.
Erica Rodgers↗
Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA
Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.
Erica Rodgers↗
Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA
Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.
Erica Rodgers↗
Modeling Photovoltaics Innovation and Deployment Dynamics
PV’s historically rapid cost reduction is exceptional among technologies. Further cost reductions could play a major role in increasing deployment in the future. To enable such cost reductions, new modeling frameworks are needed to understand the determinants of innovation in PV. In this project, we study the mechanisms driving PV module and system cost reductions, delving deeply into the specific technological innovations that have occurred in the past and the policies that encouraged them, and also opportunities for future cost reduction and widespread deployment. The project contributes new fundamental insight on the determinants of technological innovation by developing novel methods and insights that are generalizable and can therefore be applied to other technologies. The results will allow policy makers, engineers, and other stakeholders to better prioritize their efforts and investments in the future. The project is organized around four journal articles as described below. The first article [1] identifies ‘low-level’ (e.g. conversion efficiency improvement) and ‘high- level’ (e.g. R&D efforts) mechanisms of cost reduction in PV systems (Tasks 1-4). This work builds on a previous DOE grant, where we developed a framework for technological innovation leading to PV module cost reduction [2]. We advance a method to disentangle the contributions of physical (‘hardware’) and non-physical (‘soft technology’) changes. Our results uncover reasons behind the relatively slow evolution of soft technology and can inform new innovation approaches to these technologies. The second article [3] identifies specific engineering or institutional innovations that enabled the low-level mechanisms of cost reduction in PV module and balance-of-systems (BOS) (Tasks 5, 9, 10). We identify 85 innovations and connect them to the cost variables they affected. By developing an innovations typology, this study shows the differences between the types of innovations affecting PV modules and BOS components. Finally, by analyzing the industry origins of innovations, this study also finds that PV was well-positioned within an ecosystem of continuously advancing technologies. The third article [4] studies prospective cost reduction opportunities (Task 10). We explore how design approaches that emphasize standardization and automation, such as plug-and-play PV systems, can create cost reduction opportunities by reducing interactions and speeding up activities with high process costs. We show that this can lead to cost reduction in cost components with the most untapped opportunity for improvement such as installation labor, overhead, electrical BOS, and customer acquisition. The fourth article [5] analyzes how various policies supporting PV deployment and R&D contributed to PV’s cost improvement by enabling high-level mechanisms, specific innovations, and ultimately low-level mechanisms of cost reduction (Tasks 8, 13, 14). We investigate examples from different countries and connect these policies to quantifiable cost change mechanisms. Our study sheds light on the roles that different nations played over time, through a diverse set of policy approaches.
14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
The Quest for Engineering Innovation at NASA's Marshall Space Flight (MSFC)
A recent NASA team, chartered to examine innovation within the Agency, captured the meaning of the word innovation as the "application of creative ideas to improve and generate value for the organization". The former NASA Administrator Charles Bolden shared his own thoughts about innovation in a memo with all employees that stated, "At NASA, we are dedicated to innovation, bold ideas, and excellence." Innovation turns out to be one of the major driving forces behind the work produced at NASA. It seems failure is often what has driven NASA to be more innovative. Fifty years ago, the Apollo 1 tragedy killed three astronauts when fire erupted in their command module. NASA had to bear the responsibility of such loss and at the same time work smarter in order to obtain the dream to reach the moon by the end of the 1960s. Through this circumstance, NASA engineers developed a revolutionary replacement for the combustible nylon astronaut suits so the Apollo program could continue. A material called Beta Cloth was born. This material was used to produce noncombustible space suits for all Apollo astronauts, enabling the United States to ultimately land 12 Americans on the moon. Eventually this material was used as the roof system in the Denver International Airport, showing relevance and applications of NASA innovations to real-world need. Innovative ideas are also driven by the need to accomplish NASA missions and to improve the way we produce our products. MSFC engineers are advancing technologies in additive manufacturing of liquid rocket engines in order to reduce the number of parts, design time, and the cost of the engines. NASA is working with academia to eliminate the need for miles of sensor cables by investigating innovations in wireless sensors. In order to enable future exploration missions to Mars, MSFC engineers are pursuing innovative approaches in diverse areas such as the use of ionic liquids for life support systems and composite cryogenic tanks, very low leakage valves to contain propulsion fluids, and natural, non-toxic inhibitors to eliminate the buildup of biofilms in the water systems planned for future crewed Mars missions. Although results are encouraging, we cannot rest on our past accomplishments. In order to overcome breathtaking technical challenges in space exploration, we must continue to promote a culture supporting growth, breakthroughs and disruptive innovations.
Turner, James E.↗
TU-E-BRD-01: President’s Symposium: The Necessity of Innovation in Medical Physics
This abstract will not blow you away, but speed-painting presenter Erik Wahl will certainly make a truly unique AAPM symposium that you will not want to miss. Along with clinical director John Bayouth and scientific leader Jeff Siewerdsen, this session will highlight innovation. To avoid being button pushers and irrelevant investigators of yesterday’s science, we must innovate. This is particularly challenging in the changing landscape of declining research funding and healthcare reimbursement. But all hope is not lost, Medical Physics is a field born out of innovation. As scientists we quickly translated the man-made and natural phenomena of radiation into a tool that could diagnose broken bones, locate foreign objects imbedded within the body, and treat a spectrum of diseases. As hyperbolae surrounding the curative powers of radiation overcame society, physicists continued their systematic pursuit of a fundamental understanding of radiation and applied their knowledge to enable the diagnostic and therapeutic power of this new tool. Health economics and the decline in research funding have put the Medical Physicist in a precarious position: how do we optimally participate in medical research and advanced patient care in the face of many competing needs? Today's diagnostic imaging and therapeutic approaches are tremendously sophisticated. Researchers and commercial vendors are producing technologies at a remarkable rate; to enable their safe and effective implementation Medical Physicists must work from a fundamental understanding of these technologies. This requires all of us, clinically practicing Medical Physicists, Researchers and Educators alike, to combine our training in scientific methods with innovation. Innovation is the key to our past, a necessity for our contemporary challenges, and critical for the future of Medical Physics. The keynote speakers for the 2014 AAPM Presidential Symposium session will address the way we approach these vitally important technologies for diagnosis and therapy into opportunities to innovate. The speed-painting artist and lecturer Erik Wahl will finish the symposium with a fast-paced and entertaining presentation on embracing the future by creating disruptive innovation strategies. Learning Objectives: Identify connection between Medical Physics and Innovation. Understand how Innovation enables Clinical Medical Physicists to implement novel technologies. Learn how innovative Medical Physics solutions can address significant and relevant challenges in science. Become inspired to pursue a new scientific understanding, positive change in clinical practice, and benefit to patients.
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
Quantifying the Value of Technology and Policy Innovation in Water Resource Portfolios
Abstract Recent water infrastructure planning models demonstrate that explicitly accounting for hydrological changes in long‐term water planning reduces costs and increases system robustness. However, current models do not consider the effects of other changes occurring in the system over long time horizons, namely technology and policy innovation. By leveraging state‐of‐the‐art dynamic control techniques, we propose a suite of tools that explicitly relate hydrologic change, technology innovation, and policy interventions to system‐level water costs. We design robust and cost‐optimal strategies for water supply expansion under hydrological variability and hundreds of plausible innovation states, for example, treatment cost and diversification improvements, deployment times, and demand reduction campaigns. Our approach circumvents the need to pre‐assign probabilities to innovation scenarios and, instead, directly calculates the effects of technology, policy, and hydrology variations on system cost and planning strategies to identify avenues of impactful innovation. These tools can support technology development hubs, urban, state, and federal water planners in anticipating cost implications of technology and policy innovation at the local level, and prioritizing high‐impact innovation goals based on quantitative targets. Results for the case study of Santa Barbara, California identify high‐value innovation attributes for the city as well as combinations of innovation attributes across technologies and policies, and quantify their potential utility cost reductions.
13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
Creating Innovative Frameworks to Spur Cultural Change at NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center
Changing the culture of an organization is a monumental task that often takes years and has no set formula. Steps can be taken, however, to spur cultural change by creating spaces and infrastructure to serve as the initial driving force. An innovation space and a bicycle sharing (bike share) program were implemented at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) (Edwards, California) with a vision toward connecting Center personnel, fostering collaboration and innovation, retaining newer employees, promoting flexibility, and improving the culture and workplace atmosphere. This paper discusses the steps taken, challenges faced, novel culture-change-focused design elements, lessons learned, acquired metrics, and how these initiated cultural change at AFRC. For both the innovation space and the bike share program, funding was negotiated and provided through the NASA Convergent Aeronautics Solutions (CAS) project, which was seeking to improve the innovation and collaboration capabilities at each of the four NASA aeronautics Centers. Key stakeholders across AFRC from upper management, facilities, safety, engineering, and procurement were identified early in the process and were consulted and included throughout execution to ensure that any encountered roadblocks could be easily navigated. Research was then conducted by attending conferences and visiting culture-changing organizations both inside and outside United States Government agencies. Distilling the research, identifying available space, and deciding on specific design elements for the space was conducted by a subset of individuals of diverse backgrounds to enable quick, effective decision-making. Decisions were made with the intent to increase usage and diversity of users of the space; care was taken to ensure a well-crafted atmosphere that would foster the desired culture change. The allocated physical space required major structural modifications, new furniture, and new capabilities that would bring people in. Decisions and desires underwent a rapid reiterative process in order to stay within budget and short deadlines, while holding firm to what was seen as fundamental elements of an innovation space. The framework for cultural change being established, the more difficult task began: incubating the desired culture. Intentional workday use of the innovation space was encouraged, and organized events coordinated in order to truly foster culture change. Such incubation supports the organic spread of culture change to all areas of AFRC. This framework was complemented and expanded by the implementation of the bike share program. Steps for implementation included bike selection based on lessons learned, creating bike stations and signage, implementing bike share rules, and building a volunteer maintenance infrastructure. A novel user-reporting feedback system at each bike station is a low-impact method of capturing usage metrics. Due to the nature of the work conducted at AFRC, the bike share program and feedback system were negotiated and vetted through various organizations including legal, safety, and operations. The innovation space and the bike share program together are an effective initial framework for innovation and collaboration. Culture change takes time, but the innovation space and the bike share program are already showing signs of making a positive impact on the AFRC workforce.
rooms↗
Innovation
Innovation is a highly overused buzzword in government offices and corporate America. Just like leadership, innovation is something that organizations realize they need, but often are frustrated in their efforts to achieve. Making matters worse, the definition of innovation changes with the user and the context. Simply put, innovation is change and change for any organization is difficult. This study examines the topic of innovation and pays special attention to what works, what does not work, and the basic principles governing how one might go about innovating. As leadership is critical to any successful innovation effort, special attention is given to leading change and leading innovation. ''The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.'' - George Bernard Shaw
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
The Role of Innovation in the Electric Utility Sector
Innovation is essential for future power systems to be safe and secure, clean and sustainable, affordable and equitable, and reliable and resilient, according to a recent National Academies report. But state regulatory reforms are needed to encourage adoption of new technologies to support evolution of the nation’s power systems.1 Berkeley Lab's report, The Role of Innovation in the Electric Utility Sector, provides consumer, labor, utility, third-party provider, and clean technology consultant perspectives on this theme. To achieve state targets for clean energy and greenhouse gas emissions, some state regulatory utility commissions are exploring new approaches to spur innovation: -For utilities, regulatory and marketing flexibility, increased funding for demonstration projects, and performance-based ratemaking including multi-year rate plans -For third parties, ways to provide utility customers with innovative products and services directly Among the questions the report addresses: 1. How are consumer advocate views evolving with respect to innovative regulatory and ratemaking approaches? 2. How can utility decarbonization and grid modernization initiatives provide opportunities for local communities and workers to receive tangible benefits and facilitate community support for siting electricity infrastructure? 3. How are electric utilities partnering with technology companies to provide innovative energy management services and sustainable energy solutions for utility customers? 4. What regulatory innovations are public utility commissions exploring to enable third-party providers to participate in the transition to a modern electric system? 5. What regulatory changes are needed to enable innovative solutions from utilities and third parties at the necessary speed and scale to meet state decarbonization goals? The report is the 13th in the Future Electric Utility Regulation series, which taps leading thinkers to tackle complex regulatory issues for electricity. 1 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Future of Electric Power in the United States. The National Academies Press.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
The Advanced Exploration Systems Water Recovery Project: Innovation on 2 Fronts
As NASA looks forward to sending humans farther away from Earth, we will have to develop a transportation architecture that is highly reliable and that can sustain life for long durations without the benefit of Earth s proximity for continuous resupply or even operational guidance. NASA has consistently been challenged with performing great feats of innovation, but particularly in this time of economic stress, we are challenged to go farther with less. The Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) projects were implemented to address both of these needs by not only developing innovative technologies, but by incorporating innovative management styles and processes that foster the needed technical innovation given a small amount of resources. This presentation explains how the AES Water Recovery Project is exhibiting innovation on both fronts; technical and process. The AES Water Recovery Project (WRP) is actively engineering innovative technologies in order to maximize the efficiency of water recovery. The development of reliable, energy-efficient, and low-mass spacecraft systems to provide environmental control and life support (ECLS) is critical to enable long-duration human missions outside of low-Earth orbit. Recycling of life support consumables is necessary to reduce resupply mass and provide for vehicle autonomy. To address this, the WRP is working on a rotary distiller that has shown enhanced performance over the state-of-the-art (SOA). Additionally, the WRP is looking at innovative ways to address issues present in the state-of-the-art (SOA) systems pertaining to toxicity and calcium scale buildup. As an AES project, the WRP has a more streamlined Skunk Works like approach to technology development intended to reduce overhead but achieve a more refined end product. The project has incorporated key partnerships between NASA centers as well as between NASA and industry. A minimal project management style has been implemented such that risks are managed and milestones tracked without overburdening the team with reporting demands that take them away from their work. A lean Systems Engineering (SE) approach has been implemented where project objectives are defined and vetted early without overprescribing the process or limiting the ability to innovate. Finally, we are working with existing flight hardware support organizations like operations, safety, materials and others to impact the system design at the breadboard level. This type of early input is a key to ensuring that the technologies are developed on the right track to becoming space flight worthy.
Sarguisingh, Miriam M.↗
Energy Innovation Hubs: A Home for Scientific Collaboration
Secretary Chu will host a live, streaming Q&A session with the directors of the Energy Innovation Hubs on Tuesday, March 6, at 2:15 p.m. EST. The directors will be available for questions regarding their teams' work and the future of American energy. Ask your questions in the comments below, or submit them on Facebook, Twitter (@energy), or send an e-mail to newmedia@hq.doe.gov, prior or during the live event. Dr. Hank Foley is the director of the Greater Philadelphia Innovation Cluster for Energy-Efficient Buildings, which is pioneering new data intensive techniques for designing and operating energy efficient buildings, including advanced computer modeling. Dr. Douglas Kothe is the director of the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors, which uses powerful supercomputers to create "virtual" reactors that will help improve the safety and performance of both existing and new nuclear reactors. Dr. Nathan Lewis is the director of the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis, which focuses on how to produce fuels from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide. The Energy Innovation Hubs are major integrated research centers, with researchers from many different institutions and technical backgrounds. Each hub is focused on a specific high priority goal, rapidly accelerating scientific discoveries and shortening the path from laboratory innovation to technological development and commercial deployment of critical energy technologies. Ask your questions in the comments below, or submit them on Facebook, Twitter (@energy), or send an e-mail to newmedia@energy.gov, prior or during the live event. The Energy Innovation Hubs are major integrated research centers, with researchers from many different institutions and technical backgrounds. Each Hub is focused on a specific high priority goal, rapidly accelerating scientific discoveries and shortening the path from laboratory innovation to technological development and commercial deployment of critical energy technologies. Dr. Hank Holey is the director of the Greater Philadelphia Innovation Cluster for Energy-Efficient Buildings, which is pioneering new data intensive techniques for designing and operating energy efficient buildings, including advanced computer modeling. Dr. Douglas Kothe is the director of the Modeling and Simulation for Nuclear Reactors Hub, which uses powerful supercomputers to create "virtual" reactors that will help improve the safety and performance of both existing and new nuclear reactors. Dr. Nathan Lewis is the director of the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis Hub, which focuses on how to produce biofuels from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide.
13 HYDRO ENERGY↗