Results for “facility” — Page 5

NASA NTRS2008

Computational Analyses in Support of Sub-scale Diffuser Testing for the A-3 Facility: Steady Predictions - Part 1

Simulation technology can play an important role in rocket engine test facility design and development by assessing risks, providing analysis of dynamic pressure and thermal loads, identifying failure modes and predicting anomalous behavior of critical systems. Advanced numerical tools assume greater significance in supporting testing and design of high altitude testing facilities and plume induced testing environments of high thrust engines because of the greater inter-dependence and synergy in the functioning of the different sub-systems. This is especially true for facilities such as the proposed A-3 facility at NASA SSC because of a challenging operating envelope linked to variable throttle conditions at relatively low chamber pressures. Facility designs in this case will require a complex network of diffuser ducts, steam ejector trains, fast operating valves, cooling water systems and flow diverters that need to be characterized for steady state performance. In this paper, we will demonstrate with the use of CFD analyses s advanced capability to evaluate supersonic diffuser and steam ejector performance in a sub-scale A-3 facility at NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) where extensive testing was performed. Furthermore, the focus in this paper relates to modeling of critical sub-systems and components used in facilities such as the A-3 facility. The work here will address deficiencies in empirical models and current CFD analyses that are used for design of supersonic diffusers/turning vanes/ejectors as well as analyses for confined plumes and venting processes. The primary areas that will be addressed are: (1) supersonic diffuser performance including analyses of thermal loads (2) accurate shock capturing in the diffuser duct; (3) effect of turning duct on the performance of the facility (4) prediction of mass flow rates and performance classification for steam ejectors (5) comparisons with test data from sub-scale diffuser testing and assessment of confidence levels in CFD based flowpath modeling of the facility. The analyses tools used here expand on the multi-element unstructured CFD which has been tailored and validated for impingement dynamics of dry plumes, complex valve/feed systems, and high pressure propellant delivery systems used in engine and component test stands at NASA SSC. The analyses performed in the evaluation of the sub-scale diffuser facility explored several important factors that influence modeling and understanding of facility operation such as (a) importance of modeling the facility with Real Gas approximation, (b) approximating the cluster of steam ejector nozzles as a single annular nozzle, (c) existence of mixed subsonic/supersonic flow downstream of the turning duct, and (d) inadequacy of two-equation turbulence models in predicting the correct pressurization in the turning duct and expansion of the second stage steam ejectors. The procedure used for modeling the facility was as follows: (i) The engine, test cell and first stage ejectors were simulated with an axisymmetric approximation (ii) the turning duct, second stage ejectors and the piping downstream of the second stage ejectors were analyzed with a three-dimensional simulation utilizing a half-plane symmetry approximation. The solution i.e. primitive variables such as pressure, velocity components, temperature and turbulence quantities were passed from the first computational domain and specified as a supersonic boundary condition for the second simulation. (iii) The third domain comprised of the exit diffuser and the region in the vicinity of the facility (primary included to get the correct shock structure at the exit of the facility and entrainment characteristics). The first set of simulations comprising the engine, test cell and first stage ejectors was carried out both as a turbulent real gas calculation as well as a turbulent perfect gas calculation. A comparison for the two cases (Real Turbulent and Perfect gas turbulent) of the Ma Number distribution and temperature distributions are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively. The Mach Number distribution shows small yet distinct differences between the two cases such as locations of shocks/shock reflections and a slightly different impingement point on the wall of the diffuser from the expansion at the exit of the nozzle. Similarly the temperature distribution indicates different flow recirculation patterns in the test cell. Both cases capture all the essential flow phenomena such as the shock-boundary layer interaction, plume expansion, expansion of the first stage ejectors, mixing between the engine plume and the first stage ejector flow and pressurization due to the first stage ejectors. The final paper will discuss thermal loads on the walls of the diffuser and cooling mechanisms investigated.

Allgood, Daniel C.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Computational Analyses in Support of Sub-scale Diffuser Testing for the A-3 Facility: Steady Predictions - Part 1

Simulation technology can play an important role in rocket engine test facility design and development by assessing risks, providing analysis of dynamic pressure and thermal loads, identifying failure modes and predicting anomalous behavior of critical systems. Advanced numerical tools assume greater significance in supporting testing and design of high altitude testing facilities and plume induced testing environments of high thrust engines because of the greater inter-dependence and synergy in the functioning of the different sub-systems. This is especially true for facilities such as the proposed A-3 facility at NASA SSC because of a challenging operating envelope linked to variable throttle conditions at relatively low chamber pressures. Facility designs in this case will require a complex network of diffuser ducts, steam ejector trains, fast operating valves, cooling water systems and flow diverters that need to be characterized for steady state performance. In this paper, we will demonstrate with the use of CFD analyses s advanced capability to evaluate supersonic diffuser and steam ejector performance in a sub-scale A-3 facility at NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) where extensive testing was performed. Furthermore, the focus in this paper relates to modeling of critical sub-systems and components used in facilities such as the A-3 facility. The work here will address deficiencies in empirical models and current CFD analyses that are used for design of supersonic diffusers/turning vanes/ejectors as well as analyses for confined plumes and venting processes. The primary areas that will be addressed are: (1) supersonic diffuser performance including analyses of thermal loads (2) accurate shock capturing in the diffuser duct; (3) effect of turning duct on the performance of the facility (4) prediction of mass flow rates and performance classification for steam ejectors (5) comparisons with test data from sub-scale diffuser testing and assessment of confidence levels in CFD based flowpath modeling of the facility. The analyses tools used here expand on the multi-element unstructured CFD which has been tailored and validated for impingement dynamics of dry plumes, complex valve/feed systems, and high pressure propellant delivery systems used in engine and component test stands at NASA SSC. The analyses performed in the evaluation of the sub-scale diffuser facility explored several important factors that influence modeling and understanding of facility operation such as (a) importance of modeling the facility with Real Gas approximation, (b) approximating the cluster of steam ejector nozzles as a single annular nozzle, (c) existence of mixed subsonic/supersonic flow downstream of the turning duct, and (d) inadequacy of two-equation turbulence models in predicting the correct pressurization in the turning duct and expansion of the second stage steam ejectors. The procedure used for modeling the facility was as follows: (i) The engine, test cell and first stage ejectors were simulated with an axisymmetric approximation (ii) the turning duct, second stage ejectors and the piping downstream of the second stage ejectors were analyzed with a three-dimensional simulation utilizing a half-plane symmetry approximation. The solution i.e. primitive variables such as pressure, velocity components, temperature and turbulence quantities were passed from the first computational domain and specified as a supersonic boundary condition for the second simulation. (iii) The third domain comprised of the exit diffuser and the region in the vicinity of the facility (primary included to get the correct shock structure at the exit of the facility and entrainment characteristics). The first set of simulations comprising the engine, test cell and first stage ejectors was carried out both as a turbulent real gas calculation as well as a turbulent perfect gas calculation. A comparison for the two cases (Real Turbulent and Perfect gas turbulent) of the Ma Number distribution and temperature distributions are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively.

Allgood, Daniel C.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Designing Facilities for Collaborative Operations

A methodology for designing operational facilities for collaboration by multiple experts has begun to take shape as an outgrowth of a project to design such facilities for scientific operations of the planned 2003 Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission. The methodology could also be applicable to the design of military "situation rooms" and other facilities for terrestrial missions. It was recognized in this project that modern mission operations depend heavily upon the collaborative use of computers. It was further recognized that tests have shown that layout of a facility exerts a dramatic effect on the efficiency and endurance of the operations staff. The facility designs (for example, see figure) and the methodology developed during the project reflect this recognition. One element of the methodology is a metric, called effective capacity, that was created for use in evaluating proposed MER operational facilities and may also be useful for evaluating other collaboration spaces, including meeting rooms and military situation rooms. The effective capacity of a facility is defined as the number of people in the facility who can be meaningfully engaged in its operations. A person is considered to be meaningfully engaged if the person can (1) see, hear, and communicate with everyone else present; (2) see the material under discussion (typically data on a piece of paper, computer monitor, or projection screen); and (3) provide input to the product under development by the group. The effective capacity of a facility is less than the number of people that can physically fit in the facility. For example, a typical office that contains a desktop computer has an effective capacity of .4, while a small conference room that contains a projection screen has an effective capacity of around 10. Little or no benefit would be derived from allowing the number of persons in an operational facility to exceed its effective capacity: At best, the operations staff would be underutilized; at worst, operational performance would deteriorate. Elements of this methodology were applied to the design of three operations facilities for a series of rover field tests. These tests were observed by human-factors researchers and their conclusions are being used to refine and extend the methodology to be used in the final design of the MER operations facility. Further work is underway to evaluate the use of personal digital assistant (PDA) units as portable input interfaces and communication devices in future mission operations facilities. A PDA equipped for wireless communication and Ethernet, Bluetooth, or another networking technology would cost less than a complete computer system, and would enable a collaborator to communicate electronically with computers and with other collaborators while moving freely within the virtual environment created by a shared immersive graphical display.

Norris, Jeffrey↗

NASA NTRS1993

Research and test facilities

A description is given of each of the following Langley research and test facilities: 0.3-Meter Transonic Cryogenic Tunnel, 7-by 10-Foot High Speed Tunnel, 8-Foot Transonic Pressure Tunnel, 13-Inch Magnetic Suspension & Balance System, 14-by 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel, 16-Foot Transonic Tunnel, 16-by 24-Inch Water Tunnel, 20-Foot Vertical Spin Tunnel, 30-by 60-Foot Wind Tunnel, Advanced Civil Transport Simulator (ACTS), Advanced Technology Research Laboratory, Aerospace Controls Research Laboratory (ACRL), Aerothermal Loads Complex, Aircraft Landing Dynamics Facility (ALDF), Avionics Integration Research Laboratory, Basic Aerodynamics Research Tunnel (BART), Compact Range Test Facility, Differential Maneuvering Simulator (DMS), Enhanced/Synthetic Vision & Spatial Displays Laboratory, Experimental Test Range (ETR) Flight Research Facility, General Aviation Simulator (GAS), High Intensity Radiated Fields Facility, Human Engineering Methods Laboratory, Hypersonic Facilities Complex, Impact Dynamics Research Facility, Jet Noise Laboratory & Anechoic Jet Facility, Light Alloy Laboratory, Low Frequency Antenna Test Facility, Low Turbulence Pressure Tunnel, Mechanics of Metals Laboratory, National Transonic Facility (NTF), NDE Research Laboratory, Polymers & Composites Laboratory, Pyrotechnic Test Facility, Quiet Flow Facility, Robotics Facilities, Scientific Visualization System, Scramjet Test Complex, Space Materials Research Laboratory, Space Simulation & Environmental Test Complex, Structural Dynamics Research Laboratory, Structural Dynamics Test Beds, Structures & Materials Research Laboratory, Supersonic Low Disturbance Pilot Tunnel, Thermal Acoustic Fatigue Apparatus (TAFA), Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT), Transport Systems Research Vehicle, Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel, and the Visual Motion Simulator (VMS).

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) Assessment Study (MSAS)

NASA, in partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA), is seeking to return Martian geological and atmospheric samples to Earth for scientific study in the early 2030s. Due to the possibility that the samples could contain extraterrestrial life, Mars Sample Return (MSR) is classified as a Category V: Restricted Earth Return mission by the NASA Planetary Protection Office. As a result of this classification, a MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) must not only provide a pristine environment to ensure samples are protected from terrestrial contamination for scientific investigations, it must also provide high-containment (biosafety level 4 [BSL-4]-equivalence) to isolate the samples from Earth’s biosphere until the samples are deemed safe for release and/or sterilized. The nominal utilization period for a SRF is anticipated to be 2-5 years and is intended to enable curation activities, biohazard assessment, select early science activities, and the rapid release of samples to the scientific community. However, to account for possible delays in schedule or the identification of extant life, this anticipated period of time must be flexible to accommodate schedule extensions and contingency plans. Due to requirements for high-level biological containment and cleanliness, a traditional receiving/curation facility cannot be utilized for MSR. Therefore, beginning in 2022, NASA Johnson Space Center is performing a MSR SRF Assessment Study (MSAS) to investigate the most optimal facility modality for a MSR SRF, as well as start to define programmatic early estimate of costs and schedules before the initial design phase begins. NASA is partnering with industry contractors (architectural and engineering firms with BSL-4 and cleanroom technology experience, as well as other contracted infrastructure and construction specialists) along with selected experts from NASA, ESA, existing U.S. BSL-4 facilities, and other U.S. government agencies, to carry out the assessment study. The MSAS should also aid in the future refinement of the science requirements (e.g., contamination control, equipment accommodations) before site-specific design would commence. As part of the MSAS, NASA is planning to assess an array of possibilities for a MSR SRF. One of the main considerations is the facility modality and whether an existing BSL-4 facility can be utilized (for some or all functions); or, if new constructure would be required, would a traditional fixed facility or a modular facility the best choice. MSAS will also investigate the ability of the modalities to accommodate two different facility capability endmembers: 1) a minimal facility focusing on biohazard assessment and curation tasks with a small footprint, and 2) an enhanced facility with additional capabilities to enable expedited processing and the completion of time-sensitive and (some) sterilization-sensitive science. The assessment is intended to generate information that will inform the selection of facility modalities for high-level conceptual design development. While the assessment study will focus on SRF requirements for accommodating curation, science, and sample safety assessment infrastructure, it will also consider an array of other factors, such as ease of access for international users, decommissioning, repurposing, future sale or lease following MSR’s use of the facility, and uncontained preparatory laboratory spaces. Upon completion of the study, the preferred modality and refined requirements would be utilized for site-specific design but will not be finalized until NASA’s completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

A.D. Harrington↗

NASA NTRS1998

Refurbishment and Automation of the Thermal/Vacuum Facilities at the Goddard Space Flight Center

The thermal/vacuum facilities located at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) have supported both manned and unmanned space flight since the 1960s. Of the 11 facilities, currently 10 of the systems are scheduled for refurbishment and/or replacement as part of a 5-year implementation. Expected return on investment includes the reduction in test schedules, improvements in the safety of facility operations, reduction in the complexity of a test and the reduction in personnel support required for a test. Additionally, GSFC will become a global resource renowned for expertise in thermal engineering, mechanical engineering and for the automation of thermal/vacuum facilities and thermal/vacuum tests. Automation of the thermal/vacuum facilities includes the utilization of Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) and the use of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. These components allow the computer control and automation of mechanical components such as valves and pumps. In some cases, the chamber and chamber shroud require complete replacement while others require only mechanical component retrofit or replacement. The project of refurbishment and automation began in 1996 and has resulted in the computer control of one Facility (Facility #225) and the integration of electronically controlled devices and PLCs within several other facilities. Facility 225 has been successfully controlled by PLC and SCADA for over one year. Insignificant anomalies have occurred and were resolved with minimal impact to testing and operations. The amount of work remaining to be performed will occur over the next four to five years. Fiscal year 1998 includes the complete refurbishment of one facility, computer control of the thermal systems in two facilities, implementation of SCADA and PLC systems to support multiple facilities and the implementation of a Database server to allow efficient test management and data analysis.

Donohue, John T.↗

NASA NTRS2005

D-Side: A Facility and Workforce Planning Group Multi-criteria Decision Support System for Johnson Space Center

"To understand and protect our home planet, to explore the universe and search for life, and to inspire the next generation of explorers" is NASA's mission. The Systems Management Office at Johnson Space Center (JSC) is searching for methods to effectively manage the Center's resources to meet NASA's mission. D-Side is a group multi-criteria decision support system (GMDSS) developed to support facility decisions at JSC. D-Side uses a series of sequential and structured processes to plot facilities in a three-dimensional (3-D) graph on the basis of each facility alignment with NASA's mission and goals, the extent to which other facilities are dependent on the facility, and the dollar value of capital investments that have been postponed at the facility relative to the facility replacement value. A similarity factor rank orders facilities based on their Euclidean distance from Ideal and Nadir points. These similarity factors are then used to allocate capital improvement resources across facilities. We also present a parallel model that can be used to support decisions concerning allocation of human resources investments across workforce units. Finally, we present results from a pilot study where 12 experienced facility managers from NASA used D-Side and the organization's current approach to rank order and allocate funds for capital improvement across 20 facilities. Users evaluated D-Side favorably in terms of ease of use, the quality of the decision-making process, decision quality, and overall value-added. Their evaluations of D-Side were significantly more favorable than their evaluations of the current approach. Keywords: NASA, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Decision Support System, AHP, Euclidean Distance, 3-D Modeling, Facility Planning, Workforce Planning.

Tavana, Madjid↗

DOE OSTI2025

Findings on subtask 3.3 – applicability of automated brine chemistry determinations for treatment and recovery processes through facility automation/modularization: engineering design study

Under the Energy & Environmental Research Center’s (EERC’s) ~$\$$22 million Phase II Brine Extraction and Storage Test (BEST) Program, a multimillion-dollar brine treatment technology test bed facility was established in western North Dakota to provide a platform for evaluating developing technologies and approaches for brine treatment and volume reduction. The initial facility, and associated research effort, was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), with in-kind contributions provided by several industry participants and the state of North Dakota. Since its opening, the Brine Technology Test Facility (BTTF) has supported performance evaluations of desalination technologies capable of treating high-salinity produced water (PW) and enabled data collection for multiple approaches of PW management and critical material recovery. As part of the decommissioning process for the original project, facility ownership and liability were transferred to Select Water, which is providing the EERC with a continuing site access option for state or federal research and/or commercial technology development. This report documents the findings from a design study conducted by the EERC and the engineering firm that was originally contracted to design and construct the facility (Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC [AE2S]) that evaluated the current status of BTTF and its systems and developed a retrofit design to increase the facility’s capabilities through automation and modularization of its PW treatment infrastructure. The proposed retrofit will provide DOE and industry with an expanded range of conditioned PW that can be produced at the facility for evaluating fit-for-purpose water treatment technologies, online instrumentation for brine chemistry determination, and systems that recover critical materials like lithium and magnesium. The current facility consists of an 9600-square-foot facility that includes a 40-foot by 65-foot Class 1, Division 2-rated demonstration area and associated control rooms and lab-ready space capable of sourcing oil and gas PW and wastewater from industrial sources or tailoring brine compositions up to 300,000 mg/L total dissolved solids (TDS) and supplying them at rates up to 25 gpm for extended-duration technology demonstrations. The colocation of the facility with Select Water’s water management facilities allows for access and unloading of more than 10,000 bbl/day of trucked water delivered to site and associated access to on-site Class I and Class II brine disposal wells and nearby hazardous waste landfills operated and/or contracted by Select Water to dispose of concentrate and/or effluents associated with the testing.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

NASA NTRS1991

Nuclear electric propulsion development and qualification facilities

This paper summarizes the findings of a Tri-Agency panel consisting of members from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that were charged with reviewing the status and availability of facilities to test components and subsystems for megawatt-class nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) systems. The facilities required to support development of NEP are available in NASA centers, DOE laboratories, and industry. However, several key facilities require significant and near-term modification in order to perform the testing required to meet a 2014 launch date. For the higher powered Mars cargo and piloted missions, the priority established for facility preparation is: (1) a thruster developmental testing facility, (2) a thruster lifetime testing facility, (3) a dynamic energy conversion development and demonstration facility, and (4) an advanced reactor testing facility (if required to demonstrate an advanced multiwatt power system). Facilities to support development of the power conditioning and heat rejection subsystems are available in industry, federal laboratories, and universities. In addition to the development facilities, a new preflight qualifications and acceptance testing facility will be required to support the deployment of NEP systems for precursor, cargo, or piloted Mars missions. Because the deployment strategy for NEP involves early demonstration missions, the demonstration of the SP-100 power system is needed by the early 2000's.

Dutt, D. S.↗

NASA NTRS1977

Construction bidding cost of KSC's space shuttle facilities

The bidding cost of the major Space Transportation System facilities constructed under the responsibility of the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is described and listed. These facilities and Ground Support Equipment (GSE) are necessary for the receiving, assembly, testing, and checkout of the Space Shuttle for launch and landing missions at KSC. The Shuttle launch configuration consists of the Orbiter, the External Tank, and the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB). The reusable Orbiter and SRB's is the major factor in the program that will result in lowering space travel costs. The new facilities are the Landing Facility; Orbiter Processing Facility; Orbiter Approach and Landing Test Facility (Dryden Test Center, California); Orbiter Mating Devices; Sound Suppression Water System; and Emergency Power System for LC-39. Also, a major factor was to use as much Apollo facilities and hardware as possible to reduce the facilities cost. The alterations to existing Apollo facilities are the VAB modifications; Mobile Launcher Platforms; Launch Complex 39 Pads A and B (which includes a new concept - the Rotary Service Structure), which was featured in ENR, 3 Feb. 1977, 'Hinged Space Truss will Support Shuttle Cargo Room'; Launch Control Center mods; External Tank and SRB Processing and Storage; Fluid Test Complex mods; O&C Spacelab mods; Shuttle mods for Parachute Facility; SRB Recovery and Disassembly Facility at Hangar 'AF'; and an interesting GSE item - the SRB Dewatering Nozzle Plug Sets (Remote Controlled Submarine System) used to inspect and acquire for reuse of SRB's.

Brown, Joseph Andrew↗

NASA NTRS2004

Refining the W1 and SE1 Facilities

The Engine Research Building (ERB) houses more than 60 test rigs that study all aspects of engine development. By working with Mary Gibson in the SE1 and W1A Turbine Facilities, I became aware of her responsibilities and better acquainted with the inner workings of the ERB. The SE1 Supersonic/Subsonic Wind Tunnel Facility contains 2 small wind tunnels. The first tunnel uses an atmospheric inlet, while the second uses treated 40-psig air. Both of the tunnels are capable of subsonic and supersonic operation. An auxiliary air supply and exhaust piping providing both test sections with suction, blowing, and crossfire capabilities. The current configuration of SE1 consists of a curved diffuser that studies the blockage along the endwalls. The W1A Low Speed Compressor Facility provides insight for the complex flow phenomena within its 4-stage axial compressor, sand the data obtained from W 1A is used to develop advanced models for fluid dynamic assessment. W1A is based off of a low speed research compressor developed by GE in the 1950's. This compressor has a removable casing treatment under rotor 1, which allows for various tip treatment studies. The increased size and low speed allows instrumentation to be located in the compressor s complex flow paths. Air enters the facility through a filtered roof vent, conditioned for temperature and turbulence, and then passed through the compressor W1A is described as a dynamic facility with many projects taking place simultaneously. This current environment makes it challenging to follow the various affairs that are taking place within the area. During my first 4 weeks at the NASA Glenn Research Center, I have assisted Mary Gibson in multiple tasks such as facility documents, record keeping, maintenance and upgrades. The facility has lube systems for its gearbox and compressor. These systems are critical in the successful operation of the facility. I was assigned the task of creating a facility estimate list, which included the filters and strainers required for the compressor. For my remaining time spent here, we expect to complete a facility parts listing and a virtual project summary so that W1A and SE1 will become ergonomic facilities that will make it easier for people to observe the capabilities and history of the area and the employees that operate. Bolstering our efforts in achieving these goal are the online technical tutorials, software such as Microsoft Excel. Macromedia Flash MX Macromedia Dreamweaver MX, Photoshop 6.0 and the assistance of several NASA employees.

Chambers, Rodney D.↗

DOE OSTI2025

Calculating Methane Emissions from Offshore Facilities Using Bottom-Up Methods

With changing demands in regulation, understanding methane emissions from offshore oil and gas production infrastructure has become increasingly important. Reported emissions from facilities in the Gulf of Mexico range from zero to thousands of tons of methane per hour, but these is currently no clear understanding of how this range compares to expected emissions from normally operating facilities. To generate realistic emission estimates, we create two bottom-up models that simulate emissions from facilities operating in the Gulf of Mexico. We estimate type 1 prototypical facilities (typically unmanned, older, lower-producing platforms in shallow water with little processing equipment, compressors, or storage tanks) to emit an average of 13 kg CH 4 h −1 , which corresponds to a loss of 2.7% of the average facility production. Type 2 prototypical facilities (continuously manned, higher production and operate in deeper water with processing equipment, oil storage tanks, compressors and power generation) emit an average of 88 kg CH 4 h −1 , which corresponds to a loss of 2.5% of production. The average measured emission from type 1 facilities was 18 kg CH 4 h −1 with a median production loss estimated at 8%. The average measured emission from type 2 facilities was 36 kg CH 4 h −1 with a median production loss estimated at 2.4%. Using emission factors that consider the long-tail emission distribution partly reconciles the difference between modelled and measured emission estimates, but we suggest the current the fugitive emission estimate may be an underestimate and more data on the number and size of fugitive emissions could explain differences between the modelled and measured emission estimate. We suggest the bottom-up approach described here that uses production data coupled with facility equipment could be used to identify facilities that have abnormally large measured emissions, caused by methodological failure or larger than expected fugitive emissions, which should be targeted for further evaluation resulting in remeasurement or identification of source type so that a more accurate estimates can be made on the absolute emission.

bottom-up↗

DOE OSTI2025

A census of fish passage facilities at US hydropower developments across the conterminous United States

Hydropower provides reliable and secure electricity and contributes significantly to the flexibility and stability of the US electricity grid. Hydropower dams generally are aquatic barriers and hazards to migratory fish in rivers. Fish passage facilities mitigate risks from hydropower to migratory fish, but information on these facilities is incomplete for the conterminous United States (CONUS). Here, we present the first CONUS-scale dataset of fish passage facilities at US hydropower developments in over 30 years. The existence of fish passage facilities (presence or absence) was specified for 1909 hydropower features, 390 of which had at least one facility. Most features had a single passage facility that provided passage in only one direction, with downstream being more common than upstream passage. Bypasses and ladders accounted for 60 % of the fish passage facility types. While we documented 659 fish passage facilities across CONUS, facilities were most common in the New England, Pacific Northwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Great Lakes regions. In general, fish passage facilities were more common at features that were closer to the ocean, at lower elevations, and at shorter dams, but not related to installed electrical generation capacity. Hydrologic sub-basins containing salmonids also contained the largest number of hydropower features, but the proportion of features with passage was generally higher in sub-basins containing multiple migratory taxa. This census provides valuable information on existing fish passage mitigation and is a benchmark to gauge progress toward a modernized hydropower fleet that provides affordable, reliable energy while protecting fishery resources and river ecosystems.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

NASA NTRS1986

Orbital transfer vehicle launch operations study: Manpower summary and facility requirements, volume 5

All manpower numbers, number of heads (by skill), serial time and manhours have been accumulated and compiled on a per subtask basis in spreadsheet format for both the ground based and the space based data flows. To aid in identifying the facility resources required to process the Ground Based Orbital Transfer Vehicle (GBOTV) and/or the space based orbital transfer vehicle (SBOTV) through the ground facilities at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), a software application package was developed using a general purpose data base management system known as Data Flex. The facility requirements are used as the basic input to this software application. The resources of the KSC facility that could be used by orbital transfer vehicle program were digitized in the same format used to identify facility requirements. The facility capabilities were digitized in this format for subsequent, automated comparative analyses. Composite facility requirements are compared to each of the baseline facility capabilities and the system generates a relative score that indicates how each facility weighs against the composite requirements in relation to the other facilities in the set.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1988

Small engine components test facility turbine testing cell

NASA Lewis Research Center has designed and constructed a new state-of-the-art test facility. This facility, called the Small Engine Components Test Facility (SECTF), is used to test gas turbines and compressors at conditions similar to actual engine conditions. The SECTF is comprised of two separate facilities - a turbine test cell and a compressor test cell. The paper will describe the turbine test cell. The capabilities of the facility make it unique - no other facility of its kind is capable of combining its pressure, speed, and temperature ranges. Turbine inlet air ranges up to 9 atm (125 psig). The turbine exhaust pressure ranges from 0.15 atm (2 psia) to atmospheric pressure. Turbine inlet air temperatures range from ambient to 700 K (1260 deg R). The controllable speed of the turbine rotor ranges from 4000 to 60,000 rpm and the maximum power absorbed by the facility dynamometer is 1250 hp. The data acquisition system scans up to 2000 channels/sec. This paper will discuss in detail the capabilities of the facility, overall facility design, instrumentation used in the facility, and the data acquisition system. Actual research data is not discussed.

Nowlin, Brent C.↗

NASA NTRS1988

Small engine components test facility turbine testing cell

NASA Lewis Research Center has designed and constructed a new state-of-the-art test facility. This facility, called the Small Engine Components Test Facility (SECTF), is used to test gas turbines and compressors at conditions similar to actual engine conditions. The SECTF is comprised of two separate facilities - a turbine test cell and a compressor test cell. The paper will describe the turbine test cell. The capabilities of the facility make it unique - no other facility of its kind is capable of combining its pressure, speed, and temperature ranges. Turbine inlet air ranges up to 9 atm (125 psig). The turbine exhaust pressure ranges from 0.15 atm (2 psia) to atmospheric pressure. Turbine inlet air temperatures range from ambient to 700 K (1260 deg R). The controllable speed of the turbine rotor ranges from 4000 to 60,000 rpm and the maximum power absorbed by the facility dynamometer is 1250 hp. The data acquisition system scans up to 2000 channels/sec. This paper will discuss in detail the capabilities of the facility, overall facility design, instrumentation used in the facility, and the data acquisition system. Actual research data is not discussed.

Nowlin, Brent C.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Space technology test facilities at the NASA Ames Research Center

The major space research and technology test facilities at the NASA Ames Research Center are divided into five categories: General Purpose, Life Support, Computer-Based Simulation, High Energy, and the Space Exploraton Test Facilities. The paper discusses selected facilities within each of the five categories and discusses some of the major programs in which these facilities have been involved. Special attention is given to the 20-G Man-Rated Centrifuge, the Human Research Facility, the Plant Crop Growth Facility, the Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility, the Arc-Jet Complex and Hypersonic Test Facility, the Infrared Detector and Cryogenic Test Facility, and the Mars Wind Tunnel. Each facility is described along with its objectives, test parameter ranges, and major current programs and applications.

Gross, Anthony R.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Feasibility Investigation for a Solar Power Generation Facility

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 states that by fiscal year 2013, at least 7.5% of the energy consumed by the government must be renewable energy. In an effort to help meet this goal, Johnson Space Center (JSC) is considering installing a solar power generation facility. The purpose of this project is to conduct a feasibility investigation for such a facility. Because Kennedy Space Center (KSC) has a solar power generation facility, the first step in this investigation is to learn about KSC's facility and obtain information on how it was constructed. After collecting this information, the following must be determined: the amount of power desired, the size of the facility, potential locations for it, and estimated construction and maintenance costs. Contacts with JSC's energy provider must also be established to determine if a partnership would be agreeable to both parties. Lastly, all of this data must be analyzed to decide whether or not JSC should construct the facility. The results from analyzing the data collected indicate that a 200 kW facility would provide enough energy to meet 1% of JSC's energy demand. This facility would require less than 1 acre of land. In the map below, potential locations are shown in green. The solar power facility is projected to cost $2 M. So far, the information collected indicates that such a facility could be constructed. The next steps in this investigation include contacting JSC's energy provider, CenterPoint Energy, to discuss entering a partnership; developing a life cycle cost analysis to determine payback time; developing more detailed plans; and securing funding.

Nathan, Lakshmi↗