Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “ADVISORY COMMITTEES”

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 595 records · Page 33
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1987

Measurement science and manufacturing science research

The research program of Semiconductor Research Corp. is managed as three overlapping areas: Manufacturing Sciences, Design Sciences and Microstructure Sciences. A total of 40 universities are participating in the performance of over 200 research tasks. The goals and direction of Manufacturing Sciences research became more clearly focused through the efforts of the Manufacturing Sciences Committee of the SRC Technical Advisory Board (TAB). The mission of the SRC Manufacturing Research is the quantification, control, and understanding of semiconductor manufacturing process necessary to achieve a predictable and profitable product output in the competitive environment of the next decade. The 1994 integrated circuit factory must demonstrate a three level hierarchy of control: (1) operation control, (2) process control, and (3) process design. These levels of control are briefly discussed.

Phillips, D. Howard↗
NASA NTRS1987

A preliminary study of Mars rover/sample return missions

The Solar System Exploration Committee (SSEC) of the NASA Advisory Council recommends that a Mars Sample Return mission be undertaken before the year 2000. Comprehensive studies of a Mars Sample Return mission have been ongoing since 1984. The initial focus of these studies was an integrated mission concept with the surface rover and sample return vehicle elements delivered to Mars on a single launch and landed together. This approach, to be carried out as a unilateral U.S. initiative, is still a high priority goal in an Augmented Program of exploration, as the SSEC recommendation clearly states. With this background of a well-understood mission concept, NASA decided to focus its 1986 study effort on a potential opportunity not previously examined; namely, a Mars Rover/Sample Return (MRSR) mission which would involve a significant aspect of international cooperation. As envisioned, responsibility for the various mission operations and hardware elements would be divided in a logical manner with clearly defined and acceptable interfaces. The U.S. and its international partner would carry out separately launched but coordinated missions with the overall goal of accomplishing in situ science and returning several kilograms of surface samples from Mars. Important considerations for implementation of such a plan are minimum technology transfer, maximum sharing of scientific results, and independent credibility of each mission role. Under the guidance and oversight of a Mars Exploration Strategy Advisory Group organized by NASA, a study team was formed in the fall of 1986 to develop a preliminary definition of a flight-separable, cooperative mission. The selected concept assumes that the U.S. would undertake the rover mission with its sample collection operations and our international partner would return the samples to Earth. Although the inverse of these roles is also possible, this study report focuses on the rover functions of MRSR because rover operations have not been studied in as much detail as the sample return functions of the mission.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2003

Materials Science

The Materials Science Program is structured so that NASA s headquarters is responsible for the program content and selection, through the Enterprise Scientist, and MSFC provides for implementation of ground and flight programs with a Discipline Scientist and Discipline Manager. The Discipline Working Group of eminent scientists from outside of NASA acts in an advisory capacity and writes the Discipline Document from which the NRA content is derived. The program is reviewed approximately every three years by groups such as the Committee on Microgravity Research, the National Materials Advisory Board, and the OBPR Maximization and Prioritization (ReMaP) Task Force. The flight program has had as many as twenty-six principal investigators (PIs) in flight or flight definition stage, with the numbers of PIs in the future dependent on the results of the ReMaP Task Force and internal reviews. Each project has a NASA-appointed Project Scientist, considered a half-time job, who assists the PI in understanding and preparing for internal reviews such as the Science Concept Review and Requirements Definition Review. The Project Scientist also insures that the PI gets the maximum science support from MSFC, represents the PI to the MSFC community, and collaborates with the Project Manager to insure the project is well-supported and remains vital. Currently available flight equipment includes the Materials Science Research Rack (MSRR-1) and Microgravity Science Glovebox. Ground based projects fall into one or more of several categories. Intellectual Underpinning of Flight Program projects include theoretical studies backed by modeling and computer simulations; bring to maturity new research, often by young researchers, and may include preliminary short duration low gravity experiments in the KC-135 aircraft or drop tube; enable characterization of data sets from previous flights; and provide thermophysical property determinations to aid PIs. Radiation Shielding and preliminary In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies work towards future long duration missions. Biomaterials support materials issues affecting crew health. Nanostructured Materials are currently considered to be maturing new research, and Advanced Materials for Space Transportation has as yet no PIs. PIs are assigned a NASA Technical Monitor to maintain contact, a position considered to be a 5 percent per PI effort. Currently 33 PIs are supported on the 1996 NRA, which is about to expire, and 59 on the 1998 NRA. Two new NRAs, one for Radiation Shielding and one for Materials Science for Advanced Space Propulsion are due to be announced by the 2003 fiscal year. MSFC has a number of facilities supporting materials science. These include the Microgravity Development Laboratory/SD43; Electrostatic Levitator Facility; SCN Purification Facility; Electron Microscope/Microprobe Facility; Static and Rotating Magnetic Field Facility; X-Ray Diffraction Facility; and the Furnace Development Laboratory.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2008

Volume Averaged Height Integrated Radar Reflectivity (VAHIRR) Cost-Benefit Analysis

Lightning Launch Commit Criteria (LLCC) are designed to prevent space launch vehicles from flight through environments conducive to natural or triggered lightning and are used for all U.S. government and commercial launches at government and civilian ranges. They are maintained by a committee known as the NASA/USAF Lightning Advisory Panel (LAP). The previous LLCC for anvil cloud, meant to avoid triggered lightning, have been shown to be overly restrictive. Some of these rules have had such high safety margins that they prohibited flight under conditions that are now thought to be safe 90% of the time, leading to costly launch delays and scrubs. The LLCC for anvil clouds was upgraded in the summer of 2005 to incorporate results from the Airborne Field Mill (ABFM) experiment at the Eastern Range (ER). Numerous combinations of parameters were considered to develop the best correlation of operational weather observations to in-cloud electric fields capable of rocket triggered lightning in anvil clouds. The Volume Averaged Height Integrated Radar Reflectivity (VAHIRR) was the best metric found. Dr. Harry Koons of Aerospace Corporation conducted a risk analysis of the VAHIRR product. The results indicated that the LLCC based on the VAHIRR product would pose a negligible risk of flying through hazardous electric fields. Based on these findings, the Kennedy Space Center Weather Office is considering seeking funding for development of an automated VAHIRR algorithm for the new ER 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) RadTec 431250 weather radar and Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler (WSR-88D) radars. Before developing an automated algorithm, the Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) was tasked to determine the frequency with which VAHIRR would have allowed a launch to safely proceed during weather conditions otherwise deemed "red" by the Launch Weather Officer. To do this, the AMU manually calculated VAHIRR values based on candidate cases from past launches with known anvil cloud LLCC violations. An automated algorithm may be developed if the analyses from past launches show VAHIRR would have provided a significant cost benefit by allowing a launch to proceed. The 45 WS at the ER and 30th Weather Squadron (30 WS) at the Western Range provided the AMU with launch weather summaries from past launches that were impacted by LLCC. The 45 WS provided summaries from 14 launch attempts and the 30 WS fkom 5. The launch attempts occurred between December 2001 and June 2007. These summaries helped the AMU determine when the LLCC were "red" due to anvil cloud. The AMU collected WSR-88D radar reflectivity, cloud-to-ground lightning strikes, soundings and satellite imagery. The AMU used step-by-step instructions for calculating VAHIRR manually as provided by the 45 WS. These instructions were used for all of the candidate cases when anvil cloud caused an LLCC violation identified in the launch weather summaries. The AMU evaluated several software programs capable of visualizing radar data so that VAHIRR could be calculated and chose GR2Analyst from Gibson Ridge Software, LLC. Data availability and lack of detail from some launch weather summaries permitted analysis of six launch attempts from the ER and none from the WR. The AMU did not take into account whether or not other weather LCC violations were occurring at the same time as the anvil cloud LLCC since the goal of this task was to determine how often VAHIRR provided relief to the anvil cloud LLCC at any time during several previous launch attempts. Therefore, in the statistics presented in this report, it is possible that even though VAHIRR provided relief to the anvil cloud LLCC, other weather LCC could have been violated not permitting the launch to proceed. The results of this cost-benefit analysis indicated VAHIRR provided relief from the anvil cloud LLCC between about 15% and 18% of the time for varying 5-minute time periods based on summaries fkom six launch attempts and would have allowed launch to proceed that were otherwise "NO GO" due to the anvil cloud LLCC if the T-0 time occurred during the anvil cloud LLCC violations.

Bauman, William H., III↗
NASA NTRS2011

Constellation Program: Lessons Learned: Executive Summary - Volume 1

This document (Volume I) provides an executive summary of the lessons learned from the Constellation Program. A companion Volume II provides more detailed analyses for those seeking further insight and information. In this volume, Section 1.0 introduces the approach in preparing and organizing the content to enable rapid assimilation of the lessons. Section 2.0 describes the contextual framework in which the Constellation Program was formulated and functioned that is necessary to understand most of the lessons. Context of a former program may seem irrelevant in the heady days of new program formulation. However, readers should take some time to understand the context. Many of the lessons would be different in a different context, so the reader should reflect on the similarities and differences in his or her current circumstances. Section 3.0 summarizes key findings developed from the significant lessons learned at the program level that appear in Section 4.0. Readers can use the key findings in Section 3.0 to peruse for particular topics, and will find more supporting detail and analyses in Section 4.0 in a topical format. Appendix A contains a white paper describing the Constellation Program formulation that may be of use to readers wanting more context or background information. The reader will no doubt recognize some very similar themes from previous lessons learned, blue-ribbon committee reviews, National Academy reviews, and advisory panel reviews for this and other large-scale human spaceflight programs; including Apollo, Space Shuttle, Shuttle/Mir, and the ISS. This could represent an inability to learn lessons from previous generations; however, it is more likely that similar challenges persist in the Agency structure and approach to program formulation, budget advocacy, and management. Perhaps the greatest value of these Constellation lessons learned can be found in viewing them in context with these previous efforts to guide and advise the Agency and its stakeholders.

Constellation Program↗
NASA NTRS2019

An Update on the CCSDS Optical Communications Working Group Interoperability Standards

International space agencies around the world are working together in the Interagency Operation Advisory Group (IOAG) and the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) to develop interoperability standards for optical communications. The standards support optical communication systems for both Near Earth and Deep Space robotic and human-rated spacecraft. The standards generally address both free space links between spacecraft and free space links between spacecraft and ground. This paper will overview the history and structure of the CCSDS Optical Communications Working Group and provide an update on the set of optical communications standards being developed. The paper will address the ongoing work on High Photon Efficiency communications, High Data Rate communications, and Optical On/Off Keying communications. It will also cover the working being done within CCSDS on documenting atmospheric measurement techniques and link operations concepts.

Edwards, Bernard L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Current Optical Communications Efforts

NASA continues to make significant investments in optical communications technology for near Earth and deep space applications. Optical communications will enable new science and exploration missions by providing high data rates and better navigation over long distances. Small low mass terminals, even at low data rates, is also extremelty beneficial to NASA. In 2021, NASA will launch the Laser Communications Relay Demonstration (LCRD) on a Department of Defense Space Test Program satellite. LCRD consists of two optical terminals in geosynchronous (GEO) orbit and two ground stations, and it is a joint project between NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (JPL), and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory (MIT/LL). Also in 2021, GSFC and MIT/LL will fly the TeraByte InfraRed Delivery (TBIRD) 200 Gbps Cubesat Demo in Low Earth Orbit. In 2022, JPL will launch Psyche to a unique metal asteroid orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter. Psyche will carry the Deep Space Optical Communications (DSOC) payload. In 2023, NASA will do a lunar flyby with the first crewed mission of the Orion spacecraft and it will carry the MIT/LL developed Optical to Orion (O2O) payload. In addition to these flight demonstrations of optical communications, NASA is also working with civil space agencies around the world to develop international standards for optical communications via the Interagency Operations Advisory Group (IOAG) and the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS).

Bernard L Edwards↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Latest Status of the CCSDS Optical Communications Working Group

International civil space agencies around the world are working together in the Interagency Operation Advisory Group (IOAG) and the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) to develop interoperability architectures and standards for space communications. Within CCSDS, there is a working group dedicated on developing recommendations and standards for optical communications. These standards include recommendations for the physical layer, coding and synchronization layer, and best practices for measuring and monitoring atmospheric conditions and operating optical links. The working group has developed standards for both Near Earth and deep space robotic and hum exploration missions. The standards generally address both free space links between spacecraft and free space links between spacecraft and ground. This paper will provide an overview and update on the set of standards the CCSDS Optical Communications Working Group has developed

Bernard L Edwards↗
DOE OSTI2019

Evolution of Stakeholder Relations at the Mound Laboratory-End of DoE's Mission to the Present - 19551

In November 1989, the same month the Berlin Wall fell, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed the Mound Laboratory (Mound Plant or Mound site) in Ohio on the National Priorities List (NPL) due to volatile organic compound contamination in the groundwater. As a result of the Cold War ending, the United States sought to greatly reduce the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal, consolidate the US Department of Energy's (DOE) mission, and close many DOE facilities. In 1991, the City of Miamisburg learned that DOE was planning to close the Mound Laboratory. The city spent two years lobbying in Washington, DC, to keep the facility open; however, that effort was not successful. By 1993, DOE, EPA, and Ohio EPA had signed a Federal Facility Agreement that formalized EPA and Ohio EPA oversight of the DOE environmental cleanup of the Mound NPL site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The decontamination and cleanup of the Mound site fell under two federal laws, CERCLA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. DOE, EPA, Ohio EPA, the City of Miamisburg, and other local stakeholders all agreed that the Mound site should be cleaned up to an industrial/commercial land use standard. This would allow the site to transition into a privately owned business park. In 1994, the City of Miamisburg created the nonprofit Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation (MMCIC) that would own, market, and redevelop the site. The City also chartered the Mound Reuse Committee to act as an independent advisory organization, composed of representatives from the local community and business, government, education, and special interest groups. In 1994, DOE and the MMCIC entered into a lease agreement that facilitated immediate reuse of site buildings that were no longer required by DOE and did not require remediation. In 1995, DOE, EPA, and Ohio EPA developed the Mound 2000 Process to more effectively use CERCLA Removal Action authority to evaluate and remediate, as necessary, disparate areas of the Mound site. The Mound 2000 process divided the site into smaller, more manageable areas that accelerated cleanup and allowed areas to be reused more quickly. All areas of the Mound site were cleaned up to meet the EPA standard for industrial/commercial land use. The CERCLA process included opportunities for the public to review proposed cleanup strategies. Public input on cleanup and reuse included that from local citizens, businesses, Miamisburg City Council, local schools and financial institutions, Ohio EPA, Montgomery County, and the State of Ohio. In 1998, while site cleanup was still in process, DOE agreed to sell the entire Mound property to the MMCIC for $10.00. The site sales agreement accelerated reuse by allowing DOE to offer ownership of discrete land parcels to MMCIC as soon as EPA confirmed those areas met CERCLA standards for property transfer. This allowed the Mound site to become one of the first former DOE weapons sites to transition to reuse as a privately owned and operated community asset. Many other former DOE production facilities require continued federal ownership to protect the integrity of the environmental cleanup. In 2011, the MMCIC changed its name to the Mound Development Corporation (MDC) and continued to transition the site for reuse as part of the Mound Business Park. The MMCIC/MDC is a nonprofit economic development arm of the City of Miamisburg. DOE supported the economic development efforts with grants and matching funds. Individual land parcels were transferred from DOE to the MDC according to the DOE Mound Land Transfer Process. Ownership of parcels was transferred to the MDC via quitclaim deeds with no repair, replacements, or rebuild of areas. Each parcel's quitclaim deed contains the CERCLA institutional controls. To reduce the property tax burden, the Miamisburg City Council passed an ordinance that allowed the City to accept temporary ownership of specific parcels and hold ownership until the MDC could either lease or sell them. With the exception of one 23-acre parcel that includes the Operable Unit 1 area (site of former sanitary landfill), the entire site has been transferred to the MDC. Today, the former Mound Laboratory site is home to the vibrant Mound Business Park operated by the MDC. The site contains numerous buildings with active businesses and multiple areas suitable for new construction. Private companies continue cutting-edge work that carries forward the legacy of more than 50 years of DOE research, development, production, and inspiration from the former Mound Laboratory scientists, engineers, technicians, and support personnel. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS1986

Planetary exploration through year 2000, a core program: Mission operations

In 1980 the NASA Advisory Council created the Solar System Exploratory Committee (SSEC) to formulate a long-range program of planetary missions that was consistent with likely fiscal constraints on total program cost. The SSEC had as its primary goal the establishment of a scientifically valid, affordable program that would preserve the nation's leading role in solar system exploration, capitalize on two decades of investment, and be consistent with the coordinated set of scientific stategies developed earlier by the Committe on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX). The result of the SSEC effort was the design of a Core Program of planetary missions to be launched by the year 2000, together with a realistic and responsible funding plan. The Core Program Missions, subcommittee activities, science issues, transition period assumptions, and recommendations are discussed.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1995

Formal methods in the design of Ada 1995

Formal, mathematical methods are most useful when applied early in the design and implementation of a software system--that, at least, is the familiar refrain. I will report on a modest effort to apply formal methods at the earliest possible stage, namely, in the design of the Ada 95 programming language itself. This talk is an 'experience report' that provides brief case studies illustrating the kinds of problems we worked on, how we approached them, and the extent (if any) to which the results proved useful. It also derives some lessons and suggestions for those undertaking future projects of this kind. Ada 95 is the first revision of the standard for the Ada programming language. The revision began in 1988, when the Ada Joint Programming Office first asked the Ada Board to recommend a plan for revising the Ada standard. The first step in the revision was to solicit criticisms of Ada 83. A set of requirements for the new language standard, based on those criticisms, was published in 1990. A small design team, the Mapping Revision Team (MRT), became exclusively responsible for revising the language standard to satisfy those requirements. The MRT, from Intermetrics, is led by S. Tucker Taft. The work of the MRT was regularly subject to independent review and criticism by a committee of distinguished Reviewers and by several advisory teams--for example, the two User/Implementor teams, each consisting of an industrial user (attempting to make significant use of the new language on a realistic application) and a compiler vendor (undertaking, experimentally, to modify its current implementation in order to provide the necessary new features). One novel decision established the Language Precision Team (LPT), which investigated language proposals from a mathematical point of view. The LPT applied formal mathematical analysis to help improve the design of Ada 95 (e.g., by clarifying the language proposals) and to help promote its acceptance (e.g., by identifying a verifiable subset that would meet the needs of safety-critical applications). The first LPT project, which ran from the fall of 1990 unti the end of 1992, produced studies of several language issues: optimization, sharing and storage, tasking and protected records, overload resolution, the floating point model, distribution, program erros, and object-oriented programming. The second LPT project, in 1994, formally modeled the dynamic semantics of a large part of the (almost) final language definition, looking especially for interactions between language features.

Guaspari, David↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advanced Electric Propulsion System (AEPS) Enabling a Sustainable Return to the Lunar Surface through NASA Gateway

NASA continues to evolve a human exploration approach for beyond low-Earth orbit. The center of this approach is NASA’s Gateway that is envisioned to provide a maneuverable outpost in lunar orbit to extend human presence in deep space and expand on NASA exploration goals. The Gateway represents the initial step in NASA’s architecture for human cislunar operations, lunar surface access and missions to Mars. NASA announced at the May 2020 NASA Advisory Council’s Human Explorations and Operations Committee a new plan that calls for launching the first two elements of Gateway as a co-manifested mission in the late 2023 timeframe [2]. Launching the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) together reduces mission risk, utilizes the PPE high-powered Electric Propulsion (EP) system to transport both elements to the lunar orbit, and reduces overall cost. NASA and Maxar Technologies have a commercial partnership to develop and demonstration a high-powered Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) spacecraft [3, 4]. The PPE is baselined to include three 12.5-kW Advanced Electric Propulsion Systems (AEPS) and four 6-kW Hall thrusters, currently under development by Maxar, for a total beginning of life propulsion power of over 48-kW [5]. High-power solar electric propulsion is one of the key technologies that has been prioritized because of its significant exploration benefits, specifically, for missions beyond low Earth orbit. Spacecraft size and mass are currently dominated by onboard chemical propulsion systems and propellants that may constitute more than 50 percent of spacecraft mass. This impact can be substantially reduced through the utilization of SEP, due to its higher specific impulse and lower propellant load required to meet the equivalent mission delta-V. Studies performed for NASA’s HEOMD and Science Mission Directorate (SMD) have demonstrated that 40-kW-class SEP provides the necessary capabilities that would enable near term and future architectures, and science missions [6]. Accordingly, NASA has been developing a 12 kW Hall thruster electric propulsion thruster that can serve as the building block for a 40-kW-class SEP capability. The AEPS development, led by the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), began with the maturation of the high-power Hall thruster. The technology development work has transitioned to AR via a competitive procurement selection for the AEPS contract in May 2016. Management of the AEPS contract is being led by NASA GRC with funding from NASA’s Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) under the Technology Demonstration Missions (TDM) program. NASA continues to support the AEPS development leveraging in-house expertise, plasma modeling capability, and world-class test facilities.

AEPS↗
NASA NTRS1991

The role of the Consultative Committee on International Radio (CCIR) in time and frequency

The Consultative Committee on International Radio (CCIR) is a technical advisory group that, within the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), provides formal recommendations, technical advice, and technical information related to the allocation and use of the radio spectrum. The CCIR does its work through a number of separate study groups, each of which deals primarily with one or more radio based services recognized by the ITU. One of these, Study Group 7, is called 'Science Services' and deals with, among other things, time and frequency services, and related topics. This part of CCIR is probably best known for its development and implementation of the UTC time system in 1972. The U.S. National Administration develops proposed recommendations and provides other technical input to the CCIR through an organization of U.S. Study Groups that parallel those functioning internationally. Both the private and government sectors participate actively under the general oversight of the U.S. State Department and its U.S. CCIR National Committee. Current and projected future activities of U.S. and international Study Group 7 are described, including some examples of current recommendations, handbooks, and other documentation that might be useful for working with time and frequency applications.

Roger E. Beehler↗
DOE OSTI2015

Online meeting technology for the Savannah River citizens advisory board - 15348

The objective of this report is to examine how board members of the Savannah River Site Citizens Advisory Board (SRS CAB) perceives the use of online meeting technology to achieve their mission and objective. The research focuses on the use of virtual committee meetings that are conducted by the Savannah River Site Citizen Advisory Board (SRS CAB) support team, in accordance with their charter to hold full-board meetings at least six times per year. Research for this report includes a literature review of technology used in meetings, and analysis of interviews and surveys conducted with board members who are served by the technology. By studying the level of current use and perceptions of online meetings with SRS CAB, the current and potential satisfaction of online technology usage of the board members can be ascertained. In addition, unearthing the negative perceptions of online meeting usage may allow the SRS CAB support team the opportunity to review those concerns and provide an opportunity to address those concerns. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2016

Energy Frontier Research Centers: Science for Our Nation's Energy Future, September 2016

As world demand for energy rapidly expands, transforming the way energy is collected, stored, and used has become a defining challenge of the 21st century. At its heart, this challenge is a scientific one, inspiring the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) to establish the Energy Frontier Research Center (EFRC) program in 2009. The EFRCs represent a unique approach, bringing together creative, multidisciplinary scientific teams to perform energy-relevant basic research with a complexity beyond the scope of single-investigator projects. These centers take full advantage of powerful new tools for characterizing, understanding, modeling, and manipulating matter from atomic to macroscopic length scales. They also train the next-generation scientific workforce by attracting talented students and postdoctoral researchers interested in energy science. The EFRCs have collectively demonstrated the potential to substantially advance the scientific understanding underpinning transformational energy technologies. Both a BES Committee of Visitors and a Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force have found the EFRC program to be highly successful in meeting its goals. The scientific output from the EFRCs is impressive, and many centers have reported that their results are already impacting both technology research and industry. This report on the EFRC program includes selected highlights from the initial 46 EFRCs and the current 36 EFRCs.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2019

Energy Frontier Research Centers: Science For Our Nation’s Energy Future (July 2019)

As world demand for energy rapidly expands, transforming the way energy is collected, stored, and used has become a defining challenge of the 21st century. At its heart, this challenge is a scientific one, inspiring the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) to establish the Energy Frontier Research Center (EFRC) program in 2009. The EFRCs represent a unique approach, bringing together creative, multidisciplinary scientific teams to perform energy-relevant basic research with a complexity beyond the scope of single-investigator projects. These centers take full advantage of powerful new tools for characterizing, understanding, modeling, and manipulating matter from atomic to macroscopic length scales. They also train the next-generation scientific workforce by attracting talented students and postdoctoral researchers interested in energy science. To date, BES has supported 82 EFRCs, of which 46 are currently active, involving more than 1,600 senior investigators and at least 5,400 students and postdoctoral researchers at over 170 institutions. The EFRCs have collectively demonstrated the potential to substantially advance the scientific understanding underpinning transformational energy technologies. Both a BES Committee of Visitors and a Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force have found the EFRC program to be highly successful in meeting its goals. The scientific output from the EFRCs is impressive, and many centers have reported that their results are already impacting both technology research and industry. This report on the EFRC program includes selected highlights from 2016-2019.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2016

Motivation of Public Participation at Citizens Advisory Board Meetings Public Participation at the Savannah River Site Citizen Advisory Board Meetings - 16343

The objective of this paper is to interview public participants who attended both full-board and committee meetings for a pre-determined two-month period to understand their motivation in attending Savannah River Site Citizens Advisory Board (SRS CAB) meetings. In addition, the research aimed to learn what impact they believe their attendance had on Savannah River Site Citizens Advisory Board (SRS CAB) recommendations and discussion, as well as how their input is utilized by the Savannah River Site. Perhaps in learning these community members attend meetings, the CAB can capitalize on that knowledge to motivate additional public participation. Research for this report includes a literature review of public participation and analysis of interviews and surveys conducted with members of the general public in October and November 2015. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS2005

California Space Grant Consortium

The organizational and administrative structure of the CaSGC has the Consortium Headquarters Office (Principal Investigator - Dr. John Kosmatka, California Statewide Director - Dr. Michael Wiskerchen) at UC San Diego. Each affiliate member institution has a campus director and an scholarship/fellowship selection committee. Each affiliate campus director also serves on the CaSGC Advisory Council and coordinates CMIS data collection and submission. The CaSGC strives to maintain a balance between expanded affiliate membership and continued high quality in targeted program areas of aerospace research, education, workforce development, and public outreach. Associate members are encouraged to participate on a project-by-project basis that meets the needs of California and the goals and objectives of the CaSGC. Associate members have responsibilities relating only to the CaSGC projects they are directly engaged in. Each year, as part of the CaSGC Improvement Plan, the CaSGC Advisory Council evaluates the performance of the affiliate and associate membership in terms of contributions to the CaSGC Strategic Plan, These CaSGC membership evaluations provide a constructive means for elevating productive members and removing non-performing members. This Program Improvement and Results (PIR) report will document CaSGC program improvement results and impacts that directly respond to the specific needs of California in the area of aerospace-related education and human capital development and the Congressional mandate to "increase the understanding, assessment, development and utilization of space resources by promoting a strong education base, responsive research and training activities, and broad and prompt dissemination of knowledge and technology".

Kosmatka, John↗