SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Aircraft Operations and Technology”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

63 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2023

Perception Testing in Fog for Autonomous Flight

As the path towards Urban Air Mobility (UAM) continues to take shape, there are outstanding technical challenges to achieving safe and effective air transportation operations under this new paradigm. To inform and guide technology development for UAM, NASA is investigating the current state-of-the-art in key technology areas including traffic management, detect-and-avoid, and autonomy. In support of this effort, a new perception testbed was developed at NASA Ames Research Center to collect data from an array of sensing systems representative of those that could be found on a future UAM vehicle. This testbed, featuring a Light-Detection-and-Ranging (LIDAR) instrument, a long-wave infrared sensor, and a visible spectrum camera was deployed for a multiday test campaign in the Fog Chamber at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), in Albuquerque, New Mexico. During the test campaign, fog conditions were created for tests with targets including a human, a resolution chart, and a small unmanned aerial vehicle (sUAV). Here, this paper describes in detail, the developed perception testbed, the experimental setup in the fog chamber, the resulting data, and presents an initial result from analysis of the data with the evaluation of methods to increase contrast through filtering techniques.

aeronautics↗

DOE OSTI2023

Effect of recycled fibers and shredded intermediates variation on the mechanical properties and energy absorption of fiber‐reinforced composite panels

Abstract The global composite industry generates large quantities of waste which mostly ends up in landfills due to a lack of established end‐use applications for multiple waste streams. The scrap from end‐of‐life (EoL) includes manufacturing waste such as dry chopped fiber tows, loose fibers, shredded fibers from fabric textile operations, cured/semi‐cured prepregs, and fully cured composite structure waste from aircraft, automobiles, wind blades, boats, and pressure vessels. In this work, different composite waste streams were reduced to shredded intermediates, followed by simple blending, and subjected to wet compression molding to produce composite panels. The panels/plaques were tested for mechanical properties (flexure and impact), fiber‐matrix wet‐out, and property bounds. It was found that wet‐compression molding was a viable and scale‐able approach to produce recycled panels from EoL composites shredded scrap. Furthermore, full‐scale size panels for use in truck bodies and intermodal shipping container flooring were manufactured and their impact resistance was tested using a drop weight impact test. They were tested both for high‐ and low‐velocity load. In the case of high‐velocity load, the average impact load was 14,673 N; the average absorbed energy was 101.6 J; the average elastic energy was 11.7 J and the impact resistance was 1065 J/m. In the case of the low‐velocity drop weight impact test, it was found that the average impact load was 7877.358 N; the average absorbed energy was 9.718 J; the average elastic energy was 9.14 J, and the impact resistance was 184.1 J/m. The shredded composite was shown to be a candidate material for the manufacture of truck bodies and intermodal containers’ flooring panels. Highlights By using shredded intermediates from different composite waste streams, it is possible to manufacture composite panels. Wet–compression process is an appropriate technique for manufacturing recycled fiber composite panels. Regardless of the source of scrap, the mechanical properties of the produced composite panels were improved. The recycling process technology can be transformed to commercial scale to produce full‐size transportation flooring panels. A product pathway is established in consideration of lower cost and improved recyclability.

Vaidya, Uday↗

DOE OSTI2026

Hydrogen applications in airport operations: a review using the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey as an illustrative airport system

Airports combine aircraft propulsion, ground operations, stationary power systems, and fuel logistics in ways that make emissions reduction technically and operationally complex. Existing studies often assess hydrogen applications in these areas separately, limiting understanding of the shared infrastructure, safety, and operational constraints that shape airport deployment. This review evaluates hydrogen across three airport-relevant operational domains: aviation propulsion, ground support equipment and vehicles, and stationary power systems. Within aviation propulsion, the review examines sustainable aviation fuel production and hydrogen-powered aircraft as two distinct hydrogen-relevant pathways. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is used as an illustrative airport system to relate the literature to a real operating context. Drawing on peer-reviewed studies, technical reports, demonstration projects, and public operational information, the review also includes screening-level calculations of hydrogen demand and potential CO 2 e reductions for selected applications. The findings show that hydrogen's role is highly application-specific. Near-term opportunities are strongest where hydrogen serves as a low-carbon process input, supports selected high-utilization ground equipment, or contributes to resilient stationary power-system configurations. Hydrogen-powered aircraft remain a longer-term option because storage, fueling infrastructure, certification, cost, and NO x management continue to constrain deployment. Across all domains, infrastructure readiness, fuel logistics, safety requirements, and leakage management emerge as recurring determinants of viability. Future research should focus on cross-domain infrastructure planning, comparative assessment of hydrogen against alternative pathways, improved treatment of leakage and non-CO 2 effects, and clearer safety and regulatory frameworks for airport deployment.

08 HYDROGEN↗

DOE OSTI2024

An Approach to Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis and Its Data Collection Framework

Human reliability analysis (HRA) is a method for evaluating human errors in a variety of complex systems such as nuclear power plants, military systems, aircraft, and chemical plants. Most HRA methods currently used by regulatory institutes or utilities are called static HRA and are carried out by simple worksheets or simple calculators. To date, there are many unsolved or intrinsic challenges in static HRA. For example, existing static HRA does not realistically model and evaluate human actions as they would be performed at actual systems. There is no method with HRA to objectively estimate the time required for human actions despite being essential to HRA processes. In addition, many HRA methods still rely on a dataset generated prior to the 1980s, from unrelated industry experience or simply from expert judgment. Accordingly, this study attempted to research how to overcome the challenges of existing HRA via dynamic risk assessment (a.k.a., simulation-based or computation-based risk assessment) techniques. First, this study developed a dynamic HRA method, named as PRocedure-based Investigation Method of EMRALD Risk Assessment – HRA (PRIMERA-HRA). The PRIMERA-HRA mainly concentrates on providing HRA analysts with specific guidelines on how to reasonably model human actions, assign human reliability data and evaluate output of simulation within a dynamic probabilistic risk assessment tool, called as Event Modeling Risk Assessment using Linked Diagrams (EMRALD). Second, this study also developed a module for performance shaping factors (i.e., the key concept in HRA quantification) applicable to dynamic HRA, then implemented it based on PRIMERA-HRA within the EMRALD tool. Third, this study developed an HRA data collection framework to support dynamic HRA, called as Simplified Human Error Experimental Program (SHEEP). Originally, the SHEEP study aimed to support static HRA and its data collection, but recently extended the scope to the new technologies such as dynamic HRA or HRA for advanced reactors. SHEEP focuses on the use of data collected from simplified simulators to complement—but not replace—data collection studies using full-scope simulators and actual operators. To date, many experiments were conducted under the SHEEP framework. Multiple analyses, such as human performance analysis, human error analysis, task complexity analysis, learning effect analysis and time distribution analysis, were also carried out using the collected data. Then, based on the major insights, an approach to inferring full-scope data based on simplified simulator data was proposed. The PRIMERA-HRA and SHEEP research are expected to evaluate human actions more realistically than existing static HRA, provide an opportunity to collect more HRA data with reasonable cost and labor, then contribute to enhance the quality of HRA.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2024

An Approach to Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis and Its Data Collection Framework

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Forecasting for ESCAPE: A Multi-Institution Hybrid Forecasting and Nowcasting Operation for Sea-Breeze Convection Supporting a Ground-Based and Airborne Field Campaign

The Experiment of Sea-Breeze Convection, Aerosols, Precipitation and Environment (ESCAPE) field project deployed two aircraft and ground-based assets in the vicinity of Houston, Texas, between 27 May and 2 July 2022, examining how meteorological conditions, dynamics, and aerosols control the initiation, early growth stage, and evolution of coastal convective clouds. To ensure that airborne- and ground-based assets were deployed appropriately, a forecasting and nowcasting team was formed. Daily forecasts guided real-time decision-making by assessing synoptic weather conditions, environmental aerosol, and a variety of atmospheric modeling data to assign a probability for meeting specific ESCAPE campaign objectives. During the research flights, a small team of forecasters provided “nowcasting” support by analyzing radar, satellite, and new model data in real time. The nowcasting team proved invaluable to the campaign operation, as sometimes changing environmental conditions affected, for example, the timing of convective initiation. In addition to the success of the forecasting and nowcasting teams, the ESCAPE campaign offered a unique “testbed” opportunity where in-person and virtual support both contributed to campaign objectives. The forecasting and nowcasting teams were each composed of new and experienced forecasters alike, where new forecasters were given invaluable experience that would otherwise be difficult to attain. Both teams received training on forecast models, map analysis, Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory model (HYSPLIT), and thermodynamic sounding analysis before the beginning of the campaign. In this article, the ESCAPE forecasting and nowcasting teams reflect on these experiences, providing potentially useful advice for future field campaigns requiring forecasting and nowcasting support in a hybrid virtual/in-person framework.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

Studying Aerosol, Clouds, and Air Quality in the Coastal Urban Environment of Southeastern Texas

A multi-agency succession of field campaigns was conducted in southeastern Texas during July 2021 through October 2022 to study the complex interactions of aerosols, clouds and air pollution in the coastal urban environment. As part of the Tracking Aerosol Convection interactions Experiment (TRACER), the TRACER- Air Quality (TAQ) campaign the Experiment of Sea Breeze Convection, Aerosols, Precipitation and Environment (ESCAPE) and the Convective Cloud Urban Boundary Layer Experiment (CUBE), a combination of ground-based supersites and mobile laboratories, shipborne measurements and aircraft-based instrumentation were deployed. These diverse platforms collected high-resolution data to characterize the aerosol microphysics and chemistry, cloud and precipitation micro- and macro-physical properties, environmental thermodynamics and air quality-relevant constituents that are being used in follow-on analysis and modeling activities. We present the overall deployment setups, a summary of the campaign conditions and a sampling of early research results related to: (a) aerosol precursors in the urban environment, (b) influences of local meteorology on air pollution, (c) detailed observations of the sea breeze circulation, (d) retrieved supersaturation in convective updrafts, (e) characterizing the convective updraft lifecycle, (f) variability in lightning characteristics of convective storms and (g) urban influences on surface energy fluxes. The work concludes with discussion of future research activities highlighted by the TRACER model-intercomparison project to explore the representation of aerosol-convective interactions in high-resolution simulations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Markets and Economic Requirements for Fission Batteries and Other Nuclear Systems

Fission Batteries (FBs) are nuclear reactors defined by five characteristics which enable large-scale deployment: cost competitive, standardized sizes for economic mass production, easy installation and removal, secure and safe unattended operation with high reliability. FBs are not defined by technology or power level. Technical and market considerations suggest that most FBs will produce 20 to 30 MWt. This proceedings reports on the outcomes of two workshops that were held in January 2021 to better define markets and economic challenges for FBs. Three major markets were identified. The largest market is the industrial and commercial heat market. There are about 4000 industrial users (excluding utilities) that require more than one megawatt of heat. The number of customers versus size of heat demand was determined. In a low-carbon world there is the potential for many additional customers—including expanded biofuels production and district heat. The second market is for non-grid electricity. This includes co-generation plants that produce heat and electricity for a single customer. The third market is the maritime market with ~100,000 ships worldwide. In the United States, natural gas is the low-cost energy option today and will remain so unless constraints or taxes impact its use. If restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, the FB competition includes natural gas with carbon capture, biofuels, hydrogen and grid electricity. Natural gas with carbon capture is not economically viable on a small scale. Biofuels may be expensive but may be the economically preferred option for locations with small energy demands of a few megawatts. Hydrogen is a potential competitor with many of the characteristics of natural gas. Grid electricity is not a competitive source of heat. For FBs to be economically competitive, the price of delivered heat must be $20-50/MWh ($6-15/million BTU). The economically competitive range for non-grid electricity is estimated at $70-100/MWh. These electricity prices are competitive with the retail prices of electricity in many parts of the United States for the customer. FBs are not expected to be competitive selling wholesale electricity to the grid. To achieve the aforementioned cost targets for heat and electricity markets, FB designers must (1) maximize the power output within the constraints of a FB (e.g., truck transportability, passive decay heat removal), (2) drastically reduce the size of onsite staff, (3) adopt core designs with low fuel costs (enrichment and fabrication), and (4) develop a system design that is efficiently manufactured in factories. The business case depends upon more than being just a replacement for natural gas. The largest incentives for adoption of FBs is where they create new markets and new sources of revenue. An example is the paper and pulp industry that burns biomass wastes to provide heat and electricity to make paper. An external heat source could meet the demand for heat and electricity by the paper process and enable converting waste biomass into liquid biofuels rather than burning to provide heat. Other markets, such as data centers, are driven by special energy requirements such as extreme reliability. Most customers are not in the energy business but need heat and electricity to produce a product—a manufactured good, education, retail sales (shopping malls), marine transport or some other product. As a consequence, there will be large incentives to lease rather than own FBs. Leasing avoids the regulatory challenges that remain with the owner of the FB. Leasing creates large incentives for FP standardization of sizes and transportability to maintain the value of the FB at the end of the lease—similar to the leasing of jet engines and aircraft. The economic constraints combined with technical constraints suggest competitive FBs will likely have outputs exceeding 10 MWt. There appear to be little incentives for very long-lived reactor cores because such machines require much larger inventories of fuel. Maintenance requirements and the options to provide technology updates may favor shorter lifetimes (~5 years). The assessment is that there is the potential for FBs to be economically viable and play a major role in global decarbonization in three markets: heat, non-grid electricity and maritime applications.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Combined Mesonet and Tracker

Title: Combined Mesonet and Trackers (UNL Mobile Mesonets) Authors University of Nebraska PI: Adam Houston, UNL Professor (ahouston2@unl.edu) Mailing Address: 126 Bessey Hall P.O. Box 880340 Lincoln, NE 68588-0340 CoMeT Overview The University of Nebraska-Lincoln operates three Combined Mesonet and Tracker (CoMeTs). CoMeTs are Ford Explorers (model years 2015, 2017, and 2019) with forward-mounted suites of meteorological sensors and dual moonroofs, combining the capability of a mobile mesonet to collect near-surface observations with the capability of an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) tracker vehicle, which enables an observer in the second row of seats to see the aircraft and maintain compliance with Federal Aviation Administration policies on UAS operation. The CoMeTs collect observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155A, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass (Barbieri et al. 2019). The HMP155A and 109SS-L thermistor are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). This list of sensors is also included in the CoMeT data file metadata. Manufacturer specifications for these instruments are given in Table 1 of Hanft and Houston (2018). The reported measured quantities are summarized below.CoMeT-3 was funded through an equipment allocation included in the NSF TORUS award (AGS-1824649). Instrument Description The specific sensors included on each CoMeT are summarized in the table at the end of this section. In general each CoMeT collects observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210 barometer with a Gill pressure port, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, position using a Garmin 19x HVS receiver, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass. The HMP155 and 109SS are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). Fast temperature and corrected RH measurements (using sensors housed within the U-tube) have a time constant of 10-12 s based on data collected across a temperature and RH shock during the CLOUD-MAP 2017 calibration/validation tests on June 26, 2017. Vehicle speed was < 10 kts for this test. CoMeT-1 CoMeT-2 CoMeT-3 Slow Temperature Slow RH Vaisala HMP155A-L20-PT Part #: 22280-7 Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Fast temperature Campbell Scientific 109SS-L20-PT Part #: 21448-3 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-109 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-150 Pressure Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Wind RM Young 05103-L20-PT Part #: 18435-310 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 GPS Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Compass KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 Logger Campbell Scientific CR6-NA-XT-SW Part #: 28385-9 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Data Collection and Real-Time Processing The reported measured quantities are summarized in the table below. Quantity Units Source Epoch time Seconds GPS Latitude and longitude Degrees GPS Altitude m GPS Pressure hPa PTB210 Temperature (fast) deg C 109SS-L Temperature (slow) deg C HMP155 RH (slow) % HMP155 Vehicle speed m/s GPS Vehicle heading deg C-100 and GPS In addition to the measured variables, several derived variables are calculated. Corrected/fast relative humidity (%) Relative humidity is adjusted to the fast temperature following Richardson et al. (1998) and Houston et al. (2016). Water vapor mixing ratio (g/kg) Dew point temperature (°C) Potential temperature (Kelvin) Virtual potential temperature (Kelvin) Equivalent potential temperature (Kelvin) Regular intercomparisons between all three CoMeTs were performed during TORUS 2019. Comparisons were also conducted between CoMeT-1 and CoMeT-2 during LAPSE-RATE (2018) on 14 July. In these intercomparisons, the vehicles were parked adjacent to each other aligned perpendicular to (and facing into) the wind. To minimize engine heating effects, intercomparisons were only conducted when the wind speed was >10 kts. Data Format Original data files for each deployment are saved as text files and then converted to NetCDF. NetCDF versions have units that are CF compliant and may not match the original units in the txt files. The naming convention for the NetCDF files is as follows: UNL.CoMeT3.{deployment date YYYYMMDD}.{start time of observation collection in UTC HHMM}.L2.{post-processing codes}.cdf example: UNL.CoMeT3.20190627.1931.L2.g1.f1.cdf Post-processing codes are included to track modifications to the raw data. These codes are closely connected to error flags associated with each record. Each letter corresponds to a particular instrument: g: GPS p: Barometer tf: Fast temperature ts: Slow temperature rh: Relative humidity f: Compass w: Wind monitor a: All instruments Each number corresponds to a particular post-processing action described more below. Measured and derived variables are included in the following table. Variable Heading Standard Name Units time Time seconds since 00:00:00, 01-01-1970 Alt Altitude meters lat Latitude degrees north lon Longitude degrees east fast_temp Air Temperature kelvin slow_temp Air Temperature kelvin pressure Air Pressure pascals logger_RH Relative Humidity percent calc_corr_RH Relative Humidity percent wind_speed Wind Speed meters per second wind_dir Wind From Direction degrees vehicle_dir Vehicle Direction degrees dewpoint Dew Point Temperature kelvin mixing_ratio Humidity Mixing Ratio g/g theta Air Potential Temperature kelvin theta_v Virtual Potential Temperature kelvin theta_e Equivalent Potential Temperature Kelvin error_flag The error_flag variable is a string that matches the post-processing codes listed above. All instruments will have an associated code, but will have a “0” if the datum is unchanged from the initial processed value. Error Codes The following table summarizes the error codes for data collected before 2020: Error Code Relevant CoMeT Description g1 1,2,3 Exact correction. GPS position and time reprocessed from raw data g2 1 As far as we can tell this is an exact correction to an error in the GPS time. During the correct time periods the time suddenly went backwards ~250s and stayed at this offset for 750s when it corrected itself. The offset was applied to the “time warp” period. p1 2 Approximate correction. Hole in the pressure tube connecting the pressure port to the barometer. Resulted in erroneously low air pressure measurements when the vehicle was in motion. Derived variables recalculated (dew point temperature [e depends on qv and p], water vapor mixing ratio, potential temperature, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) a1 3 Exact correction. Missing data reprocessed from raw data a2 1 Bug fix to bias correction for ts1, ts2, and rh1: water vapor mixing ratio was off by a factor of 10 and virtual potential temperature was wrong because of this. f1 3 No correction, missing data. Fluxgate compass inoperable. Wind speed and direction calculated using GPS-derived vehicle heading instead. rh1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.7% removed from relative humidity. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +0.6 K removed from slow temperature. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts2 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.0 K removed. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) References Bolton, D., 1980: The Computation of Equivalent Potential Temperature. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1046–1053, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1980)108<1046:TCOEPT>2.0.CO;2. Hanft, W., and A. L. Houston, 2018: An Observational and Modeling Study of Mesoscale Air Masses with High Theta-E. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 2503–2524, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0389.1.Wexler Houston, A. L., R. J. Laurence III, T. W. Nichols, S. Waugh, B. Argrow, and C. L. Ziegler, 2016: Intercomparison of unmanned aircraft-borne and mobile mesonet atmospheric sensors. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 33, 1569-1582, doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0178.1. Lowe, P. R., 1977: An Approximating Polynomial for the Computation of Saturation Vapor Pressure. J. Applied Meteorology, 16, 100–103. Richardson, S. J., S. E. Frederickson, F. V. Brock, and J. A. Brotzge, 1998: Combination temperature and relative humidity probes: Avoiding large air temperature errors and associated relative humidity errors. Preprints, 10th Symp. On Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 278–283. Waugh, S., and S. E. Frederickson, 2010: An improved aspirated temperature system for mobile meteorological observations, especially in severe weather. 25th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Denver, CO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., P5.2. [Available online at https://ams.confex.com/ams/25SLS/techprogram/paper_176205.htm.]

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗