Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “competitiveness”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2018

Magnify: A Final Technical Report of the American Energy and Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership

The energy landscape has undergone profound transformation, with dramatic shifts having an impact on U.S. productivity, global investment, manufacturing operations, and job creation. The sense of urgency for a tighter linkage between clean technologies, energy and advanced manufacturing has only grown. Prior to 2009, the tone of the nation’s energy conversation was centered on how to deal with long-standing energy security challenges and scarcity. Today, the tone is focused on seizing emerging energy growth opportunities to transform America’s industrial base and job creation outlook—centering on energy abundance and strength. In this context, the Council on Competitiveness and the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE) teamed in the American Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness (AEMC) Partnership to tackle two major goals via a multi-year partnership. The AEMC Partnership identified means to: • Increase U.S. competitiveness in the production of clean energy products • Increase U.S. manufacturing competitiveness across the board by increasing energy productivity The AEMC Partnership has engaged hundreds of leaders from industry, academia, labor and government in a series of 9 regional, progressive dialogues; original research; and 4 national summits. The AEMC dialogues and summits spanned the United States—taking place in our nation’s greatest manufacturing, research, technology and innovation hotspots. The goals of the AEMC Partnership have been straightforward: • State and define key barriers, challenges, and problems in U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing of clean energy products, energy efficiency products, and advanced manufacturing products. • Dive deeply into these problems and generate policies, solutions, concepts and models where the U.S. public and private sectors can work together to solve these problems. • Catalyze policy solutions—including models for public-private partnership (PPP) pilots—to increase competitive manufacturing of clean energy and energy efficiency products in the USA. • Elevate and increase awareness of the importance and benefits of competitive clean energy manufacturing. • Understand how energy game-changers, like breakthrough technologies, impact U.S. clean energy and energy efficient manufacturing. The Council on Competitiveness worked with its stakeholder network to generate potential PPP concepts and proposals to advance the goals of the AEMC Partnership. Magnify outlines 2 PPP concepts—honed by dialogues, conversations, interviews and research—that could be carried out by EERE and/or the Council to increase the competitive production of clean energy products, energy efficient products, and advanced manufacturing in the USA. Magnify’s 2 PPP concepts aim to bridge very specific gaps in the nation’s innovation ecosystem: • Clean Energy Materials Accelerator: This PPP concept focuses on reducing the risks associated with deploying newly developed materials in commercial products and processes by creating a platform to identify and address common challenges; increasing access to existing materials qualification and characterization tools; and creating standards for advanced materials with leaders in industry, academic, government, and other organizations. Why accelerate materials production? As the AEMC Partnership Dialogue and supporting research from the public and private sectors have documented, countries that lead in making next-generation materials will gain significant competitive advantage by unleashing a new wave of manufacturing innovation. • Manufacturing and Energy Technology Accelerator: This PPP concept is a new, physical and virtual collaborative resource platform designed to connect the nation’s world-class innovation institutions—SMEs, large multinational companies, universities, national laboratories, etc.—to facilitate the transition of cutting-edge clean energy technologies into products, processes, or services that are manufactured in the United States. Why should public and private sector leaders in innovation partner to co-create a scale-up platform? The United States is already a mecca for the world’s greatest minds in science and technology—drawn to our shores by world-class universities and opportunities to work with global leaders in innovation. Unfortunately, when it comes time to bring their ideas to market, technologists and entrepreneurs often choose, or are forced, to locate manufacturing overseas. The United States must regain its position in the world as a national scale-up platform for next-generation technologies. A thorough explanation of these PPP concepts and the rationale behind these recommendations is provided in Part 3 of Magnify. Magnify is an important step on the critical journey to define barriers, challenges and problems in the manufacturing of clean energy products and energy efficient products—and further honing concepts for scalable, public-private partnerships—to increase the competitive manufacturing of clean energy and energy efficient products, and the energy productivity throughout the U.S. manufactur¬ing sector. The rest of the world is waking up to the opportunities associated with a strategic focus on manufacturing and energy competitiveness. Global competition is on the rise, and the stakes are high for the United States to act now, to act decisively, and to leverage inherent strengths to ensure a more prosperous, competitive future for decades to come.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
NASA NTRS2007

CanSat Competition: Contributing to the Development of NASA's Vision for Robotic Space Exploration

CanSat is an international student design-build-launch competition organized by the American Astronautical Society (AAS) and American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). The competition is also sponsored by the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The CanSat competition is designed for college, university and high school students wanting to participate in an applicable space-related competition. The objective of the CanSat competition is to complete space exploration missions by designing a specific system for a small sounding rocket payload which will follow and perform to a specific set of rules and guidelines for each year's competition. The competition encompasses a complete life-cycle of one year which includes all phases of design, integration, testing, judging and competition. The mission guidelines are based from space exploration missions and include bonus requirement options which teams may choose to participate in. The fundamental goal of the competition is to educate future engineers and scientists. This is accomplished by students applying systems engineering practices to a development project that incorporates an end-to-end life cycle, from requirements analysis, through preliminary design, integration and testing, an actual flight of the CanSat, and concluding with a post-mission debrief. This is done specifically with space related missions to bring a unique aspect of engineering and design to the competition. The competition has been progressing since its creation in 2005. The competition was originally meant to purely convey the engineering and design process to its participants, but through many experiences the competition has also undergone a learning experience with respect to systems engineering process and design. According

Berman, Joshua↗
DOE OSTI2017

Recipient-Biased Competition for an Intracellularly Generated Cross-Fed Nutrient Is Required for Coexistence of Microbial Mutualists

ABSTRACT Many mutualistic microbial relationships are based on nutrient cross-feeding. Traditionally, cross-feeding is viewed as being unidirectional, from the producer to the recipient. This is likely true when a producer’s waste, such as a fermentation product, has value only for a recipient. However, in some cases the cross-fed nutrient holds value for both the producer and the recipient. In such cases, there is potential for nutrient reacquisition by producer cells in a population, leading to competition against recipients. Here, we investigated the consequences of interpartner competition for cross-fed nutrients on mutualism dynamics by using an anaerobic coculture pairing fermentative Escherichia coli and phototrophic Rhodopseudomonas palustris . In this coculture, E. coli excretes waste organic acids that provide a carbon source for R. palustris . In return, R. palustris cross-feeds E. coli ammonium (NH 4 + ), a compound that both species value. To explore the potential for interpartner competition, we first used a kinetic model to simulate cocultures with varied affinities for NH 4 + in each species. The model predicted that interpartner competition for NH 4 + could profoundly impact population dynamics. We then experimentally tested the predictions by culturing mutants lacking NH 4 + transporters in both NH 4 + competition assays and mutualistic cocultures. Both theoretical and experimental results indicated that the recipient must have a competitive advantage in acquiring cross-fed NH 4 + to sustain the mutualism. This recipient-biased competitive advantage is predicted to be crucial, particularly when the communally valuable nutrient is generated intracellularly. Thus, the very metabolites that form the basis for mutualistic cross-feeding can also be subject to competition between mutualistic partners. IMPORTANCE Mutualistic relationships, particularly those based on nutrient cross-feeding, promote stability of diverse ecosystems and drive global biogeochemical cycles. Cross-fed nutrients within these systems can be either waste products valued by only one partner or nutrients valued by both partners. Here, we explored how interpartner competition for a communally valuable cross-fed nutrient impacts mutualism dynamics. We discovered that mutualism stability necessitates that the recipient have a competitive advantage against the producer in obtaining the cross-fed nutrient, provided that the nutrient is generated intracellularly. We propose that the requirement for recipient-biased competition is a general rule for mutualistic coexistence based on the transfer of intracellularly generated, communally valuable resources.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2011

Telerobotic Excavator Designed to Compete in NASA's Lunabotics Mining Competition

The second annual NASA Lunabotics Mining competition is to be held in May 23-28, 2011. The goal of the competition is for teams of university level students to design, build, test and compete with a fully integrated lunar excavator on a simulated lunar surface. Our team, named Lunar Solutions I, will be representing Temple University's College of Engineering in the competition. The team's main goal was to build a robot which is able to compete with other teams, and ultimately win the competition. The main challenge of the competition was to build a wireless robot that can excavate and collect a minimum of 10 kilograms of the regolith material within 15 minutes. The robot must also be designed to operate in conditions similar to those found on the lunar surface. The design of the lunar excavator is constrained by a set of requirements determined by NASA and detailed in the competition's rulebook. The excavator must have the ability to communicate with the "main base" wirelessly, and over a Wi-Fi network. Human operators are located at a remote site approximately 60 meters away from the simulated lunar surface upon which the robot must excavate the lunar regolith surface. During the competition, the robot will operate in a separate area from the control room in an area referred to as the "Lunarena." From the control room, the operators will have to control the robot using visual feedback from cameras placed both within the arena and on the robot. Using this visual feedback the human operators control the robots movement using both keyboard and joystick commands. In order to place in the competition, a minimum of 10 kg of regolith material has to be excavated, collected, and dumped into a specific location. For that reason, the robot must be provided with an effective and powerful excavation system. Our excavator uses tracks for the drive system. After performing extensive research and trade studies, we concluded that tracks would be the most effective method for transporting the excavator. When designing the excavation system, we analyzed several design options from the previous year's competition. We decided to use a front loader to collect the material, rather than a conveyer belt system or auger. Many of the designs from last year's competition used a conveyer belt mechanism to mine regolith and dump it into a temporary storage bin place on the robot. Using the front end loader approach allowed us to combine the scooping system and storage unit, which meant that the excavation system required less space.

Nash, Rodney↗
NASA NTRS2002

Virginia Space Grant Consortium Management of National General Aviation Design Competition

This report summarizes the management of the National General Aviation Design Competition on behalf of NASA, the FAA and the Air Force by the Virginia Space Grant Consortium (VSGC) for the time period October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001. This was the VSGC's seventh and final year of managing the Competition, which the Consortium originally designed, developed and implemented for NASA and the FAA. The competition is now being managed in-house by NASA. Awards to winning university teams were presented at a ceremony held at AirVenture 2001, the Experimental Aircraft Association's Annual Convention and Fly-In at Oshkosh, Wis. by NASA and FAA officials. The competition called for individuals or teams of undergraduate and graduate students from U.S. engineering schools to participate in a major national effort to rebuild the U.S. general aviation sector. Participants were challenged to meet the engineering goals of the Advanced General Aviation Transport Experiment (AGATE) project. For the purpose of the contest, general aviation aircraft are typically defined as single or twin engine (turbine or piston), single-pilot, fixed-wing aircraft for 2 - 6 passengers. The competition seeks to raise student awareness of the importance of general aviation by having students address design challenges for a small aircraft transportation system. NASA, AFRL and the FAA hope to stimulate breakthroughs in technology and their application in the general aviation marketplace. National goals for revitalizing the industry offer excellent, open-ended design challenges with real world applications for the Innovative Design Category. Both individual and team submissions were encouraged. University faculty advisors and students consistently cite the value of this kind of educational experience for their engineering students. Eight proposals were submitted for the 2001 Competition for the Innovative Design Category. Eleven faculty members and 124 students participated. Since inception, more than 785 students and 60 faculty members have participated in the Competition. A review panel comprised of general aviation experts from the FAA, EAA, NASA and industry representatives reviewed the design packages and selected the winners. The VSGC coordinated marketing of the competition to a mailing list which included selected deans and department chairs from ABET-accredited institutions, Space Grant affiliates, faculty who had previously participated in or expressed interest in the Competition, and others.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2011

Lunabotics Mining Competition: Inspiration Through Accomplishment

NASA's Lunabotics Mining Competition is designed to promote the development of interest in space activities and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields. The competition uses excavation, a necessary first step towards extracting resources from the regolith and building bases on the moon. The unique physical properties of lunar regolith and the reduced 1/6th gravity, vacuum environment make excavation a difficult technical challenge. Advances in lunar regolith mining have the potential to significantly contribute to our nation's space vision and NASA space exploration operations. The competition is conducted annually by NASA at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex. The teams that can use telerobotic or autonomous operation to excavate a lunar regolith geotechnical simulant, herein after referred to as Black Point-1 (or BP-1) and score the most points (calculated as an average of two separate 10-minute timed competition attempts) will eam points towards the Joe Kosmo Award for Excellence and the scores will reflect ranking in the on-site mining category of the competition. The minimum excavation requirement is 10.0 kg during each competition attempt and the robotic excavator, referred to as the "Lunabot", must meet all specifications. This paper will review the achievements of the Lunabotics Mining Competition in 2010 and 2011, and present the new rules for 2012. By providing a framework for robotic design and fabrication, which culminates in a live competition event, university students have been able to produce sophisticated lunabots which are tele-operated. Multi-disciplinary teams are encouraged and the extreme sense of accomplishment provides a unique source of inspiration to the participating students, which has been shown to translate into increased interest in STEM careers. Our industrial sponsors (Caterpillar, Newmont Mining, Harris, Honeybee Robotics) have all stated that there is a strong need for skills in the workforce related to robotics and automated machines. In 2010, 22 United States (US) universities competed, and in May 2011 the competition was opened to international participation, with 46 Universities attending. There were 12 international teams and 34 US teams. This combined total directly inspired an estimated 544 university students. More students and the public were engaged via internet broadcasting and social networking media. This is expected to be of value for actual future space missions, as knowledge is gained from testing many innovative prototypes in simulated lunar regolith. More information is available at www.nasa.gov/lunabotics/.

Mueller, Robert P.↗
NASA NTRS2024

Effects of Water Limitation and Competition on Tree Carbon Allocation in an Earth System Modeling Framework

Earth system models (ESMs) have a limited capacity to represent plant functional diversity and shifts in trait distributions. Approaches to improving the representation of this complexity in ESMs include (i) optimality-based approaches that predict trait–environment responses and (ii) explicitly modelling coexistence and community assembly. These approaches are expected to converge only when optimality-based approaches identify competitively dominant strategies, which often differ from strategies that maximize ecosystem functioning or fitness components in monoculture. We used two models, LM3-PPA (a vegetation demographic model designed as an ESM component) and BiomeE (a computationally efficient analog for LM3-PPA), to explore how water limitation affects carbon allocation strategies of canopy trees. We compared competitive allocation strategies and those that maximize biomass or productivity in monoculture. We did not explicitly model coexistence or community assembly. Rather, we used model experiments to identify competitive and maximizing strategies in a two-dimensional trait space under different precipitation and mortality scenarios. At 10 eastern US locations, we simulated historical, wet and dry climate scenarios, novel drought and three different mortality scenarios (low, medium or high sensitivity to water deficit). For each site and scenario, we identified the competitive strategy and three maximizing strategies (maximum biomass, productivity or drought-tolerance). Root: leaf ratios tended to increase and leaf area tended to decrease with increasing water stress (increasing water limitation and its effects on mortality). However, relative to maximizing strategies, competitive strategies shifted towards greater allocation to roots and leaves with increasing water stress. Competitive overinvestments (greater allocation to roots and leaves by competitive strategies compared with maximizing strategies) were robust across different modelling contexts, including vegetation parameter sets (Acer vs. Populus), models (LM3-PPA vs. BiomeE) and uncalibrated vs. calibrated BiomeE versions. Synthesis: The theoretical prediction that competitive and maximizing allocation strategies differ under water limitation is confirmed for a demographic model designed as an ESM component. Optimality-based trait predictions can simplify representing trait diversity in ESMs but do not always correspond to competitive outcomes. Explicitly modelling coexistence and community assembly in ESMs is challenging but is likely the most general approach to representing trait diversity.

vegetation demographic model↗
DOE OSTI2024

U.S. Department of Energy Collegiate Wind Competition 2025 Rules - Phase 1

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Wind Energy Technologies Office's (WETO) Collegiate Wind Competition (CWC, also referred to as the "Competition" in this rules document) invites interdisciplinary teams of undergraduate students from a variety of academic programs to solve complex wind energy challenges. Through the competition, WETO intends to offer students direct industry experience, valuable exposure to wind energy career pathways, and greater knowledge of wind energy's potential to contribute to a clean energy future. The competition will select up to 35 teams to start, making them eligible to compete for a cash prize pool of up to $280,000 . Each year, the competition identifies a new challenge and set of activities that address real-world research questions, thus demonstrating skills that students will need to work in the wind or wider renewable energy industries. The Collegiate Wind Competition 2025 challenge requires participants to compete simultaneously in four contests: 1) Turbine Prototype Contest: Design, build, and present a unique, wind-driven power system based on market research; 2) Turbine Testing Contest: Test the wind turbine in a competition wind tunnel at the final event; 3) Project Development Contest: Research wind resource data, transmission infrastructure, and environmental factors to create a site plan and financial analysis for a hypothetical wind farm; and Connection Creation Contest: Partner with wind industry professionals, raise awareness of wind energy in your local community, and work with local media to promote your team's accomplishments. The competition does not prescribe a power system market or wind regime. It is expected that each team will participate in all four contests.

collegiate wind competition↗
DOE OSTI2024

U.S. Department of Energy Collegiate Wind Competition 2025: Rules - Phases 2 and 3

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Wind Energy Technologies Office's (WETO) Collegiate Wind Competition (CWC, also referred to as the "competition" in this rules document) invites interdisciplinary teams of undergraduate students from a variety of academic programs to solve complex wind energy challenges. Through the competition, WETO intends to offer students direct industry experience, valuable exposure to wind energy career pathways, and greater knowledge of wind energy's potential to contribute to a clean energy future. The competition will select up to 35 teams to start, making them eligible to compete for a cash prize pool of up to $280,000. Each year, the competition identifies a new challenge and set of activities that address real-world research questions, thus demonstrating skills that students will need to work in the wind or wider renewable energy industries. The Collegiate Wind Competition 2025 challenge requires participants to compete simultaneously in four contests: 1) Turbine Design Contest: Design, build, and present a unique, wind-driven power system. 2) Turbine Testing Contest: Test the wind turbine in a competition wind tunnel at the final event. 3) Project Development Contest: Research wind resource data, transmission infrastructure, and environmental factors to create a site plan and financial analysis for a hypothetical wind farm. 4) Connection Creation Contest: Partner with wind industry professionals, raise awareness of wind energy in your local community, and work with local media to promote your team's accomplishments. The competition does not prescribe a power system market or wind regime. It is expected that each team will participate in all four contests.

Collegiate Wind Competition↗
DOE OSTI2020

The Role of Competitions in Speeding Energy-Efficient Technology Development and Adoption

This conference paper, which will be submitted for publication in the 2020 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, describes competition approaches used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Building Technologies Office (BTO) and other government agencies to encourage the development and adoption of innovative new energy-efficient, high-performing products while spurring external competition to maximize limited resources. The competition model helps to disrupt traditional thinking and introduce, expand, and evolve what’s possible within limited resource conditions. DOE BTO has sponsored technology competitions, including campaigns, challenges, prizes, and technology procurements to speed the uptake of more efficient refrigerators, clothes washers, air conditioners, and many types of highly efficient lighting technologies, including compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and light-emitting diode LED-based home and office luminaires, replacement lamps, and street lighting. In this paper, we will draw upon the technology competition frameworks employed by DOE BTO to support ongoing research and development efforts to illustrate the differences between the approaches and to identify which type is likely to be the most effective in a given technology status and market context. We’ll also share examples of the various technology competition types and results. A question-and-answer table helps readers compare and contrast the four competition types. The paper concludes with a summary of lessons learned from past DOE BTO competitions. The paper will be available in the ACEEE 2020 Summer Study proceedings and a related presentation will be given at the conference.

U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Of↗
DOE OSTI2016

A new theory of plant–microbe nutrient competition resolves inconsistencies between observations and model predictions

Terrestrial plants assimilate anthropogenic CO 2 through photosynthesis and synthesizing new tissues. However, sustaining these processes requires plants to compete with microbes for soil nutrients, which therefore calls for an appropriate understanding and modeling of nutrient competition mechanisms in Earth System Models (ESMs). In this paper, we survey existing plant–microbe competition theories and their implementations in ESMs. We found no consensus regarding the representation of nutrient competition and that observational and theoretical support for current implementations are weak. To reconcile this situation, we applied the Equilibrium Chemistry Approximation (ECA) theory to plant–microbe nitrogen competition in a detailed grassland 15 N tracer study and found that competition theories in current ESMs fail to capture observed patterns and the ECA prediction simplifies the complex nature of nutrient competition and quantitatively matches the 15 N observations. Finally, since plant carbon dynamics are strongly modulated by soil nutrient acquisition, we conclude that (1) predicted nutrient limitation effects on terrestrial carbon accumulation by existing ESMs may be biased and (2) our ECA-based approach may improve predictions by mechanistically representing plant–microbe nutrient competition.

15N tracer↗
DOE OSTI2019

Improved learning from data competitions through strategic design of training and test data sets

Leveraging the depth and breadth of solutions generated through crowdsourcing can be a powerful accelerator to method development for high consequence problems. While data science competitions have become quite popular and prevalent, particularly in supervised learning formats, their implementations by the host are highly variable. Without careful planning, a supervised learning competition is vulnerable to overfitting, where the winning solutions are so closely tuned to the particular set of provided data that they cannot generalize to the general underlying problem of interest to the host. This paper outlines important considerations for strategically designing relevant and informative data sets to maximize the learning outcome from hosting a competition. These include: precisely defining the scope of the problem, encouraging participation by competitors from diverse technical backgrounds, specifying the most interesting solution space in order to encourage improvement and distinguish between competitors, strategically generating data sets that enable testing for interpolation and extrapolation to new scenarios of interest, leveraging design of experiment principles for strategic data design while preventing unintentional artifacts in the competition data set that an algorithm could exploit without addressing the real problem of interest, and carefully designing the leaderboard scoring metric to select top solutions that exactly match the overall competition goals. The methods are illustrated with a recently completed competition in the context of urban radiological search to evaluate algorithms capable of detecting, identifying, and locating radioactive materials. Simulated data were used in the urban search competition. Ideas for using measured real data in competitions are also suggested

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Incorporating uncertainty for enhanced leaderboard scoring and ranking in data competitions

Data competitions have become a popular and cost-effective approach for crowdsourcing versatile solutions from diverse expertise. Current practice relies on the simple leaderboard scoring based on a given set of competition data for ranking competitors and distributing the prize. However, a disadvantage of this practice in many competitions is that a slight difference in the scores due to the natural variability of the observed data could result in a much larger difference in the prize amounts. In this article, we propose a new strategy to quantify the uncertainty in the rankings and scores from using different data sets that share common characteristics with the provided competition data. By using a bootstrap approach to generate many comparable data sets, the new method has four advantages over current practice. Furthermore, during the competition, it provides a mechanism for competitors to get feedback about the uncertainty in their relative ranking. After the competition, it allows the host to gain a deeper understanding of the algorithm performance and their robustness across representative data sets. It also offers a transparent mechanism for prize distribution to reward the competitors more fairly with superior and robust performance. Finally, it has the additional advantage of being able to explore what results might have looked like if competition goals evolved from their original choices. The implementation of the strategy is illustrated with a real data competition hosted by Topcoder on urban radiation search.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2016

Multiple soil nutrient competition between plants, microbes, and mineral surfaces: model development, parameterization, and example applications in several tropical forests

Soil is a complex system where biotic (e.g., plant roots, micro-organisms) and abiotic (e.g., mineral surfaces) consumers compete for resources necessary for life (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus). This competition is ecologically significant, since it regulates the dynamics of soil nutrients and controls aboveground plant productivity. Here we develop, calibrate and test a nutrient competition model that accounts for multiple soil nutrients interacting with multiple biotic and abiotic consumers. As applied here for tropical forests, the Nutrient COMpetition model (N-COM) includes three primary soil nutrients (NH 4 + , NO 3 − and PO x ; representing the sum of PO 4 3− , HPO 4 2− and H 2 PO 4 − ) and five potential competitors (plant roots, decomposing microbes, nitrifiers, denitrifiers and mineral surfaces). The competition is formulated with a quasi-steady-state chemical equilibrium approximation to account for substrate (multiple substrates share one consumer) and consumer (multiple consumers compete for one substrate) effects. N-COM successfully reproduced observed soil heterotrophic respiration, N 2 O emissions, free phosphorus, sorbed phosphorus and NH 4 + pools at a tropical forest site (Tapajos). The overall model uncertainty was moderately well constrained. Our sensitivity analysis revealed that soil nutrient competition was primarily regulated by consumer–substrate affinity rather than environmental factors such as soil temperature or soil moisture. Our results also imply that under strong nutrient limitation, relative competitiveness depends strongly on the competitor functional traits (affinity and nutrient carrier enzyme abundance). We then applied the N-COM model to analyze field nitrogen and phosphorus perturbation experiments in two tropical forest sites (in Hawaii and Puerto Rico) not used in model development or calibration. Under soil inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus elevated conditions, the model accurately replicated the experimentally observed competition among nutrient consumers. Although we used as many observations as we could obtain, more nutrient addition experiments in tropical systems would greatly benefit model testing and calibration. In summary, the N-COM model provides an ecologically consistent representation of nutrient competition appropriate for land BGC models integrated in Earth System Models.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2009

Lunar Regolith Excavation Competition

The Lunar Regolith Excavation Competition is a new competition that needs graphics, logos, rules, as well as an arena. Although this is the first year of the competition, the competition is modeled after an existing competition, the Centennial Lunar Excavator Challenge. This competition however is aimed at college students. This makes the challenge identifying key aspects of the original competition and modeling them to fit into an easier task, and creating exciting advertisement that helps encourage participation. By using a youth focus group, young insight, as well as guiding advice from experts in the field, hopefully an arena can be designed and built, rules can be molded and created to fit, and alluring graphics can be printed to bring about a successful first year of the Lunar Regolith Excavation Competition.

Liles, Cassandra↗
NASA NTRS2018

NASA's Centennial Challenge for 3D-Printed Habitat: Phase II Outcomes and Phase III Competition Overview

The 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge is part of NASA's Centennial Challenges Program. NASA's Centennial Challenges seek to accelerate innovation in aerospace technology development through public competitions. The 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge, launched in 2015, is part of the Centennial Challenges portfolio and focuses on habitat design and development of large-scale additive construction systems capable of fabricating structures from in situ materials and/or mission recyclables. The challenge is a partnership between NASA, Caterpillar (primary sponsor), Bechtel, Brick and Mortar Ventures, and Bradley University. Phase I of the challenge was an architectural concept competition in which participants generated conceptual renderings of habitats on Mars which could be constructed using locally available resources. Phase II asked teams to develop the printing systems and material formulations needed to translate these designs into reality. Work under the phase II competition, which concluded in August 2017 with a head to head competition at Caterpillar's Edward Demonstration Facility in Peoria, Illinois, is discussed, including the key technology development outcomes resulting from this portion of the competition. The phase III competition consists of both virtual and construction subcompetitions. Virtual construction asks teams to render high fidelity architectural models of a habitat and all the accompanying information required for construction of the pressure retaining and load bearing portions of the structure. In construction phase III, teams are asked to scale up their printing systems to produce a 1/3 scale habitat on-site at Caterpillar. The levels of the phase III construction competition (which include printing of a foundation and printing and hydrostatic testing of a habitat element) are discussed. Phase III construction also has an increased focus on autonomy, as these systems are envisioned for robotic precursor missions which would buildup infrastructure prior to the arrival of crew. Results of the phase III competition through July 2017 (which includes virtual construction level 1) are discussed. This Centennial Challenge enables an assessment of the scaleability and efficacy of various processes, material systems, and designs for planetary construction. There are also near-term terrestrial applications, from disaster response to affordable housing and infrastructure refurbishment, for these technologies.

Prater, T. J.↗
DOE OSTI2024

ARPA-E Grid Optimization (GO) Competition Challenge 1

The ARPA-E Grid Optimization (GO) Competition Challenge 1, from 2018 to 2019, focused on the basic Security Constrained AC Optimal Power Flow problem (SCOPF) for a single time period. The Challenge utilized sets of unique datasets generated by the ARPA-E GRID DATA program. Each dataset consisted of a collection of power system network models of different sizes with associated operating scenarios (snapshots in time defining instantaneous power demand, renewable generation, generator and line availability, etc.). The datasets were of two types: Real-Time, which included starting-point information, and Online, which did not. Week-Ahead data is also provided for some cases but was not used in the Competition. Although most datasets were synthetic and generated by GRIDDATA, a few came from industry and were only used in the Final Event. All synthetic Input Data and Team Results for the GO Competition Challenge 1 for the Sandbox, Trial Events 1 to 3, and the Final Event along with problem, format, scoring and rules descriptions are available here. Data for industry scenarios will not be made public. Challenge 1, a minimization problem, required two computational steps. Solver 1 or Code 1 solved the base SCOPF problem under a strict wall clock time limit, as would be the case in industry, and reported the base case operating point as output, which was used to compute the Objective Function value that was used as the scenario score. The feasibility of the solution was provided by the Solver 2 or Code 2, which solves the power flow problem for all contingencies based on the results from Solver 1. This is not normally done in industry, so the time limits were relaxed. In fact, there were no time limits for Trial Event 1. This proved to be a mistake, with some codes running for more than 90 hours, and a time limit of 2 seconds per contingency was imposed for all other events. Entrants were free to use their own Solver 2 or use an open-source version provided by the Competition. Containers, such as Docker, were considered to improve the portability of codes, but none that could reliably support a multi-node parallel computing environment, e.g., MPI, could be found. For more information on the competition and challenge see the "GO Competition Challenge 1 Information" and "GO Competition Challenge 1 Additional Information" resources below.

ACOPF↗
DOE OSTI2014

U.S. Wind Energy Manufacturing and Supply Chain: A Competitiveness Analysis

The goal of the project was to develop a greater understanding of the key factors determining wind energy component manufacturing costs and pricing on a global basis in order to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers, and to reduce installed systems cost. Multiple stakeholders including DOE, turbine OEMs, and large component manufactures will all benefit by better understanding the factors determining domestic competitiveness in the emerging offshore and next generation land-based wind industries. Major objectives of this project were to: 1. Carry out global cost and process comparisons for 5MW jacket foundations, blades, towers, and permanent magnet generators; 2. Assess U.S. manufacturers’ competitiveness and potential for cost reduction; 3. Facilitate informed decision-making on investments in U.S. manufacturing; 4. Develop an industry scorecard representing the readiness of the U.S. manufacturers’ to produce components for the next generations of wind turbines, nominally 3MW land-based and 5MW offshore; 5. Disseminate results through the GLWN Wind Supply Chain GIS Map, a free website that is the most comprehensive public database of U.S. wind energy suppliers; 6. Identify areas and develop recommendations to DOE on potential R&D areas to target for increasing domestic manufacturing competitiveness, per DOE’s Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative (CEMI). Lists of Deliverables 1. Cost Breakdown Competitive Analyses of four product categories: tower, jacket foundation, blade, and permanent magnet (PM) generator. The cost breakdown for each component includes a complete Bill of Materials with net weights; general process steps for labor; and burden adjusted by each manufacturer for their process categories of SGA (sales general and administrative), engineering, logistics cost to a common U.S. port, and profit. 2. Value Stream Map Competitiveness Analysis: A tool that illustrates both information and material flow from the point of getting a customer order at the manufacturing plant; to the orders being forwarded by the manufacturing plant to the material suppliers; to the material being received at the manufacturing plant and processed through the system; to the final product being shipped to the Customer. 3. Competitiveness Scorecard: GLWN developed a Wind Industry Supply Chain Scorecard that reflects U.S. component manufacturers’ readiness to supply the next generation wind turbines, 3MW and 5MW, for land-based and offshore applications. 4. Wind Supply Chain Database & Map: Expand the current GLWN GIS Wind Supply Chain Map to include offshore elements. This is an on-line, free access, wind supply chain map that provides a platform for identifying active and emerging suppliers for the land-based and offshore wind industry, including turbine component manufacturers and wind farm construction service suppliers.

17 WIND ENERGY↗