Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Operations coordination plan”

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 541 records · Page 30
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2002

Airborne Sunphotometer Measurements of Aerosol Optical Depth and Water Vapor in ACE-Asia and Their Comparisons to Correlative Measurements

In the Spring 2001 phase of the Asian Pacific Regional Aerosol Characterization Experiment (ACE-Asia), the 6-channel NASA Ames Airborne Tracking Sunphotometer (AATS-6) operated on 15 of the 19 research flights of the NCAR C-130, while its 14-channel counterpart (AATS-14) flew successfully on all 19 research flights of the CIRPAS Twin Otter. ACE-Asia studied aerosol outflow from the Asian continent to the Pacific basin. It was designed to integrate suborbital and satellite measurements and models to reduce the uncertainty in calculations of the climate forcing due to aerosols. AATS-6 and AATS-14 measured solar beam transmission at six and 14 wavelengths (380-1021 and 354-1558 nm, respectively), yielding aerosol optical depth (AOD) spectra and columnar water vapor (CWV). Vertical differentiation in profiles yielded aerosol extinction spectra and water vapor concentration. In this paper, we plan to present examples of the following, preliminary findings that are based in part on our airborne sunphotometer measurements: (1) The wavelength dependence of sunphotometer-derived AOD and extinction indicates that supermicron dust was often a major component of the aerosol, frequently extending to high altitudes. The percentage of full-column AOD (525 nm) that Jay above 3 km was typically 34+/-13%. In contrast, the analogous percentage of columnar water vapor was only 10+/-4%; (2) Initial comparison studies between AOD data obtained by AATS-6 and AATS-14 during coordinated low-level flight legs show agreement well within the instruments' error bars; (3) Aerosol extinction has been derived from airborne in situ measurements of scattering (nephelometers) and absorption (particle soot/ absorption photometer, PSAP) or calculated from particle size distribution measurements (mobility analyzers and aerodynamic particle sizers). Comparison with corresponding extinction values derived from the Ames airborne sunphotometer measurements shows good agreement for the vertical distribution of aerosol layers. However, the level of agreement in absolute magnitude of the derived aerosol extinction/optical depth varied among the aerosol layers sampled; (4) Initial comparisons of sunphotometer and satellite-derived AOD using SeaWiFS, MISR and AVHRR show promising results. We also plan to include comparisons with MODIS and TOMS: (5) Initial comparisons of sunphotometer-derived AOD and aerosol extinction profiles with lidars in Tokyo and on a ship show reasonable agreement.

Schmid, B.↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Efforts to Commercialize Communications Services for Mission in Near-Earth Space

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN)Program enables high speed, robust, secure and cost-effective space communications and navigation services to current and future science and exploration missions. Consistent with National Space Policy, NASA is pursuing the use of demonstrated commercial services for all its future near-Earth requirements through a flexible, multi-provider approach that minimizes risks to the user missions and ensures costs to user missions are reasonable. Progress toward this goal is advancing in multiple key areas including direct to Earth (DTE), space-based relay, technology investments, required spectrum regulatory changes and mission engagement and infusion. The transition to commercial DTE services is already underway, with a target for transition by 2024. The primary functions to execute SCaN’s DTE strategy include increasing commercial service allocations by leveraging current commercial network providers and enabling seamless onboarding of additional providers into the network. Furthermore, moving away from government DTE services will allow operational costs to be optimized. A more gradual approach is planned for the transition to commercial space-based relay services to allow for demonstration and operationalization of commercial services for future users by 2030. In June of 2022, six American SATCOM vendors were awarded a combined $278.5 million through Funded Space Act Agreements (FSAAs) for the first cycle of demonstration and validation activities. The end-to-end service capabilities being targeted are based on existing NASA mission operational needs. Accordingly, each company has proposed a technical approach to lower costs, increase flexibility, and improve performance for a broad range of missions. Successful user mission transition to commercial services, both DTE and space-based relay, are dependent on the technologies and capabilities that address gaps in commercial capability. NASA is investing in technology development and pursuing a new strategic approach to the creation or adoption of space communications standards to move the agency toward a commercial paradigm. Wideband and multi-lingual user terminals are being developed to bridge differences in industry services. Building on ground demonstrations completed in 2021, the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (APL) will be flight testing a multi-lingual wideband terminal (payload) and demonstrating connectivity to both government and commercial relay services. NASA holds a leadership role in multiple civil space standards bodies and international coordination groups to ensure that standards supporting interoperability are developed with defined functions, interfaces, and performance. However, to successfully meet commercialization objectives, NASA seeks to collaborate with industry, and as applicable adopt or adapt to commercially defined standards. As such, NASA joined the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) as an official member in 2021 to advocate for the inclusion of space missions as a unique user segment in future 5G non-terrestrial networks, and to better understand the scope of 3GPP releases and implications for space users. Further, engagement in Spectrum regulatory bodies is being undertaken to augment existing space-Earth and inter-satellite frequency allocations available for both government and commercial space systems. This paper addresses the recent progress toward NASA’s commercial space communications transition objectives and how key challenges are being navigated.

Gregory W Heckler↗
NASA NTRS1997

Comparative Modeling Studies of Boreal Water and Carbon Balance

The coordination of the modeling and field efforts for an Intensive Field Campaign (IFC) may resemble the chicken and egg dilemma. This session's theme advocates that early and proactive involvement by modeling teams can produce a scientific and operational benefit for the IFC and Experiment. This talk will provide some examples and suggestions originating from the NASA funded IFC's of the FIFE First ISLSCP (International Satellite Land Surface Climatology Project) Field Experiment, Oregon Transect Ecosystem Research (OTTER) and predominately Boreal Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study (BOREAS) Experiments. In February 1994 and prior to the final selection of the BOREAS study sites, a group of funded BOREAS investigators agreed to run their models with data for five community types representing the proposed tower flux sites. All participating models were given identical initial values and boundary conditions and driven with identical climate data. The objectives of the intercomparison exercise were: 1) compare simulation results of participating terrestrial, hydrological, and atmospheric models over selected time frames; 2) learn about model behavior and sensitivity to estimated boreal site and vegetation definitions; 3) prioritize BOREAS field data collection efforts supporting modeling studies; 4) identify individual model deficiencies as early as possible. Out of these objectives evolved some important coordination and science issues for the BOREAS Experiment that can be generalized to IFCs and long term archiving of the data. Some problems are acceptable because they are endemic to maintaining fair and open competition prior to the peer review process. Others are logistical and addressable through application of planning, management, and information sciences. This investigator has identified one source of measurement and model incompatibility that is manifest in the IFC scaling approach. Although intuitively obvious, scaling problems are already more formally defined in the Geography literature. An example of the scaling problem will be demonstrated with Vegetation/Ecosystem Mapping and Analysis Project (VEMAP) and OTTER data.

Coughlan, J.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Tactical Surface Metering Procedures for Charlotte Douglas International Airport

NASA has been collaborating with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and aviation industry partners to develop and demonstrate new concepts and technologies for the Integrated Arrival, Departure, and Surface (IADS) traffic management capabilities under the Airspace Technology Demonstration 2 (ATD-2) project. The primary goal of the ATD-2 project is to improve the predictability and the operational efficiency of the air traffic system in metroplex environments while maintaining or improving throughput by enhancing and integrating arrival, departure and surface prediction, scheduling, and management systems. In the Phase 1 Baseline IADS Demonstration, the tactical surface scheduling capability and the user interfaces for ramp controllers and ramp traffic managers were implemented for ramp operations. The purpose of the tactical surface scheduling capability is to provide the airline ramp controller with aircraft pushback advisories that prevent surface congestion and to respond to surface and airspace constraints that become known over relatively short time horizons. For this purpose, the tactical surface metering tool first estimates the capacity of current and near-future runway resources from flight schedule and surveillance data. With demand forecasts and predicted taxi trajectories, this tool computes an efficient runway schedule of aircraft in the planning horizon based on their readiness, Earliest Off-Block Times (EOBTs), and a ration by schedule (RBS) rule. Details on the implementation of the Tactical Surface Metering tool will be provided in the full paper. Both pushback and recommended hold times advisories provided by this surface metering tool are shown on the user interfaces for the ramp controller and the ramp traffic manager, called Ramp Traffic Console (RTC) and Ramp Manager Traffic Console (RMTC), respectively. There is excess queue time in the system due to demand capacity imbalance, this time can be taken as a hold on the runway queue or at the gate and was referred to as the Metering Value. This metering value can be adjusted by the Ramp Manager in collaboration with Air Traffic Controller-Tower Traffic Management Coordinator (TMC). They selected a set of metering values as default values for the tool during human-in-the-loop simulation. As the metering value increases, there is a decrease in the gate hold and increase in the queue time at the runway. Procedures and Information needs related to managing the surface metering procedures were researched in the simulated environment. These procedures will be compared to the procedures adopted at Charlotte Douglas International Airport when the tools were deployed and adopted in November 2017 for one departure push bank per day. Feedback regarding initial issues, information needs such as the need to see EOBTs on the flight data tags and how they compare to scheduled times will also be discussed in the full paper. Initial results will be provided regarding the choice of the metering value and how it was adjusted on a daily basis and what procedures evolved will also be presented in the paper.

surface metering↗
NASA NTRS2005

Cognitive Functioning in Space Exploration Missions: A Human Requirement

Solving cognitive issues in the exploration missions will require implementing results from both Human Behavior and Performance, and Space Human Factors Engineering. Operational and research cognitive requirements need to reflect a coordinated management approach with appropriate oversight and guidance from NASA headquarters. First, this paper will discuss one proposed management method that would combine the resources of Space Medicine and Space Human Factors Engineering at JSC, other NASA agencies, the National Space Biomedical Research Institute, Wyle Labs, and other academic or industrial partners. The proposed management is based on a Human Centered Design that advocates full acceptance of the human as a system equal to other systems. Like other systems, the human is a system with many subsystems, each of which has strengths and limitations. Second, this paper will suggest ways to inform exploration policy about what is needed for optimal cognitive functioning of the astronaut crew, as well as requirements to ensure necessary assessment and intervention strategies for the human system if human limitations are reached. Assessment strategies will include clinical evaluation and fitness-to-perform evaluations. Clinical intervention tools and procedures will be available to the astronaut and space flight physician. Cognitive performance will be supported through systematic function allocation, task design, training, and scheduling. Human factors requirements and guidelines will lead to well-designed information displays and retrieval systems that reduce crew time and errors. Means of capturing process, design, and operational requirements to ensure crew performance will be discussed. Third, this paper will describe the current plan of action, and future challenges to be resolved before a lunar or Mars expedition. The presentation will include a proposed management plan for research, involvement of various organizations, and a timetable of deliverables.

Fiedler, Edan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Reducing Barriers in Space Weather Research and Operations with Next-Generation Simulation Services at the Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC)

Space weather forecasting capabilities are becoming increasingly important to the health of advanced technological infrastructure. The Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC, https://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov) serves as a key liaison in the US space weather program between the research and operations communities by providing a wide range of tools and capabilities that help to evaluate, compare, exercise, and archive the results of simulations of a growing list of space weather models. With its unique toolset, CCMC supports space weather research and model development that advances our understanding of space weather phenomena and improves forecasting skill, while also facilitating development of space weather applications and deployment of operational capabilities. Guided by experience from over 20 years of providing simulation services, feedback from its research, operational and educational users world-wide, recommendations from CCMC Advisory Group and Programmatic Review Panel, the CCMC has begun work on the next generation system for its simulation services and model output archives. The new system has been envisioned to employ state-of-the-art technologies and standards to provide a user-oriented experience while improving ease of access, transparency, interoperability with partner systems, and enhancing reliability by incorporating advanced automation for performance monitoring and intelligent failover. In the presentation, we will give an overview of the current CCMC ecosystem and discuss updates to some of the key services of the system, including Runs-on-Request, Instant Runs, and Continuous Runs. We will also describe how a planned expansion and standardization of data archival activities will enhance the role of CCMC as a world-class provider of heliophysics information for the research and analysis of space weather. It is our hope that this evolution of the services can further reduce the barriers and burdens on researchers, forecasters and decision makers who rely on CCMC for their daily research and operations.

Space Weather↗
NASA NTRS2012

Climate Change Adaptation Science Activities at NASA Johnson Space Center

The Johnson Space Center (JSC), located in the southeast metropolitan region of Houston, TX is the prime NASA center for human spaceflight operations and astronaut training, but it also houses the unique collection of returned extraterrestrial samples, including lunar samples from the Apollo missions. The Center's location adjacent to Clear Lake and the Clear Creek watershed, an estuary of Galveston Bay, puts it at direct annual risk from hurricanes, but also from a number of other climate-related hazards including drought, floods, sea level rise, heat waves, and high wind events all assigned Threat Levels of 2 or 3 in the most recent NASA Center Disaster/Risk Matrix produced by the Climate Adaptation Science Investigator Working Group. Based on prior CASI workshops at other NASA centers, it is recognized that JSC is highly vulnerable to climate-change related hazards and has a need for adaptation strategies. We will present an overview of prior CASI-related work at JSC, including publication of a climate change and adaptation informational data brochure, and a Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Risks Workshop that was held at JSC in early March 2012. Major outcomes of that workshop that form a basis for work going forward are 1) a realization that JSC is embedded in a regional environmental and social context, and that potential climate change effects and adaptation strategies will not, and should not, be constrained by the Center fence line; 2) a desire to coordinate data collection and adaptation planning activities with interested stakeholders to form a regional climate change adaptation center that could facilitate interaction with CASI; 3) recognition that there is a wide array of basic data (remotely sensed, in situ, GIS/mapping, and historical) available through JSC and other stakeholders, but this data is not yet centrally accessible for planning purposes.

Stefanov, William L.↗
NASA NTRS2001

An Overview of NASA's In-Space Cryogenic Propellant Management Technologies

Future mission planning within NASA continues to include cryogenic propellants for in space transportation, with mission durations ranging from days to years. Between 1995 and the present, NASA has pursued a diversified program of ground-based testing to prepare the various technologies associated with in-space cryogenic fluid management (CFM) for implementation. CFM technology areas being addressed include passive insulation, zero gravity pressure control, zero gravity mass gauging, capillary liquid acquisition devices, and zero boiloff storage. NASA CFM technologies are planned, coordinated, and implemented through the Cryogenic Technology Working Group which is comprised of representatives from the various NASA Centers as well as the National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) and, on selected occasions, the Air Force. An overview of the NASA program and Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) roles, accomplishments, and near-term activities are presented herein. Basic CFM technology areas being addressed include passive insulation, zero gravity pressure control, zero gravity mass gauging, capillary liquid acquisition devices, and zero boiloff storage. Recent MSFC accomplishments include: the large scale demonstration of a high performance variable density multilayer insulation (MLI) that reduced the boiloff by about half that of standard MLI; utilization of a foam substrate under MLI to eliminate the need for a helium purge bag system; demonstrations of both spray-bar and axial-jet mixer concepts for zero gravity pressure control; and sub-scale testing that verified an optical sensor concept for measuring liquid hydrogen mass in zero gravity. In response to missions requiring cryogenic propellant storage durations on the order of years, a cooperative effort by NASA's Ames Research Center, Glenn Research Center, and MSFC has been implemented to develop and demonstrate zero boiloff concepts for in-space storage of cryogenic propellants. An MSFC contribution to this cooperative effort is a large-scale demonstration of the integrated operation of passive insulation, destratification/pressure control, and cryocooler (commercial unit) subsystems to achieve zero boiloff storage of liquid hydrogen. Testing is expected during the Summer of 2001.

Tucker, Stephen↗
NASA NTRS2012

Summer Final Report

The summer of 2012 has been filled with many memorable events and activities. As an intern, I had responsibilities that had to be fulfilled. My tour of duty was completed as an administrative student trainee in the Information Technology and Communications Services Business Office (IT-A). In accordance with the Business Objectives and Agreement of the Business Office and my performance plan, I was to provide business office support, improve business, project management, and technical work processes. With this being stated, I supported a project called "The Big Move Project" (TBMP), which will take course over the next several years. The Big Move Project is the planning of the Information Technology (IT) Directorate's relocation to various buildings in the course of upcoming years, when designs and the building of Central Campus have been completed. Working directly with my supervisor and the project manager, I was responsible for gathering both administrative and operational area requirements for the Information Technology (IT) Directorate, along with its outsourced support and contractors, such as IMCS, NICS, and ACES. My first action was to create rubrics that will serve as a guideline for the information that should be given by each branch of IT. After receiving that information via a few KAITS actions, I was able to start the consolidation process, and begin working on a presentation. A SharePoint was created shortly after for others to view the progression of the project, which I managed. During the consolidation ofthis information, I would occasionally present to the IT Deputy Director and IT Chiefs. The draft of this presentation was shown to employees of Center Operations (T A) and stakeholders-IT Chief Officers and contractor managers-in the relocation of IT to make them aware of what requirements must be met that will enable IT to be accommodated appropriately in the design of Central Campus Phase 11-the time in which IT and its contractors are scheduled to be relocated. Besides supporting TBMP, I also supported the Section 508 Policy Compliance Coordinator, R. Liang. Section 508 is a policy that requires employers to implement accessibility assurance of information and technology to disabled communities. On Thursday, July 19, 2012, I was able to go to Camp Boggy Creek-a camp for disabled children-for an education outreach, in collaboration with the Education Office. We shared with them information about how astronauts live and work in space, they were able to ride hovercrafts, build paper rockets, and then launch them outside. Although this outreach was quite fun with the kids at the camp, this was a learning opportunity to gain some insight to those with cognitive and physical disabilities, the problems they typically face, and in tum, how to accommodate those with disabilities in the work environment. In the process of implementing accessibility and Section 508 compliance, I attended various teleconferences, did field runs to supply closed-caption call phones to employees with limited hearing, and helped with the development of the charter ofthe Section 508 Compliance Working Group.

Makidi, Nitou↗
DOE OSTI2024

Convex Relaxations of Maximal Load Delivery for Multi-Contingency Analysis of Joint Electric Power and Natural Gas Transmission Networks

Recent increases in gas-fired power generation have engendered increased interdependencies between natural gas and power transmission systems. These interdependencies have amplified existing vulnerabilities in gas and power grids, where disruptions can require the curtailment of load in one or both systems. Although typically operated independently, coordination of these systems during severe disruptions can allow for targeted delivery to lifeline services, including gas delivery for residential heating and power delivery for critical facilities. To address the challenge of estimating maximum joint network capacities under such disruptions, we consider the task of determining feasible steady-state operating points for severely damaged systems while ensuring the maximal delivery of gas and power loads simultaneously, represented mathematically as the nonconvex joint Maximal Load Delivery (MLD) problem. To increase its tractability, we present a mixed-integer convex relaxation of the MLD problem. Then, to demonstrate the relaxation’s effectiveness in determining bounds on network capacities, exact and relaxed MLD formulations are compared across various multi-contingency scenarios on nine joint networks ranging in size from 25 to 1191 nodes. The relaxation-based methodology is observed to accurately and efficiently estimate the impacts of severe joint network disruptions, often converging to the relaxed MLD problem’s globally optimal solution within ten seconds.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Feasibility and strategic implications of deploying nuclear power reactors in Africa

This report assesses the feasibility and strategic implications of deploying nuclear power reactors, including large-scale plants, advanced small modular reactors (SMRs), and microreactors, in African countries. Case studies focus on South Africa, Egypt, Kenya, Ghana, and Nigeria, examining nuclear energy’s role in Africa’s rapidly evolving energy landscape, marked by fast-growing demand, significant electricity access gaps, increasing renewable penetration, and strong policy commitments to industrialization and energy security. Several U.S. reactor technologies and designs are considered based on their development status and readiness for deployment. The analysis finds that nuclear power can provide reliable, clean baseload and flexible generation, as well as high-temperature process heat for desalination, hydrogen production, and industrial applications. However, suitability is highly country-specific, depending on grid size and stability, transmission capacity, cooling water availability, regulatory readiness, and fuel supply chains. Near-term deployment opportunities are strongest for light-water reactors (such as NuScale, BWRX-300, AP300, and SMR-300) that use low-enriched uranium and build on proven technology. More advanced concepts, including gas-cooled, sodium-cooled, molten-salt cooled reactors, and microreactors, will likely be relevant for African deployment in the 2030s or later, contingent on demonstration projects, high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel availability, and mature international licensing frameworks. Economic analysis shows that SMRs are capital-intensive, with projected overnight costs for 300 MWe units in 2025 ranging from approximately 1.4 to 2.6 billion USD per module. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is highly sensitive to the weighted average cost of capital (WACC). Given typically higher financing costs and utility balance-sheet weaknesses in many African countries, bankable project structures will require sovereign guarantees, robust offtake arrangements, and layered financing from export credit agencies, development finance institutions, and vendor nations. Comparisons with recent large nuclear projects in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Egypt underscore the central role of state-backed loans, long tenors, and concessional terms. Country case studies illustrate a spectrum of readiness and opportunity. South Africa operates two 920 MWe pressurized light water reactors (totaling 1,840 MWe) at Koeberg and has the most mature regulatory and industrial base, positioning it as a prime candidate for both large reactors and SMRs to replace coal, support desalination, and anchor industrial hubs. Egypt is constructing four VVER-1200 units at El Dabaa with strong state leadership and could later complement this fleet with SMRs for coastal and industrial applications. Kenya and Ghana are advancing through IAEA Milestones with growing institutional capacity and clear interest in SMRs that match their smaller grids and industrialization plans. Nigeria has the largest demand potential but faces acute constraints in grid reliability, project bankability, and regulatory capacity; targeted deployments of large reactors and SMRs near coastal or industrial sites could have high impact if accompanied by major grid upgrades and institutional reforms. The report identifies cross-cutting challenges such as financing, political continuity, public acceptance, nonproliferation and security, waste and back-end management, regulatory capacity, grid adequacy, and long deployment timelines for first-of-a-kind designs, and ANL/NSE-26/3 ii proposes broad directions for resolution. These include stronger multifaceted financing for nuclear, long-term national energy strategies that transcend electoral cycles, proactive stakeholder engagement, strengthened regional and national regulators, and systematic workforce development through centers of excellence and expanded training. The United States should develop partnerships with African countries and offer end-to-end nuclear package similar to those used effectively by competitors: coordinated project development, state-backed financing, long-term fuel services, and durable in-country support through regional offices and sustained workforce/regulatory training. With timely planning, sustained political commitment, and appropriate financing and institutional support, nuclear energy, both large reactors and advanced SMRs, can become a meaningful, though not dominant, pillar of Africa’s future power mix, enhancing energy security, enabling industrial growth, and supporting climate goals.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS2014

CEO Sites Mission Management System (SMMS)

Late in fiscal year 2011, the Crew Earth Observations (CEO) team was tasked to upgrade its science site database management tool, which at the time was integrated with the Automated Mission Planning System (AMPS) originally developed for Earth Observations mission planning in the 1980s. Although AMPS had been adapted and was reliably used by CEO for International Space Station (ISS) payload operations support, the database structure was dated, and the compiler required for modifications would not be supported in the Windows 7 64-bit operating system scheduled for implementation the following year. The Sites Mission Management System (SMMS) is now the tool used by CEO to manage a heritage Structured Query Language (SQL) database of more than 2,000 records for Earth science sites. SMMS is a carefully designed and crafted in-house software package with complete and detailed help files available for the user and meticulous internal documentation for future modifications. It was delivered in February 2012 for test and evaluation. Following acceptance, it was implemented for CEO mission operations support in April 2012. The database spans the period from the earliest systematic requests for astronaut photography during the shuttle era to current ISS mission support of the CEO science payload. Besides logging basic image information (site names, locations, broad application categories, and mission requests), the upgraded database management tool now tracks dates of creation, modification, and activation; imagery acquired in response to requests; the status and location of ancillary site information; and affiliations with studies, their sponsors, and collaborators. SMMS was designed to facilitate overall mission planning in terms of site selection and activation and provide the necessary site parameters for the Satellite Tool Kit (STK) Integrated Message Production List Editor (SIMPLE), which is used by CEO operations to perform daily ISS mission planning. The CEO team uses the SMMS for three general functions - database queries of content and status, individual site creation and updates, and mission planning. The CEO administrator of the science site database is able to create or modify the content of sites and activate or deactivate them based on the requirements of the sponsors. The administrator supports and implements ISS mission planning by assembling, reporting, and activating mission-specific site selections for management; deactivating sites as requirements are met; and creating new sites, such as International Charter sites for disasters, as circumstances warrant. In addition to the above CEO internal uses, when site planning for a specific ISS mission is complete and approved, the SMMS can produce and export those essential site database elements for the mission into XML format for use by onboard Earth-location systems, such as Worldmap. The design, development, and implementation of the SMMS resulted in a superior database management system for CEO science sites by focusing on the functions and applications of the database alone instead of integrating the database with the multipurpose configuration of the AMPS. Unlike the AMPS, it can function and be modified within the existing Windows 7 environment. The functions and applications of the SMMS were expanded to accommodate more database elements, report products, and a streamlined interface for data entry and review. A particularly elegant enhancement in data entry was the integration of the Google Earth application for the visual display and definition of site coordinates for site areas defined by multiple coordinates. Transfer between the SMMS and Google Earth is accomplished with a Keyhole Markup Language (KML) expression of geographic data (see figures 3 and 4). Site coordinates may be entered into the SMMS panel directly for display in Google Earth, or the coordinates may be defined on the Google Earth display as a mouse-controlled polygonal definition and transferred back into the SMMS as KML input. This significantly reduces the possibility of errors in coordinate entries and provides visualization of the scale of the site being defined. CEO now has a powerful tool for managing and defining sites on the Earth's surface for both targets of astronaut photography or other onboard remote sensing systems. It can also record and track results by sponsor, collaborator, or type of study.

Trenchard, Mike↗
NASA NTRS2008

Evolution of the Lunar Network

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is planning to upgrade its network Infrastructure to support missions for the 21st century. The first step is to increase the data rate provided to science missions to at least the 100 megabits per second (Mbps) range. This is under way, using Ka-band 26 Gigahertz (GHz), erecting an 18-meter antenna for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), and the planned upgrade of the Deep Space Network (DSN) 34-meter network to support the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). The next step is the support of manned missions to the Moon and beyond. Establishing an outpost with several activities such as rovers, colonization, and observatories, is better achieved by using a network configuration rather than the current method of point-to-point communication. Another challenge associated with the Moon is communication coverage with the Earth. The Moon's South Pole, targeted for human habitat and exploration, is obscured from Earth view for half of the 28-day lunar cycle and requires the use of lunar relay satellites to provide coverage when there is no direct view of the Earth. The future NASA and Constellation network architecture is described in the Space Communications Architecture Working Group (SCAWG) Report. The Space Communications and Navigation (SCAN) Constellation Integration Project (SCIP) is responsible for coordinating Constellation requirements and has assigned the responsibility for implementing these requirements to the existing NASA communication providers: DSN, Space Network (SN), Ground Network (GN) and the NASA Integrated Services Network (NISN). The SCAWG Report provides a future architecture but does not provide implementation details. The architecture calls for a Netcentric system, using hundreds of 12-meter antennas, a ground antenna array, and a relay network around the Moon. The report did not use cost as a variable in determining the feasibility of this approach. As part of the SCIP Mission Concept Review and the second iteration of the Lunar Architecture Team (LAT), the focus is on cost, as well as communication coverage using operational scenarios. This approach maximizes use of existing assets and adds capability in small increments. This paper addresses architecture decisions such as the Radio Frequency (RF) signal and network (Netcentric) decisions that need to be made and the difficulty of implementing them into the existing Space Network and DSN. It discusses the evolution of the lunar system and describes its components: Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS), Earth-based ground stations, Lunar Relay, and surface systems.

Gal-Edd, Jonathan↗
NASA NTRS1999

Microgravity Workstation and Restraint Evaluations

Confined workstations, where the operator has limited visibility and physical access to the work area, may cause prolonged periods of unnatural posture. Impacts on performance, in terms of fatigue and posture, may occur especially if the task is tedious and repetitive or requires static muscle loading. The glovebox design is a good example of the confined workstation concept. Within the scope of the 'Microgravity Workstation and Restraint Evaluation' project, funded by the NASA Headquarters Life Sciences Division, it was proposed to conduct a series of evaluations in ground, KC-135 and Shuttle environments to investigate the human factors issues concerning confined/unique workstations, such as gloveboxes, and also including crew restraint requirements. As part of the proposed integrated evaluations, two Shuttle Detailed Supplementary Objectives (DSOs) were manifested; one on Space Transportation System (STS)-90 and one on STS-88. The DSO on STS-90 evaluated use of the General Purpose Workstation (GPWS). The STS-88 mission was planned to evaluate a restraint system at the Remote Manipulator System (RMS). In addition, KC- 1 35 flights were conducted to investigate user/workstation/restraint integration for long-duration microgravity use. The scope of these evaluations included workstations and restraints to be utilized in the ISS environment, but also incorporated other workstations/ restraints in an attempt to provide findings/requirements with broader applications across multiple programs (e.g., Shuttle, ISS, and future Lunar-Mars programs). In addition, a comprehensive electronic questionnaire has been prepared and is under review by the Astronaut Office which will compile crewmembers' lessons learned information concerning glovebox and restraint use following their missions. These evaluations were intended to be complementary and were coordinated with hardware developers, users (crewmembers), and researchers. This report is intended to provide a summary of the findings from each of the evaluations.

Chmielewski, C.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Solar Dynamics Observatory Guidance, Navigation, and Control System Overview

The Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) was designed and built at the Goddard Space Flight Center, launched from Cape Canaveral on February 11, 2010, and reached its final geosynchronous science orbit on March 16, 2010. The purpose of SDO is to observe the Sun and continuously relay data to a dedicated ground station. SDO remains Sun-pointing throughout most of its mission for the instruments to take measurements of the Sun. The SDO attitude control system (ACS) is a single-fault tolerant design. Its fully redundant attitude sensor complement includes sixteen coarse Sun sensors (CSSs), a digital Sun sensor (DSS), three two-axis inertial reference units (IRUs), and two star trackers (STs). The ACS also makes use of the four guide telescopes included as a part of one of the science instruments. Attitude actuation is performed using four reaction wheels assemblies (RWAs) and eight thrusters, with a single main engine used to provide velocity-change thrust for orbit raising. The attitude control software has five nominal control modes, three wheel-based modes and two thruster-based modes. A wheel-based Safehold running in the attitude control electronics box improves the robustness of the system as a whole. All six modes are designed on the same basic proportional-integral-derivative attitude error structure, with more robust modes setting their integral gains to zero. This paper details the final overall design of the SDO guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) system and how it was used in practice during SDO launch, commissioning, and nominal operations. This overview will include the ACS control modes, attitude determination and sensor calibration, the high gain antenna (HGA) calibration, and jitter mitigation operation. The Solar Dynamics Observatory mission is part of the NASA Living With a Star program, which seeks to understand the changing Sun and its effects on the Solar System, life, and society. To this end, the SDO spacecraft carries three Sun-observing instruments: Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI), led by Stanford University; Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA), led by Lockheed Martin Space and Astrophysics Laboratory; and Extreme Ultraviolet Variability Experiment (EVE), led by the University of Colorado. The basic mission is to observe the Sun for a very high percentage of the 5-year mission (10-year goal) with long stretches of uninterrupted observations and with constant, high-data-rate transmission to a dedicated ground station to be located in White Sands, New Mexico. These goals guided the design of the spacecraft bus that will carry and service the three-instrument payload. Overarching design goals for the bus are geosynchronous orbit, near-constant Sun observations with the ability to fly through eclipses, and constant HGA contact with the dedicated ground station. A three-axis stabilized ACS is needed both to point at the Sun accurately and to keep the roll about the Sun vector correctly positioned with respect to the solar north pole. This roll control is especially important for the magnetic field imaging of HM I. The mission requirements have several general impacts on the ACS design. Both the AIA and HMI instruments are very sensitive to the blurring caused by jitter. Each has an image stabilization system (ISS) with some ability to filter out high frequency motion, but below the bandwidth of the ISS the control system must compensate for disturbances within the ACS bandwidth or avoid exciting jitter at higher frequencies. Within the ACS bandwidth, the control requirement imposed by AIA is to place the center of the solar disk no more than 2 arc sec, 3 , from a body-defined target based on one of the GTs that accompany the instrument. This body-defined target, called the science reference boresight (SRB), was determined from the postlaunch orientation of the GTs by averaging the bounding telescope boresights for pitch to get a pitch SRB coordinate, and by averaging the bounding boresights for yaw toet the yaw SRB coordinate. The location of this SRB in the 0.5-deg field-of-view for each GT then becomes the central target for each telescope; one GT is selected for use as the ACS controlling guide telescope (CGT) at any given time. Fine Sun-pointing is effected based on this SRB for all three instruments when the Sun is within the linear range of the CGT. In addition to limiting jitter, HMI science requires averaging several observations, making the instrument sensitive to low frequency motion that induces differential motion between each observation. This requires the spacecraft attitude to be stable about the roll axis to approximately 10 arcsec over a ten-minute period. Instrument calibrations require that the spacecraft point the SRB up to 2.5 degrees in pitch and yaw away from the center of the Sun, placing the Sun outside the field-of-view of the guide telescopes. In such instances, when the GTs cannot provide the definitive target for the ACS, on-board attitude determination combined with ephemeris prediction of the Sun direction must provide the definitive target. EVE is capable of observing the Sun with less dependence on attitude control. However, the ground data processing needs for calibrations result in the most strict attitude knowledge requirements for the mission: [35,70,70] arcsec, 3 , of knowledge with respect to the center of the solar disk. In addition to driving the ACS sensor selection, the knowledge requirements, which have their effect primarily during Inertial mode calibrations, drive the accuracy requirements for the solar ephemeris. The need to achieve and maintain geosynchronous orbit (GEO) drove the need for high-efficiency propulsive systems and appropriate attitude control. The main engine provided high specific impulse for the maneuvers to attain GEO, while the smaller ACS thrusters managed the disturbance torques of the larger engine and provided the capability for much smaller adjustment burns on orbit. SDO s large solar profile means that solar radiation pressure is a large torque disturbance, and the momentum buildup from this disturbance and the GEO altitude drives the ACS to use thrusters to manage vehicle momentum. The demanding data capture budget for the mission, however, requires SDO to avoid frequent thruster maneuvers, while concerns about on-orbit jitter restrict the maximum desired wheel speeds desired from the RWAs. The plan for on-orbit wheel speed and momentum management will be discussed as well as what is now being done in operation after the jitter environment was characterized. The SDO ACS hardware complement is single-fault tolerant. Two main processors carry virtually identical copies of the command and data handling and ACS software, and two identical attitude control electronics (ACE) boxes carry Coldfire processors with contingency ACS software and other hardware interface cards; the ACE structure allows reaction wheels to be commanded by the Sun-pointing Safehold independent of the Mil Std 1553 data bus. The sixteen Adcole CSSs are grouped into primary and backup sets of eight sensors, each set providing the ability to calculate a sun vector. Each set of eight eyes provides full 4 -steradian coverage. The Adcole DSS comprises an optics head and a separate electronics box providing a 1553 data interface. The electronics box is mounted inside the Faraday cage created by the spacecraft bus module. The DSS head with its 32- deg square FOV is mounted on the instrument module with its boresight along the spacecraft X axis, nearly aligned with the Sun during observations. Adcole has designed the DSS calibration parameters so that the accuracy is 0.24 arcminutes within 10 deg of the boresight, and diminishes to 3 arcminutes as the Sun moves towards the edges of its FOV . This DSS calibration scheme provides higher accuracy attitude determination over the range of the instrument calibration maneuvers.

Morgenstern, Wendy M.↗
NASA NTRS2015

SLS-SPEC-159 Cross-Program Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE) Revision D

This document is derived from the former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Constellation Program (CxP) document CxP 70023, titled "The Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE), Revision C." The original document has been modified to represent updated Design Reference Missions (DRMs) for the NASA Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Programs. The DSNE completes environment-related specifications for architecture, system-level, and lower-tier documents by specifying the ranges of environmental conditions that must be accounted for by NASA ESD Programs. To assure clarity and consistency, and to prevent requirements documents from becoming cluttered with extensive amounts of technical material, natural environment specifications have been compiled into this document. The intent is to keep a unified specification for natural environments that each Program calls out for appropriate application. This document defines the natural environments parameter limits (maximum and minimum values, energy spectra, or precise model inputs, assumptions, model options, etc.), for all ESD Programs. These environments are developed by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Natural Environments Branch (MSFC organization code: EV44). Many of the parameter limits are based on experience with previous programs, such as the Space Shuttle Program. The parameter limits contain no margin and are meant to be evaluated individually to ensure they are reasonable (i.e., do not apply unrealistic extreme-on-extreme conditions). The natural environments specifications in this document should be accounted for by robust design of the flight vehicle and support systems. However, it is understood that in some cases the Programs will find it more effective to account for portions of the environment ranges by operational mitigation or acceptance of risk in accordance with an appropriate program risk management plan and/or hazard analysis process. The DSNE is not intended as a definition of operational models or operational constraints, nor is it adequate, alone, for ground facilities which may have additional requirements (for example, building codes and local environmental constraints). "Natural environments," as the term is used here, refers to the environments that are not the result of intended human activity or intervention. It consists of a variety of external environmental factors (most of natural origin and a few of human origin) which impose restrictions or otherwise impact the development or operation of flight vehicles and destination surface systems. These natural environments include the following types of environments: Terrestrial environments at launch, abort, and normal landing sites (winds, temperatures, pressures, surface roughness, sea conditions, etc.); Space environments (ionizing radiation, orbital debris, meteoroids, thermosphere density, plasma, solar, Earth, and lunar-emitted thermal radiation, etc.); Destination environments (Lunar surface and orbital, Mars atmosphere and surface, near Earth asteroids, etc.). Many of the environmental specifications in this document are based on models, data, and environment descriptions contained in the CxP 70044, Constellation Program Natural Environment Definition for Design (NEDD). The NEDD provides additional detailed environment data and model descriptions to support analytical studies for ESD Programs. For background information on specific environments and their effects on spacecraft design and operations, the environment models, and the data used to generate the specifications contained in the DSNE, the reader is referred to the NEDD paragraphs listed in each section of the DSNE. Also, most of the environmental specifications in this document are tied specifically to the ESD DRMs in ESD-10012, Revision B, Exploration Systems Development Concept of Operations (ConOps). Coordination between these environment specifications and the DRMs must be maintained. This document should be compatible with the current ESD DRMs, but updates to the mission definitions and variations in interpretation may require adjustments to the environment specifications.

Roberts, Barry C.↗