Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “LABS”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2003

Experiences with Lab-on-a-chip Technology in Support of NASA Supported Research

Under the auspices of the Microgravity Sciences and Application Department at Marshall Space Flight Center, we have custom designed and fabricated a lab-on-a-chip (LOC) device, along with Caliper Technologies, for macromolecular crystal growth. The chip has been designed to deliver specified proportions of up-to five various constituents to one of two growth wells (on-chip) for crystal growth. To date, we have grown crystals of thaumatin, glucose isomerase and appoferitin on the chip. The LOC approach offered many advantages that rendered it highly suitable for space based hardware to perform crystal growth on the International Space Station. The same hardware that was utilized for the crystal growth investigations, has also been used by researchers at Glenn Research Center to investigate aspects of microfluidic phenomenon associated with two-phase flow. Additionally, our LOCAD (Lab-on-a-chip Application Development) team has lent its support to Johnson Space Center s Modular Assay for Solar System Exploration project. At present, the LOCAD team is working on the design and build of a unique lab-on-a-chip breadboard control unit whose function is not commercially available. The breadboard can be used as a test bed for the development of chip size labs for environmental monitoring, crew health monitoring assays, extended flight pharmacological preparations, and many more areas. This unique control unit will be configured for local use and/or remote operation, via the Internet, by other NASA centers. The lab-on-a-chip control unit is being developed with the primary goal of meeting Agency level strategic goals.

Monaco, Lisa↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Rocket Lab Venus - Enabling Low-Cost Interplanetary Missions

Rocket Lab’s mission to Venus [1], launching in January 2025, aims to demonstrate that small launch vehicles, such as Electron, and high-energy small spacecraft, such as Photon, can enable a new paradigm of regular, low-cost interplanetary missions. The Electron launch vehicle will deliver the Photon spacecraft carrying the entry probe into low earth orbit, at which point Photon will take over and put both itself and the attached probe on an Earth-Venus transfer trajectory, with assistance from a Lunar flyby. The primary science objective of the mission is to sample the Venusian cloud layers between atitudes of 45 and 60 km above the surface with an autofluorescing nephelometer. The ~1kg scientific instrument will be carried by a small ~17 kg direct entry probe which will separate from the Photon spacecraft approximately 30 minutes prior to atmospheric entry. The probe outer mould line is a scaled down version of the Deep Space 2 probes [2]. NASA’s newly developed 3D Woven Carbon Phenolic, a derivative of the Heatshield for Extreme Entry Environment Technology (HEEET) material [3], is an enabling technology for this mission, and it will comprise the probe forebody heat shield.The probe will communicate directly back to the Earth during its descent via a small on-board radio frequency (RF) antenna. The hyperbolic Venus encounter will see the probe enter the Venusia atmosphere at approximately 11 km/s with an entry flight path angle (EFPA) of about 10°. This relatively low entry angle was selected to increase the duration of the descent phase, reduce the peak deceleration, and reduce the sensitivity of the nominal entry environments to navigational errors. For reference, the Pioneer Venus probes entered at EFPAs varying from about 25° to 70°, resulting in peak decelerations between around 220 and 450 g’s and peak stagnation point heat fluxes ranging from about 40 to 75 MW/m2 [4]. In comparison, the Rocket Lab Venus probe will experience a lower preak deceleration of around 60 g’s and a lower peak stagnation point heat flux of about 15 MW/m2, at the cost of a greater total heat load and correspondingly higher thermal protection system (TPS) mass fraction. This paper recounts the development history of the TPS for the Rocket Lab Venus probe, with a focus on the unique requirements of the mission. In particular, the effect on the TPS design of the mission’s tight budget, short development timeline, slim mass and RF link margins, and mild but long duration entry heating. Rocket Lab’s initial investigations into a ‘hybrid’ TPS [5] based on a scaled version of the Pioneer Venus full-density carbon phenolic forebody shield, and the abandonment of this approach in favour of NASA’s 3D Woven Carbon Phenolic is presented. Additionally, the leveraging of previous testing under the HEEET project at higher conditions and the associated TPS margining strategy that was adopted to avoid the need for extensive mission-specific arc jet testing is discussed. Finally, this paper concludes with a brief consideration of the feasibility of a future low-cost aerocapture technology demonstrator mission based on the 2025 Rocket Lab Venus mission and entry probe.

Lyle Campbell↗
DOE OSTI2024

Laboratory Efficiency Strategies and the Smart Labs Program

Focusing on critical spaces, such as labs, will enable agencies to prioritize federal energy efficiency and decarbonization goals. FEMP's Smart Labs program is an example of emerging efficient laboratory building strategies. The benefits of this program include improved safety and health, reduced energy consumption and carbon emissions, lower operating costs, reduced degradation, and increased retention and recruitment of top talent researchers and sciences. In this session, with the help of our national lab partners, Sandia National Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, you will learn about the steps to implement a Smart Labs program of your own and the methods behind the high-performance laboratory building. The partners will share best practices in implementation, practical advice for building a team, and how to address these critical facilities.

decarbonization↗
DOE OSTI2022

Multi-lab study on the pure-gas permeation of commercial polysulfone (PSf) membranes: Measurement standards and best practices

Gas-separation membranes are a critical industrial component for a low-carbon and energy-efficient future. As a result, many researchers have been testing membrane materials over the past several decades. Unfortunately, almost all membrane-based testing systems are home-built, and there are no widely accepted material standards or testing protocols in the literature, making it challenging to accurately compare experimental results. Further, in this multi-lab study, ten independent laboratories collected high-pressure pure-gas permeation data for H 2 , O 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 in commercial polysulfone (PSf) films. Equipment information, testing procedures, and permeation data from all labs were collected to provide (1) accepted H 2 , O 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 permeability values at 35°C in PSf as a reference standard, (2) statistical analysis of lab-to-lab uncertainties in evaluating permeability, and (3) a list of best practices for sample preparation, equipment set-up, and permeation testing using constant-volume variable-pressure apparatuses. Results summarized in this work provide a reference standard and recommended testing protocols for pure-gas testing of membrane materials.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2021

UEMtomaton: A Source-Available Platform to Aid in Start-up of Ultrafast Electron Microscopy Labs

The steady rise in the number of ultrafast electron microscopy (UEM) labs, in addition to the opacity and lack of detailed descriptions of current approaches that would enable point-by-point construction, has created an opportunity for sharing common methods and instrumentation for (for example) automating data acquisition to assist in efficient lab start-up and to learn about common and robust protocols. In the spirit of open sharing of methods, we provide here a description of an entry-level method and user interface (UI) for automating UEM experiments, and we provide access to the source code and scripts (source-available) for ease of implementation or as a starting reference point for those entering or seeking to enter the field (https://github.com/CEMSFlannigan/UEMtomaton/releases/tag/v1.0). Core instrumentation and physical connections in the UEM lab at Minnesota are described. Interface communication schemes consisting of duo server-client pairs between critical components – the optical delay stage and the UEM digital camera – are presented, with emphasis placed on describing the logic and communications sequence designed to conduct automated series acquisitions. An application designed and programmed with C++/CLI as Windows Forms in Microsoft Visual Studio – dubbed UEMtomaton – is also presented. Key to the UI layout is centralization of the automation tasks and establishment of communication within the software rather than by interfacing with each individual workstation. It is our hope that this note provides useful insight for current and future UEM researchers, particularly with respect to generalizability and portability of the approach to emerging labs. Here, we note that while this basic, entry-level approach is certainly not the most sophisticated or comprehensive of those currently in use, we feel there is nevertheless value in clearly communicating a proven straightforward method to hopefully lower the barrier to entry into the field.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Thermal expansion of LaB 6 from 298 to 998 K

We propose LaB 6 as a temperature calibration standard for high-temperature (HT) X-ray diffractometry owing to its high temperature stability. Such HT applications require a reliable HT lattice parameter or, equivalently, peak position data, which have not been readily accessible to the diffraction community to date. As such, the thermal expansion behavior of NIST SRM 660a LaB6 was assessed in the temperature range 298–998 K using HT Bragg–Brentano parafocusing θ:θ X-ray diffractometry in conjunction with Rietveld analysis. Data were collected in the 2θ range 20–150° at a data collection rate of 0.5° θ min −1 in air and at 1 atm. The temperature was stepped in 50 K increments. The cubic unit-cell lattice parameter [a(T)] of LaB 6 in Å was found to vary as a(T) = 4.15678 (±0.00001) + Ξ(T − 298 K) + Ψ(T − 298 K) 2 , where Ξ = 2.4645 × 10 −5 (±4.8904 × 10 −8 ) Å K −1 and Ψ = 1.0325 × 10 −8 (±6.7376 × 10 −11 ) Å K −1 . The isobaric volume thermal expansion coefficient (TEC) was obtained as α V P = (5.9291 × 10 −6 ) + (4.9680 × 10 −9 )(T − 298 K) K −1 , from which the corresponding linear TEC was obtained as α L P = (1.9764 × 10 −6 ) + (1.6560 × 10 −9 )(T − 298 K) K −1 . The 3 × 3 matrix representations of the single-crystal isobaric linear TEC and the volume expansivity were obtained for the cubic crystal class to which LaB 6 belongs. Also, the temperature dependence of the lattice parameter data of this study was compared with past landmark studies on LaB 6 by Dutchak et al. [Inorg. Mater. (1972), 8, 1877–1880] and Aivazov et al. [Inorg. Mater. (1979), 15, 1015–1016].

LaB6 standard material↗
DOE OSTI2022

Data for: Patel et al. Carbon flux estimates are sensitive to data source: A comparison of field and lab temperature sensitivity data

This dataset contains data and code used for the paper "Carbon flux estimates are sensitive to data source: A comparison of field and lab temperature sensitivity data" [DOI COMING SOON]A large literature exists on mechanisms driving soil production of the greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4. Measurements of these gases’ fluxes are often performed using closed-chamber incubations in the laboratory or in situ, i.e., in the field. Although it is common knowledge that measurements obtained through field studies vs. laboratory incubations can diverge because of the vastly different conditions of these environments, few studies have systematically examined these patterns. It is crucial to understand the magnitude and reasons for any differences, as these data are used to parametrize and benchmark ecosystem- to global-scale models, which are then susceptible to the biases of the source data. Here, we specifically examine how greenhouse gas measurements may be influenced by whether the measurement/incubation was conducted in the field vs. laboratory, focusing on CO2 and CH4 measurements. We use Q10 of greenhouse gas flux (temperature sensitivity) for our analyses, because of the ubiquity of this metric in biological and Earth system sciences and its importance to many modeling frameworks. We predicted that laboratory measurements would be less variable, but also less representative of true field conditions. However, there was greater variability in the Q10 values calculated from lab-based measurements of CO2 fluxes, because lab experiments explore extremes rarely seen in situ, and reflect the physical and chemical disturbances occurring during sampling, transport, and incubation. Overall, respiration Q10 values were significantly greater in laboratory incubations (mean = 4.19) than field measurements (mean = 3.05), with strong influences of incubation temperature and climate region/biome. However, this was in part because field measurements typically represent total respiration (Rs), whereas lab incubations typically represent heterotrophic respiration (Rh), making direct comparisons difficult to interpret. Focusing only on Rh-derived Q10, these values showed almost identical distributions across laboratory (n = 1110) and field (n = 581) experiments, providing strong support for using the former as an experimental proxy for the latter, although we caution that geographic biases in the extant data make this conclusion tentative. Due to a smaller sample size of CH4 Q10 data, we were unable to perform a comparable robust analysis, but we expect similar interactions with soil temperature, moisture, and environmental/climatic variables. Our results here suggest the need for more concerted efforts to document and standardize these data, including sample and site metadata. This dataset contains a compressed (.zip) archive of the data and R scripts used for this manuscript. The dataset includes files in .csv format, which can be accessed and processed using MS Excel or R. This archive can also be accessed on GitHub at https://github.com/kaizadp/field_lab_q10 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7106554).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Early Lab scientists had questions, Plastic Man gave them answers

He was a willing subject in countless scientific experiments, a superstar of health physics, as well as a favorite photo prop -- and not just around Halloween time. He was Plastic Man. Beginning in the mid-1950s, the Lab (then called Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory) often relied on several life-sized synthetic test subjects to avoid experimenting on people. In the early days of the Laboratory, not much was known about how different radioisotopes interacted with the human body and how much it absorbed from different radiation sources. Answering queries like these is where Plastic Man came in. For example, during the 1950s and 1960s, the Lab was tasked with developing nuclear rockets for space exploration under the Rover Program. One of the concerns was how astronauts might be affected when exposed to radiation from these rocket engines. So, the Lab’s health group set up an experiment in which Plastic Man was placed in close proximity to an experimental Rover nuclear rocket engine. Running experiments like this using Plastic Man kept humans safer. How life-like was he? There were actually two variations of Plastic Man. Both had hard plastic exteriors, but one of the models encased a real human skeleton. They also had movable joints and simulated organs, such as a liver, a spleen, kidneys, lungs and a thyroid. Although Plastic Man in its entirety was used in experiments, much of the data collected were from research conducted inside on these replicated organs. In time, technology advanced and Plastic Man was able to retire from the Lab. He found a new home in 1964 as a display at the Laboratory’s science museum, and is sometimes displayed today in the Bradbury Science Museum in downtown Los Alamos.

63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTAN↗
DOE OSTI2021

Commuting again to work on-site? Lab’s first drivers faced their own challenges decades ago

After a long pause in commuting, more and more Lab staff are filling travel mugs, topping off their tanks, and heading up the hill for on-site work. As long as the Lab has existed, workers have snaked through tight mountain roads to get to their jobs. And, back in the early 1940s, drivers faced even more challenges. In the Lab’s earliest years, drivers likely worried about getting stuck in the mud, navigating intense switchbacks, or making sure important equipment, such as a disassembled power plant, didn’t fall off the back of the truck that was hauling it. Creative solutions could go a long way to get out of a jam. As many of us return onsite and get reacquainted with commuting, we look back at how transportation has changed since the Manhattan Project, the U.S. government’s top secret effort at Los Alamos to create the first atomic bombs to help end World War II. These stories and photos are part of the collections in the National Security Research Center, which is the Lab’s classified library and also houses unclassified artifacts from our past.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The WTP LAB stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the DV of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the maximum conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be = 20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be = 20% COV. Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stacks must agree within 5% COV. In general, these criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Some specific items for each scale model and full-scale stack comparison should be noted in assessing the validity of the verification tests. The LB-C2 scale model stacks were performed with single fan operations at then-minimum flow conditions. These conditions resulted in DV values that were too low to meet the DV range criterion, and therefore are unable to be used in qualifying single fan operations on the full-scale stack. However, the single fan operations demonstrated COV values for velocity uniformity as well as flow angles that were comparable to the dual-fan operations at high flows. Overall, the test conditions and test results were within the range of acceptable values based on current design flow rates. Single fan operations are expected to only occur infrequently for maintenance needs and is therefore not a planned operating condition at this time. The LB-S1 scale model stacks were performed at three fan combinations, and in each combination, at least one test was performed at the then-minimum flow conditions as well as at then-maximum flow conditions. While the then-minimum flow conditions result in a DV range that is lower than the verification test DV value, and therefore does not meet the criterion, these tests are un-necessary for the verification test acceptance. The normal and maximum flow conditions from the scale model stack tests meet the DV range criterion, and the velocity uniformity test results compare favorably with the full-scale stack results. The LB-S2 scale model stacks were performed at nominally the same maximum flow condition; however, the 6 DV value for Fan A operation was slightly lower than the full-scale stack test DV. The COV values from the scale model stacks were comparable between the Fan A and Fan B results, and the overall test conditions are within the range of acceptable values. The stack verification is therefore considered acceptable for both Fan A and Fan B operations. The verification tests were performed at flows that were appreciably higher than the design conditions, and further elevated flow rates would be beyond the range of acceptable DV. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stacks meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this and the scale model test reports (Glissmeyer, Flaherty, and Piepel (2001), Glissmeyer and Geeting (2013)) may require additional tests and additional analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Integrating Cambium Marginal Costs into Electric Sector Decisions: Opportunities to Integrate Cambium Marginal Cost Data into Berkeley Lab Analysis and Technical Assistance

NREL’s Cambium tool generates forward-looking simulations of marginal wholesale electricity costs associated with NREL’s Standard Scenarios. The scenarios include growing shares of variable renewable energy (VRE, i.e. wind and solar), among other power sector assumptions, between 2018 and 2050. The tool’s primary output—hourly costs at more than 130 balancing areas—could serve as public and transparent data source that supports electric-sector decision-making processes across the U.S. Berkeley Lab conducts a large range of analyses that use historical and forward-looking wholesale electricity prices to inform electric-sector decisions. In this report, Berkeley Lab uses its expertise to evaluate the Cambium cost data. We compare Cambium data with historical wholesale prices for the year 2018 and other modeled prices for the year 2030. We then present eight case studies in which Berkeley Lab researchers use Cambium data to replicate previous analyses based on other price datasets. We describe where primary findings and underlying key price dynamics align or differ, and highlight possible novel insights from the Cambium data. Finally, we qualitatively evaluate the suitability of Cambium costs in ten additional Berkeley Lab studies, though a direct comparison with alternative price data was not feasible at this time. The goal is to inform how electric-sector decision-makers and DOE program offices may be able to use this cohesive dataset, and to highlight what improvements to Cambium may make it even more useful.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

EVs@Scale Lab Consortium Bi-Annual Stakeholder Meeting, 17 August 2022, Golden, Colorado [Slides]

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Electric Vehicles at Scale Lab Consortium (EVs@Scale Lab Consortium) is accelerating research to support the establishment of a secure and scalable national network of charging infrastructure. This network will be critical to support tens of millions of light-, medium-, and heavy-duty EVs on American roads by 2030. The EVs@Scale Lab Consortium brings together national laboratories and key stakeholders to conduct infrastructure research and development (R&D) that advances innovations in, and sets unified standards for, high-power and wireless charging. The effort will also develop technologies to integrate vehicle charging with the power grid, and develop cybersecurity measures to protect drivers, vehicles, equipment, and the grid. The first hybrid EVs@Scale Lab Consortium Biannual Stakeholder Meeting was held at NREL on August 17, 2022, to identify research, development, and deployment needs to accelerate technology development for electric vehicles at scale and explore opportunities for collaboration across government, academia, and industry.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2026

TCF Base Commercialization Enabling Final Report: Lab Making Advanced Technology Commercialization Harmonized (MATCH) Prize

The Lab MATCH prize, funded by the Office of Technology Commercialization through the Technology Commercialization Fund, was designed to accelerate the commercialization of national laboratory intellectual property (IP) by incentivizing for-profit companies and startups to license lab IP aiming to enable more affordable, available, reliable and secure energy solutions. The Lab MATCH prize program offers both technical and commercial benefits, aligning with the Department of Energy's (DOE) mission to advance energy solutions through innovation, commercialization, and market-ready deployment. In summary, the Lab MATCH Prize promotes DOE's objectives by marrying technical innovation with commercialization expertise, resulting in scalable, market-ready solutions that strengthen the U.S. economy, advance energy technologies, and reaffirm U.S. leadership in energy innovation.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

U.S. Department of Energy-National Lab Equity Summit: Grid Planning and Operations (Workshop Report)

This report summarizes the U.S. DOE and national laboratories equity summit that was held on February 5, 2024, and focused on grid planning and operations. The objectives of the summit were to connect DOE and lab researchers working on grid-related equity issues, share information on current and planned grid-related equity projects and initiatives, and inspire and educate participants by hearing from our panelists about solutions and challenges to integrating equity in grid planning and operations. The summit included two panels of industry leaders. The first was a state and community perspectives panel that included representatives from a state public utility commission (Oregon Public Utility Commission), a state energy office (Washington Department of Commerce), a state utility consumer advocate (Connecticut Consumer Counsel), and industry consultants (Elevated Engagement and ArkSpring Consulting). Panelists shared successes they have seen, critical challenges related to equity and grid planning and operations, and other considerations. The second panel addressed utility perspectives and included representatives from two utilities (Commonwealth Edison and Tacoma Power), the National Rural Electric Cooperative (NRECA), and a former utility employee and legal consultant. Panelists discussed the role of the utility concerning equity, the most significant technical and data modeling needs and opportunities, and the role the labs could help advance equity in grid planning and operations. There was also a session on partner organization presentations. Argonne National Laboratory made a short presentation on the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium (GMLC) project they are leading on equity-informed power system planning. NARUC, NASEO, and the Clean Energy States Alliance, as partners of the GMLC project also shared updates on relevant activities and resources. During the summit, there were two rounds of lightning presentations by national labs and DOE highlighting research that addresses equity and grid planning and operations (Tables 5 and 6 and slides in the Appendix). The goal of the lightning rounds was to share information between participants to encourage collaboration and leverage ongoing research at labs and DOE. The summit included two interactive exercises where summit participants shared their perspectives on relevant equity projects and initiatives (Table 2), key challenges regarding equity and grid planning and operations (Table 3), and promising innovations or progress (Table 4). At the end of the session, participants were asked to share essential insights from the event (Table 7) and an action they plan to take as a result of the event. Participants agreed that the event was useful in helping them share and learn from each other. The project team plans to use the information from the summit as a starting point to help inform future research and technical assistance. In 2026, another Equity Summit will be held (virtually or in person) as part of the same project to help raise awareness and disseminate research and resources completed during the project's duration.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRS1985

Commerce Lab - A program of commercial flight opportunities

Commerce Lab is conceived as an adjunct to the National Space Transportation System (NSTS) by providing a focal point for commercial missions which could utilize existing NSTS carrier and resource capabilities for on-orbit experimentation in the microgravity sciences. In this context, the Commerce Lab program provides mission planning for private sector involvement in the space program, in general, and the commercial exploitation of the microgravity environment for materials processing research and development. It is expected that Commerce Lab will provide a logical transition between currently planned NSTS missions and future microgravity science and commercial R&D missions centered around the Space Station. The present study identifies candidate Commerce Lab flight experiments and their development status and projects a mission traffic model that can be used in commercial mission planning.

Robertson, J.↗
NASA NTRS1996

Virtual Reality Lab Assistant

Virtual Reality Lab Assistant (VRLA) demonstration model is aligned for engineering and material science experiments to be performed by undergraduate and graduate students in the course as a pre-lab simulation experience. This will help students to get a preview of how to use the lab equipment and run experiments without using the lab hardware/software equipment. The quality of the time available for laboratory experiments can be significantly improved through the use of virtual reality technology.

Saha, Hrishikesh↗
NASA NTRS2008

Pion and Kaon Lab Frame Differential Cross Sections for Intermediate Energy Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions

Space radiation transport codes require accurate models for hadron production in intermediate energy nucleus-nucleus collisions. Codes require cross sections to be written in terms of lab frame variables and it is important to be able to verify models against experimental data in the lab frame. Several models are compared to lab frame data. It is found that models based on algebraic parameterizations are unable to describe intermediate energy differential cross section data. However, simple thermal model parameterizations, when appropriately transformed from the center of momentum to the lab frame, are able to account for the data.

Norbury, John W.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Integration of MSFC Usability Lab with Usability Testing

As part of the Stage Analysis Branch, human factors engineering plays an important role in relating humans to the systems of hardware and structure designs of the new launch vehicle. While many branches are involved in the technical aspects of creating a launch vehicle, human factors connects humans to the scientific systems with the goal of improving operational performance and safety while reducing operational error and damage to the hardware. Human factors engineers use physical and computerized models to visualize possible areas for improvements to ensure human accessibility to components requiring maintenance and that the necessary maintenance activities can be accomplished with minimal risks to human and hardware. Many methods of testing are used to fulfill this goal, such as physical mockups, computerized visualization, and usability testing. In this analysis, a usability test is conducted to test how usable a website is to users who are and are not familiar with it. The testing is performed using participants and Morae software to record and analyze the results. This analysis will be a preliminary test of the usability lab in preparation for use in new spacecraft programs, NASA Enterprise, or other NASA websites. The usability lab project is divided into two parts: integration of the usability lab and a preliminary test of the usability lab.

Cheng, Yiwei↗