Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “capabilities”

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
DOE OSTI2016

Design and construction of a point-contact spectroscopy rig with lateral scanning capability

The design and realization of a cryogenic rig for point-contact spectroscopy measurements in the needle-anvil configuration is presented. Thanks to the use of two piezoelectric nano-positioners, the tip can move along the vertical (z) and horizontal (x) direction and thus the rig is suitable to probe different regions of a sample in situ. Moreover, it can also form double point-contacts on different facets of a single crystal for achieving, e.g., an interferometer configuration for phase-sensitive measurements. For the later purpose, the sample holder can also host a Helmholtz coil for applying a small transverse magnetic field to the junction. A semi-rigid coaxial cable can be easily added for studying the behavior of Josephson junctions under microwave irradiation. The rig can be detached from the probe and thus used with different cryostats. The performance of this new probe has been tested in a Quantum Design PPMS system by conducting point-contact Andreev reflection measurements on Nb thin films over large areas as a function of temperature and magnetic field.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2018

Advanced EMT and Phasor-Domain Hybrid Simulation With Simulation Mode Switching Capability for Transmission and Distribution Systems

Conventional electromagnetic transient (EMT) and phasor do-main hybrid simulation approaches presently exist for transmission system level studies and their simulation efficiency is generally constrained by the EMT simulation. With an increasing number of distributed energy resources and non-conventional loads being installed in the distribution systems, it is imperative to ex-tend the hybrid simulation application to include distribution systems and integrated transmission and distribution systems. Meanwhile, it is equally important to improve the simulation efficiency as the modeling scope and complexity of the detailed system in the EMT simulation increases. To meet both requirements, this paper introduces an advanced electromagnetic transient (EMT) and phasor domain hybrid simulation approach. This approach has two outstanding features: 1) a comprehensive phasor domain modeling framework which supports positive-sequence, three-sequence, three-phase and mixed three-sequence/three-phase representations; 2) a robust and flexible simulation mode switching scheme which enables simulation switching from hybrid simulation mode back to pure phasor domain dynamic simulation mode to achieve significantly improved simulation efficiency. The proposed method has been tested on integrated transmission and distribution systems, and the results show that with the developed simulation switching feature, the total computational time is significantly reduced compared to running the hybrid simulation for the whole simulation period, while good accuracy is maintained.

Huang, Qiuhua (ORCID:0000000184577429)↗
DOE OSTI2022

Validation of MPACT BWR capabilities against critical experiments

Over the years, significant validation work for the neutronics code MPACT has been performed against zero-power critical benchmarks and measured data from operating nuclear power plants. As a part of the Modeling and Analysis of Exelon BWRs for Eigenvalue and Thermal Limits Predictability project, new validation efforts relevant to boiling water reactor (BWR) core applications have been performed. This paper presents the results of the critical experiment portion of the BWR validation efforts for MPACT. The Kritz-4 experiments and IPEN/MB-01 BWR-relevant configurations are modeled with MPACT. The Kritz-4 BWR critical experiments were performed at both cold and hot conditions, which is a unique feature among other critical experiment facilities. The MPACT results with linear source (LS) Method of Characteristics (MOC) have very good agreement with the measured criticality. When using the 60-group BWR library with LS and P2 scattering, the maximum k{sub eff} error is 109 pcm, and the average cold-hot bias is only -0.11 pcm/K. The fission rate distributions of MPACT are also verified with Serpent calculations. For the IPEN facility, two configurations are considered: one with a large central void, and one with a cruciform control rod. The MPACT k{sub eff} errors are less than 50 pcm for all IPEN problems. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Exploiting the oxidizing capabilities of laccases exploiting the oxidizing capabilities of laccases for sustainable chemistry

Part one of this dissertation research has focused on harnessing the ability of laccases to generate reactive para-quinones in situ from the corresponding hydroquinones, followed by reaction with a variety of nucleophiles to perform novel carbon-carbon, carbon-nitrogen, and carbon-sulfur bond forming reactions for the synthesis of new and existing compounds. In part two of this dissertation, the fundamental laccase-catalyzed coupling chemistry developed in part one was applied to functionalize the surface of kraft lignin.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2023

Towards Resilient Design of Leader-following Consensus with Attack Identification and Privacy Preservation Capabilities

This paper considers a leader-following consensus in the presence of unknown but bounded cyber-attacks. Specifically, we consider the following cyber-attack scenarios: (i) an attacker aims to destabilize the consensus dynamics by injecting exogenous signals to both the actuators of the followers and/or the communication network, (ii) an eavesdropper adversary aims to obtain information on the physical state of the agents. To this end, a novel resilient leader-following consensus algorithm based on a competitive interaction method is proposed. In addition, it is demonstrated that by appropriately choosing the information exchanged between the agents, the proposed control framework also enables the cooperative system to either distributively identify the compromised communication links in real-time or to protect the privacy of the physical state of the agents from the eavesdropper. Here, a numerical example is provided to illustrate the proposed resilient control algorithms.

Gusrialdi, Azwirman↗
NASA NTRS2008

Ares V: Progress Toward a Heavy Lift Capability for the Heavy Lift Capability for the Moon and Beyond

The NASA Ares Projects are developing the launch vehicles to move the United States and humanity beyond low earth orbit. Ares 1 is a crewed vehicle, and Ares V is a heavy-lift vehicle being designed to send crews and cargo to the Moon. The Ares V design is evolving and maturing toward an authority-to-proceed milestone in 2011. The Ares V vehicle will be considered a national asset, opening new worlds and creating unmatched opportunities for human exploration, science, national security, and space business.

Sumrall, Phil↗
NASA NTRS2015

Implementing NASA's Capability-Driven Approach: Insight into NASA's Processes for Maturing Exploration Systems

NASA is engaged in transforming human spaceflight. The Agency is shifting from an exploration-based program with human activities focused on low Earth orbit (LEO) and targeted robotic missions in deep space to a more sustainable and integrated pioneering approach. Through pioneering, NASA seeks to address national goals to develop the capacity for people to work, learn, operate, live, and thrive safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time. However, pioneering space involves more than the daunting technical challenges of transportation, maintaining health, and enabling crew productivity for long durations in remote, hostile, and alien environments. This shift also requires a change in operating processes for NASA. The Agency can no longer afford to engineer systems for specific missions and destinations and instead must focus on common capabilities that enable a range of destinations and missions. NASA has codified a capability driven approach, which provides flexible guidance for the development and maturation of common capabilities necessary for human pioneers beyond LEO. This approach has been included in NASA policy and is captured in the Agency's strategic goals. It is currently being implemented across NASA's centers and programs. Throughout 2014, NASA engaged in an Agency-wide process to define and refine exploration-related capabilities and associated gaps, focusing only on those that are critical for human exploration beyond LEO. NASA identified 12 common capabilities ranging from Environmental Control and Life Support Systems to Robotics, and established Agency-wide teams or working groups comprised of subject matter experts that are responsible for the maturation of these exploration capabilities. These teams, called the System Maturation Teams (SMTs) help formulate, guide and resolve performance gaps associated with the identified exploration capabilities. The SMTs are defining performance parameters and goals for each of the 12 capabilities, developing maturation plans and roadmaps for the identified performance gaps, specifying the interfaces between the various capabilities, and ensuring that the capabilities mature and integrate to enable future pioneering missions. By managing system development through the SMTs instead of traditional NASA programs and projects, the Agency is shifting from mission-driven development to a more flexible, capability-driven development. The process NASA uses to establish, integrate, prioritize, and manage the SMTs and associated capabilities is iterative. NASA relies on the Human Exploration and Operation Mission Directorate's SMT Integration Team within Advanced Exploration Systems to coordinate and facilitate the SMT process. The SMT Integration team conducts regular reviews and coordination meetings among the SMTs and has developed a number of tools to help the Agency implement capability driven processes. The SMT Integration team is uniquely positioned to help the Agency coordinate the SMTs and other processes that are making the capability-driven approach a reality. This paper will introduce the SMTs and the 12 key capabilities they represent. The role of the SMTs will be discussed with respect to Agency-wide processes to shift from mission-focused exploration to a capability-driven pioneering approach. Specific examples will be given to highlight systems development and testing within the SMTs. These examples will also show how NASA is using current investments in the International Space Station and future investments to develop and demonstrate capabilities. The paper will conclude by describing next steps and a process for soliciting feedback from the space exploration community to refine NASA's process for developing common exploration capabilities.

Williams-Byrd, Julie↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) to defining gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities, gaps, and KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recommended Crew Systems Capabilities for a 30 to 90 Day Four-Crew Lunar Surface Mission

For any given surface mission duration, there exists a set of surface capabilities necessary to sustain a four-person crew for the length of time the crew is on the surface. Identifying these capabilities is important to mission planners and spacecraft design engineers responsible for lunar surface habitation elements, who need to know which systems and capabilities must be prioritized for the vehicles they are designing. However, simply identifying the surface capabilities does not necessarily equal a viable surface configuration. These capabilities may or may not satisfy stakeholder expectations or even permit completion of mission objectives. Lunar lander cargo mass constraints are a powerful forcing function that requires significant efforts to reduce the mass of all surface elements, including those supporting crew habitation. The required capabilities do increase as a function of mission duration, but it is a nonlinear growth. There are key points in mission duration, beyond which certain additional capabilities are needed. This forms bands of capability between each point. Within a given band, the same functional capabilities are needed, and the only scaling is that associated with daily consumables. The next higher band requires additional capabilities. This paper will focus on those capabilities needed for missions of 30-90 days. It should be noted that there are some uncertainties interpreting NASA requirements that require capabilities after a certain number of days, as typically this refers to number of days in space, not number of days on the lunar surface. Depending on transportation architecture, the number of days between Earth launch and lunar surface landing may vary, therefore impacting when certain required capabilities are implemented. However, activities to prepare humans for missions to Mars and commercial interest in lunar development may drive progressive increases in surface duration. Missions up to 30 days are expected to follow the initial 6.5-day surface missions and there may be commercial interest in extending to even greater durations. This paper will examine the potential case of a 30-90-day surface mission duration with respect to the systems necessary to support crew living and working on the lunar surface.

Habitat↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploration Capabilities Data Analysis: An Integrated Approach

In preparation for humanity’s return to the Moon, it is necessary to advance technologies and capabilities that will allow for human sustainability on the lunar surface, as well as on eventual missions to send humans to Mars. Guided by Space Policy Directive-1 and through the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) Artemis program, the advancement and development of technologies on the lunar surface will be leveraged towards technologies and knowledge needed for humans to successfully and safely go to Mars and return. In order to understand the capability needs for lunar and Mars missions, the Capabilities Integration Team identifies integration approaches and overlaps between missions to develop strategies for advancing key capabilities that support those needs. Since 2013, the Capabilities Integration Team has reached out to subject matter experts, principal technologists, and system capability leadership teams throughout NASA to gather information about the critical technologies and capabilities needed in order to support the lunar and Mars exploration missions. To properly gather this data, the Capabilities Integration Team used a capability-driven approach to identify gaps between the current state of the art and the needs of proposed exploration missions, as well as activities that may close those gaps. These inputs are used to shape technology investment strategies and are incorporated in missions to the lunar and Mars surfaces. Data collected included: gap definitions and identifying information; gap closure information and metrics for success; mapping of gaps to elements of NASA's Artemis program and future exploration architecture. . The data collected, specifically from the technology gap list, has been used to support the NASA Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution processes, as well as the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate Strategic Technology Plans. This paper discusses the integration approach used by the Capabilities Integration Team to identify current capability gaps for the Moon to Mars architecture and what capabilities exist or must be developed to support those architecture needs. In addition, this paper also details the performance, gap characterization, current capability gap closure opportunities, and risk impacts towards Artemis, and the overall Moon to Mars architecture.

Gregory Benjamin↗