Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Spin-orbit coupling”

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.

562 records · Page 32
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Engineering the Interface: Advanced Surface Technologies for Lunar Dust Management and Equipment Longevity

Through the Artemis program, NASA intends to develop a sustainable human foothold on the Moon, ultimately paving the way for crewed exploration of Mars. The Moon's hostile environment poses numerous obstacles, including exposure to radiation, temperature extremes, micrometeoroid threats, and particularly the persistent problem of lunar dust. Lunar dust impacts nearly every aspect of surface operations through adhesion and abrasion mechanisms, with contamination from anthropogenic activities (landing, rovers) far outweighing natural phenomena. Multiple adhesion pathways contribute to surface contamination in the lunar environment, including van der Waals forces, electrostatic forces, chemical reaction, and magnetic forces from elemental iron deposits. Sharp asperities from micrometeoroid bombardment and atmospheric absence increase interaction potential and enable mechanical interlocking. Low cohesion between dust particles exacerbates these challenges, as minimal interaction potential between dust and nearby surfaces overcomes particle cohesion, causing contamination. Lunar dust adhesion mitigation technologies can be categorized as either active, requiring external energy, or passive, relying on intrinsic material properties. Ultrasonic and electrodynamic technologies have been developed to the highest technology readiness level for active approaches. Passive strategies primarily focus on surface chemistry and topography modifications. At NASA Langley Research Center, approaches include surface migration agents to reduce surface energy, topographical modification using laser ablation patterning, and tailored surface conductivity to reduce intrinsic adhesion force. Performance has been evaluated using custom-built ultrasonic and centrifuge instruments. Plume-surface interactions from lunar landers can propel micrometer-sized particles at velocities up to 1000 m s-1.8 These particles pose risks to landers, habitats and infrastructure, leading to erosion, degradation, and reduced component lifespan. A panel recovered from Surveyor III was determined to have been severely abraded because of lunar dust displaced from the Apollo 12 lunar module that landed 160 m away. The performance of metallic surfaces has been evaluated via high velocity single particle impact using the laser-induced project impact test (LIPIT) facility at the University of Utah. Peridynamics modeling, a form of continuum mechanics that uses a nonlocal approach enabling greater simulation capabilities of crack initiation and fracture, has also been utilized to gain greater insight into material response during impact events. Lunar dust contamination challenges extend to power generation systems and moving equipment. Cables, rotation stages, and other mechanisms may experience limited range of motion and reduced lifetime due to dust infiltration. NASA Langley Research Center has evaluated traditional aerospace alloys, softgoods, wear resistant ceramics, and several polymer and polymer composite materials. Test methods have included traditional techniques like Taber abrasion testing, as well as designed test configurations developed in the DUSTE (dust, ultraviolet radiation, and space thermal environmental) chamber that reproduce mechanism functions in operational environment. Beyond laboratory experiments, several flight experiments have been conducted. Materials were exposed to the low Earth orbit environment on the Materials International Space Station Experiment (MISSE) and to the lunar surface environment through the Aegis Aerospace Regolith Adherence Characterization (RAC) payload and the Honeybee Robotics PlanetVac payload. Determining lunar dust's impact on surface exploration and habitation requires comprehensive experimental and computational capabilities combined with lessons learned from initial lunar activities. Identifying the greatest environmental challenges and developing mitigation technologies provides the clearest path toward successfully, expeditiously, and efficaciously completing NASA's mission. This presentation will discuss ongoing efforts at NASA Langley Research Center and collaborator contributions to these critical objectives.

Surface Engineering↗
NASA NTRS1985

Workshop on Advances in NASA-Relevant, Minimally Invasive Instrumentation

The purpose of this meeting is to highlight those advances in instrumentation and methodology that can be applied to the medical problems that will be encountered as the duration of manned space missions is extended. Information on work that is presently being done by NASA as well as other approaches in which NASA is not participating will be exchanged. The NASA-sponsored efforts that will be discussed are part of the overall Space Medicine Program that has been undertaken by NASA to address the medical problems of manned spaceflight. These problems include those that have been observed in the past as well as those which are anticipated as missions become longer, traverse different orbits, or are in any way different. This conference is arranged in order to address the types of instrumentation that might be used in several major medical problem areas. Instrumentation that will help in the cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, and psychological areas, among others will be presented. Interest lies in identifying instrumentation which will help in learning more about ourselves through experiments performed directly on humans. Great emphasis is placed on non-invasive approaches, although every substantial program basic to animal research will be needed in the foreseeable future. Space Medicine is a rather small affair in what is primarily an engineering organization. Space Medicine is conducted throughout NASA by a very small skeleton staff at the headquarters office in Washington and by our various field centers. These centers include the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. Throughout these various centers, work is conducted in-house by NASA's own staff scientists, physicians, and engineers. In addition, various universities, industries, and other government laboratories perform research that cannot be effectively carried out in-house. At the moment, approximately 50% of the work is performed in-house and 50% is extramural. The area of bioinstrumentation pervades every one of our problem areas. In each, equipment or procedures are being developed that will allow more clinical work to be done in a ground-based or spacecraft setting. Although work of this kind goes on throughout the NASA organization and through its grants and contracts in the community at large, the major thrust of it is concentrated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory which plays a lead role in this type of research and acts as the lead center in bioinstrumentation for NASA. It is recognized that there is much additional research being pursued in this area which would be potentially valuable to NASA and could, with some stimulation from, be made more applicable to NASA's needs. It is hoped, therefore, that the proceedings of this conference will be used as the basis for developing research strategies to be used as a road map to point the way in which NASA's own sponsored program should proceed over the course of the next three years. Additionally, it is hoped that the conference will highlight additional areas in which NASA should be involved either in-house or through the sponsorship of non-NASA scientists. NASA would also like to get an idea of which areas should be emphasized or perhaps de-emphasized among those that it is currently pursuing. In considering these questions, the discussion should concern itself not so much with whether a particular procedure or piece of equipment would work in a spacecraft, but rather, with whether the procedures that are advocated are at the state-of-the-art or beyond the state-of-the-art and whether they hold promise of giving additional insight into the problems to be confronted as humans venture into space for longer and longer periods of time.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2026

Experimental observation and integrated modelling of proton-beryllium fusion in He and D plasmas at JET

Validated integrated modelling of JET ITER-like wall experiments in which fusion performance is driven by reactions between fast ions and intrinsically present metal wall impurities is presented. A steady-state L-mode plasma with dominant proton-beryllium fusion and neutron yields of up to ≈ 6·10 13 s -1 is developed in He and D, via radiofrequency heating of a H minority. The fusion drive is unambiguously confirmed by the neutral particle analyser, fast ion loss detector, and γ-ray diagnostics. Experiments are analysed via an integrated modelling framework, developed to model the two-stage proton beryllium-fusion chain and produce high-fidelity fusion product source terms. The modelling chain comprises TRANSP and JETTO for plasma core modelling, LOCUST for full orbit product tracking and collisional slowing-down, DRESS to resolve two- and three-body fusion kinematics, and MCNP for neutron transport calculations. Modelling shows that the primary 9 Be(p,n) 9 B reaction is the dominant neutron emitter at naturally present concentrations of beryllium in these experiments. The yield contribution of secondary reactions between fusion products and beryllium, 9 Be(d,n) 10 B and 9 Be(α,n) 12 C, is found to be negligible. The proton-deuteron knock-on effect in D plasmas is modelled, which is calculated to contribute ≈ 25% to the total neutron yield. For both He and D discharges the total computed neutron rates match fission chamber (FC) measurements within the combined experimental and computational uncertainty, with an average discrepancy of ≈ ± 20%. Realistic proton-beryllium neutron sources are propagated through JET’s MCNP neutron transport model which shows that 235 U FCs’ response is sensitive to p–Be source changes, with up to ≈ 10% variation compared to a D–D neutron source. We show that the high-energy tail of the fast proton minority can be studied with multi-foil neutron activation. The framework is also applied to the study of interactions between fast protons and boron impurities, of relevance to ITER. We calculate that in JET conditions a significant alpha source with DT-like energies could be generated through 11 B(p, α)2α fusion, and detected via γ-emission in secondary interactions between fast alphas and boron. The work represents an important step towards validating predictive integrated modelling capabilities for non-standard fusion reactions.

JET↗
DOE OSTI2026

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2026 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for atomistic materials modeling

This release contains data and parameters of HydraGNN-based graph foundation models trained as a result of the work published in the pre-print "Exascale Multi-Task Graph Foundation Models for Imbalanced, Multi-Fidelity Atomistic Data" by M. Lupo Pasini et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15380). We jointly train on 16 open first-principles datasets (544+ million structures covering 85+ elements) using a multi-task architecture with per-dataset heads and a scalable ADIOS2/DDStore data pipeline. On Frontier, we execute six large-scale DeepHyper hyperparameter optimization campaigns in FP64 and promote the top-performing message-passing models to sustained 2,048-node training, yielding a PaiNN-based lead model. The version of HydraGNN used to generate the outputs provided in this release is HydraGNN v5.0 (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0) The list of datasets used for the training of the graph foundation model is the following: 1) Alexandria [1] 2) ANI1x [2] 3) MPTrj [3] 4) Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) [4] 5) Open Catalyst 2022 (OC22) [5] 6) Open Catalyst 2025 (OC25) [6] 7) Open Direct ir Capture 2023 (ODAC23) [7] 8) Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) [8] 9) Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) [9] 10) OMol25-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with zero total charge) 11) OMol25-non-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with non-zero total charge) 12) Open Polymers 2026 (OPoly2026) [10] 13) Nabla2DFT [11] 14) QCML [12] 15) QM7X [reference 13] 16) transition1x [14] Dataset references: [1] J. Schmidt et al., “A dataset of 175k stable and metastable materials calculated with the PBEsol and SCAN functionals,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 64, 2022. [2] J. S. Smith et al., “The ANI-1ccx and ANI-1x data sets, coupled-cluster and density functional theory properties for molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 7, p. 134, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0473-z [3] A. Jain et al., “Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation,” APL Materials, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 011002, 07 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 [4] L. Chanussot et al., “Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 6059–6072, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c04525 [5] K. Tran et al., “Open catalyst 2022 (oc22) dataset and challenges for oxidation electrocatalysts,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3066–3084, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.2c05426 [6] S. J. Sahoo et al., “The open catalyst 2025 (oc25) dataset and models for solid-liquid interfaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17862, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17862 [7] A. Sriram et al., “The open DAC 2023 dataset and challenges for sorbent discovery in direct air capture,” ACS Central Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 923–941, 2024. [8] L. Barroso-Luque et al., “Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12771 [9] D. S. Levine et al., “The open molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, evaluations, and models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08762 [10] D. S. Levine et al., The open polymers 2026 (OPoly26) dataset and evaluations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23117, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23117 [11] K. Khrabrov et al., “Nabla2dft: A universal quantum chemistry dataset of drug-like molecules and a benchmark for neural network potentials,” in NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=ElUrNM9U8c [12] S. Ganscha et al., “The QCML dataset, quantum chemistry reference data from 33.5M DFT and 14.7B semi-empirical calculations,” Scientific Data, vol. 12, p. 406, 2025. [13] J. Hoja et al., “QM7-X, a comprehensive dataset of quantum-mechanical properties spanning the chemical space of small organic molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 8, p. 43, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00812-2 [14] M. Schreiner et al., “Transition1x - a dataset for building generalizable reactive machine learning potentials,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 779, 2022. The folder "datasets_ADIOS2_format" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "datasets_ADIOS2_format" directory contains 2 sub-directories, one for the version "v1" of the datasets and one for the version "v2" of the datasets. The version "v1" of the datasets provides values of the total energy as they are extracted from the original data as it was released by the respective institutions. The version "v2" of the datasets provides values of the energy that have been realigned. The realignment was performed by training a linear regression model that predicts the total energy as a function of the chemical composition of the atomistic structure, and then subtract such prediction from the original value of the total energy. Both folders "v1" and "v2" contain 16 sub-directories, each corresponding to an ADIOS2-formatted dataset The folder "DeepHyper-results" contains the configurational files and model's parameters for all the 186 HPO trials that were successfully completed by the scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) runs on Frontier. The content of the folder "DeepHyper-results" I structured as follows: 1) task-list.txt: list of mpnn name, jobid, and deephyper task id 2) gfm_${MPNN}_${JOBID}_0.${TASKID}: run directory with checkpoint files 3) gfm_${MPNN}: deephyper summary directory (*.csv) for each specific MPNN type 4) deephyper-experiment-${JOBID}: output and error logs for each job The file "deephyper-sorted.csv" contains the details of each HydraGNN model built and tested by HPO, obtained by merging the (*.csv) filed from each HPO run executed. Out of all the HPO trials, we selected 10 to continue the training of the respective HydraGNN models. Due to limited computational budget available in the LRN070 allocation we could not complete the training till convergence for all these 10 selected models. The folder "models" contains multiple sub-folders, one per each HydraGNN model trained. Each model sub-folder contains the parameters of each HydraGNN model, with multiple checkpoint-restarts. The list of sub-folders are as follows: 1) multidataset_hpo-BEST1-fp64 2) multidataset_hpo-BEST2-fp64 3) multidataset_hpo-BEST3-fp64 4) multidataset_hpo-BEST4-fp64 5) multidataset_hpo-BEST5-fp64 6) multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64 7) multidataset_hpo-BEST7-fp64 8) multidataset_hpo-BEST8-fp64 9) multidataset_hpo-BEST9-fp64 10) multidataset_hpo-BEST10-fp64 Within each one of these folders, additional auxiliary log files are provided with descriptions about how the training proceeded. The lead PaiNN-model is contained inside "multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64". The file "mlp_branch_weights" contains the parameters of the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) used to reconcile the predictions of the 16 output decoding heads of the HydragNN architectures. The MLP takes in input the chemical composition of the atomistic structure and predicts averaging weights to linearly mix the predictions of each output decoding head toward consolidating them into a single one. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 1.1 billion atomistic structures randomly generated. Each structures is associated with energy and forces predicted with the lead-PaiNN model combined with the MLP model for reconciliation of the multi-branch predictions generated by the 16 output decoding heads. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 9,300 (*.tar.gz) subdirectories, one per Frontier compute node used to execute the inference at exascale. Once uncompressed, each (*.tar.gz) subdirectory contains an ADIOS2 (*.bp) file container, where each atomistic structure is stored as a PyTorch-Geometric Data object. The file "export_dataset_environment_variables.sh" contains the environment variables that need to be set before running the HydraGNN code to reproduce the results provided in this dataset release. The code that can be used to load the ADIOS2 files, load HydraGNN models, and run inference is available at: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗