Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “investment prioritization”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

FY2019 Analysis Program Annual Progress Report

The VTO Analysis Program supports mission-critical technology, economic, and interdisciplinary analyses to assist in prioritizing VTO technology investments and to inform research portfolio planning. These efforts provide essential vehicle and market data, modeling and simulation, and integrated and applied analyses, using the unique capabilities, analytical tools, and expertise resident in the national laboratory system.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Analysis Program 2022 Annual Progress Report

The VTO Analysis Program supports mission-critical technological, economic, and interdisciplinary analyses to assist in prioritizing VTO technology investments and to inform research portfolio planning. These efforts provide essential vehicle and market data, modeling and simulation, and integrated and applied analyses, using the unique capabilities, analytical tools, and expertise resident in the DOE’s national laboratory system. VTO Analysis projects also demonstrate additional capabilities and expertise provided by research partnerships that may include academia, the private sector, and non-profit organizations.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Analysis Program (2023 Annual Progress Report)

This document summarizes the progress of VTO Analysis projects supported during the fiscal year 2023. The VTO Analysis Program supports mission-critical technological, economic, and interdisciplinary analyses to assist in prioritizing VTO technology investments and to inform research portfolio planning. These efforts provide essential vehicle and market data, modeling and simulation, and integrated and applied analyses, using the unique capabilities, analytical tools, and expertise resident in the DOE’s national laboratory system. VTO Analysis projects also demonstrate additional capabilities and expertise provided by research partnerships that may include academia, the private sector, and non-profit organizations.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
NASA NTRS2012

NASA Astrophysics Technology Needs

July 2010, NASA Office of Chief Technologist (OCT) initiated an activity to create and maintain a NASA integrated roadmap for 15 key technology areas which recommend an overall technology investment strategy and prioritize NASA?s technology programs to meet NASA?s strategic goals. Science Instruments, Observatories and Sensor Systems(SIOSS) roadmap addresses technology needs to achieve NASA?s highest priority objectives -- not only for the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), but for all of NASA.

Stahl, H. Philip↗
NASA NTRS2014

Green Propulsion Auxiliary Power Unit Demonstration at MSFC

In 2012, the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) began the process of building an integrated technology roadmap, including both technology pull and technology push strategies. Technology Area 1 (TA-01) for Launch Propulsion Systems is one of fourteen TA's that provide recommendations for the overall technology investment strategy and prioritization of NASA's space technology activities. Identified within TA-01 was the need for a green propulsion auxiliary power unit (APU) for hydraulic power by 2015. Engineers led by the author at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) have been evaluating green propellant alternatives and have begun the development of an APU testbed to demonstrate the feasibility of use. NASA has residual APU assets remaining from the retired Space Shuttle Program. Likewise, the F-16 Falcon fighter jet also uses an Emergency Power Unit (EPU) that has similar characteristics to the NASA hardware. Both EPU's and APU components have been acquired for testing at MSFC. In concert with this effort, ATK has been developing green propellant technology based on the Swedish Space Corp ECAPS LMP-103S propellant. Propellant blending and test facilities have been established at ATK's Elkton MD facility with the intent to provide suitable propellant blends for application to green APU systems as well as thrusters. This paper will summarize the status of the testing efforts with ATK for use of the green propellant LMP-103S based on ammonium dinitramide and use of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) propellant AF-M315E based on hydroxyl ammonium nitrate with these test assets.

Robinson, Joel W.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Green Mono Propulsion Activities at MSFC

In 2012, the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) began the process of building an integrated technology roadmap, including both technology pull and technology push strategies. Technology Area 1 (TA-01) for Launch Propulsion Systems and TA-02 In-Space Propulsion are two of the fourteen TA's that provide recommendations for the overall technology investment strategy and prioritization of NASA's space technology activities. Identified within these documents are future needs of green propellant use. Green ionic liquid monopropellants and propulsion systems are beginning to be demonstrated in space flight environments. Starting in 2010 with the flight of PRISMA, a one Newton thruster system began on-orbit demonstrations operating on ammonium dinitramide based propellant. The NASA Green Propellant Infusion Mission (GPIM) plans to demonstrate both 1 N, and 22 N hydroxyl ammonium nitrate based thrusters in a 2015 flight demonstration. In addition, engineers at MSFC have been evaluating green propellant alternatives for both thrusters and auxiliary power units. This paper summarizes the status of these development/demonstration activities and investigates the potential for evolution of green propellants from small spacecraft and satellites to larger spacecraft systems, human exploration, and launch system auxiliary propulsion applications.

Robinson, Joel W.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Green Propulsion Auxiliary Power Unit Demonstration at MSFC

In 2012, the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) began the process of building an integrated technology roadmap, including both technology pull and technology push strategies. Technology Area 1 (TA-01)1 for Launch Propulsion Systems is one of fourteen TAs that provide recommendations for the overall technology investment strategy and prioritization of NASA's space technology activities. Identified within TA-01 was the need for a green propulsion auxiliary power unit (APU) for hydraulic power by 2015. Engineers led by the author at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) have been evaluating green propellant alternatives and have begun the development of an APU test bed to demonstrate the feasibility of use. NASA has residual APU assets remaining from the retired Space Shuttle Program. Likewise, the F-16 Falcon fighter jet also uses an Emergency Power Unit (EPU) that has similar characteristics to the NASA hardware. Both EPU and APU components have been acquired for testing at MSFC. This paper will summarize the status of the testing efforts of green propellant from the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) propellant AFM315E based on hydroxyl ammonium nitrate (HAN) with these test assets.

Robinson, Joel W.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Green Mono Propulsion Activities at MSFC

In 2012, the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) began the process of building an integrated technology roadmap, including both technology pull and technology push strategies. Technology Area 1 (TA-01) for Launch Propulsion Systems and TA-02 In-Space Propulsion are two of the fourteen TAs that provide recommendations for the overall technology investment strategy and prioritization of NASA's space technology activities. Identified within these documents are future needs of green propellant use. Green ionic liquid monopropellants and propulsion systems are beginning to be demonstrated in space flight environments. Starting in 2010 with the flight of Prisma, a 1-N thruster system began on-orbit demonstrations operating on ammonium dinitramide based propellant. The NASA Green Propellant Infusion Mission (GPIM) plans to demonstrate both 1-N, and 22-N hydroxyl ammonium nitrate (HAN)-based thrusters in a 2015 flight demonstration. In addition, engineers at MSFC have been evaluating green propellant alternatives for both thrusters and auxiliary power units (APUs). This paper summarizes the status of these development/demonstration activities and investigates the potential for evolution of green propellants from small spacecraft and satellites to larger spacecraft systems, human exploration, and launch system auxiliary propulsion applications.

Robinson, Joel W.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Power Needs and Challenges from the Moon to Mars

Power drives exploration. From low Earth orbit to the lunar surface to Mars and beyond, power system capabilities will dictate the capacity and lifetime of the mission. NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate’s (STMD) goal is to develop, demonstrate, and transfer new space technologies that enable reliability and performance for mission success. This talk will discuss the envisioned future power systems for missions on the surfaces of the moon and Mars along with their challenges and constraints. Power system and component priorities will be shared along with updates on what STMD is currently doing to address shortfalls and how future investments will be prioritized.

Jeremiah McNatt↗
NASA NTRS2003

Future Space Transportation Technology: Prospects and Priorities

The Transportation Working Group (TWG) was chartered by the NASA Exploration Team (NEXT) to conceptualize, define, and advocate within NASA the space transportation architectures and technologies required to enable the human and robotic exploration and development of space envisioned by the NEXT. In 2002, the NEXT tasked the TWG to assess exploration space transportation requirements versus current and prospective Earth-to-Orbit (ETO) and in-space transportation systems, technologies, and research, in order to identify investment gaps and recommend priorities. The result was a study now being incorporated into future planning by the NASA Space Architect and supporting organizations. This paper documents the process used to identify exploration space transportation investment gaps, as well as the group's recommendations for closing these gaps and prioritizing areas of future investment for NASA work on advanced propulsion systems.

Billie, Matt↗
DOE OSTI2024

Lessons Learned from the Clean Energy to Communities (C2C) Peer-Learning Cohort Evaluating and Prioritizing Municipal Buildings for Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization Investment

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), with support from World Resources Institute (WRI), designed and led a six-month peer-learning cohort from January through July 2024 on "Enhancing Resilience at Critical Facilities through Solar, Storage, and Microgrids" as part of the U.S Department of Energy's Clean Energy to Communities (nrel.gov/c2c) (C2C) program. Representatives from 15 municipalities, municipal utilities, colleges, and Tribes from across the United States participated in monthly workshops covering best practices for planning and deploying local resilience projects. This document shares key takeaways, lessons learned, and resources from the cohort.

buildings↗
NASA NTRS2014

Project Assessment Framework through Design (PAFTD) - A Project Assessment Framework in Support of Strategic Decision Making

Research and development organizations that push the innovation edge of technology frequently encounter challenges when attempting to identify an investment strategy and to accurately forecast the cost and schedule performance of selected projects. Fast moving and complex environments require managers to quickly analyze and diagnose the value of returns on investment versus allocated resources. Our Project Assessment Framework through Design (PAFTD) tool facilitates decision making for NASA senior leadership to enable more strategic and consistent technology development investment analysis, beginning at implementation and continuing through the project life cycle. The framework takes an integrated approach by leveraging design principles of useability, feasibility, and viability and aligns them with methods employed by NASA's Independent Program Assessment Office for project performance assessment. The need exists to periodically revisit the justification and prioritization of technology development investments as changes occur over project life cycles. The framework informs management rapidly and comprehensively about diagnosed internal and external root causes of project performance.

Depenbrock, Brett T.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Decision Analysis Methods Used to Make Appropriate Investments in Human Exploration Capabilities and Technologies

NASA is transforming human spaceflight. The Agency is shifting from an exploration-based program with human activities in low Earth orbit (LEO) and targeted robotic missions in deep space to a more sustainable and integrated pioneering approach. Through pioneering, NASA seeks to address national goals to develop the capacity for people to work, learn, operate, live, and thrive safely beyond Earth for extended periods of time. However, pioneering space involves daunting technical challenges of transportation, maintaining health, and enabling crew productivity for long durations in remote, hostile, and alien environments. Prudent investments in capability and technology developments, based on mission need, are critical for enabling a campaign of human exploration missions. There are a wide variety of capabilities and technologies that could enable these missions, so it is a major challenge for NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) to make knowledgeable portfolio decisions. It is critical for this pioneering initiative that these investment decisions are informed with a prioritization process that is robust and defensible. It is NASA's role to invest in targeted technologies and capabilities that would enable exploration missions even though specific requirements have not been identified. To inform these investments decisions, NASA's HEOMD has supported a variety of analysis activities that prioritize capabilities and technologies. These activities are often based on input from subject matter experts within the NASA community who understand the technical challenges of enabling human exploration missions. This paper will review a variety of processes and methods that NASA has used to prioritize and rank capabilities and technologies applicable to human space exploration. The paper will show the similarities in the various processes and showcase instances were customer specified priorities force modifications to the process. Specifically, this paper will describe the processes that the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) Technology Assessment and Integration Team (TAIT) has used for several years and how those processes have been customized to meet customer needs while staying robust and defensible. This paper will show how HEOMD uses these analyses results to assist with making informed portfolio investment decisions. The paper will also highlight which human exploration capabilities and technologies typically rank high regardless of the specific design reference mission. The paper will conclude by describing future capability and technology ranking activities that will continue o leverage subject matter experts (SME) input while also incorporating more model-based analysis.

Williams-Byrd, Julie↗
DOE OSTI2025

Recycling Wind Energy Systems in the United States Part 1: Providing a Baseline for America's Wind Energy Recycling Infrastructure for Wind Turbines and Systems

The U.S. investments in building this new wind energy capacity will not only mobilize millions of tons of raw and processed materials in existing supply chains, some of which are critical materials, but also create new types and large volumes of end-of-life (EOL) waste streams. Building efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally responsible EOL management infrastructure of wind energy system components is pivotal in diverting upcoming volumes of waste stream from landfills, recovery of critical materials and reducing life cycle emissions from production of primary commodity materials . The primary goal of this report is to organize and communicate findings from this assessment on how alternate materials, designs and manufacturing processes could enable more efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally responsible disassembly and resource recovery from wind energy technologies. The findings of this assessment could inform prioritization of RD&D investment spending to meet Energy Act of 2020 directions. This assessment focused on key RD&D recommendations for three main temporal phases: Short-term (2023-2026), medium-term (2026 through 2035) and long-term (beyond 2035).

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

The health, climate, and equity benefits of freight truck electrification in the United States

Abstract Long-haul freight shipment in the United States relies on diesel trucks and constitutes ∼3% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and a significant share of local air pollution. Here, we compare the climate and air pollution-related health damages from electric versus diesel long-haul truck fleets. We use truck commodity flows to estimate tailpipe emissions from diesel trucks and regional grid emissions intensities to estimate charging emissions from electric trucks under various grid scenarios. We use a reduced complexity air quality model combined with valuation of air pollution-related premature deaths (using two hazard ratios (HRs)) and quantify the distributional health impacts in different scenarios. We find that annual health and climate costs of the current diesel fleet are $195–$249/capita compared to $174–$205/capita for a new diesel fleet, and $156–$177/capita for an electric fleet, depending on the HR. We find that freight electrification could avoid $6.2–8.5 billion in health and climate damages annually when compared to a fleet of new diesel vehicles (with even higher benefits when compared to the current diesel fleet). However, the Midwest and parts of the Gulf Coast would experience an increase in health damages due to vehicles charging using electricity from coal power plants. If old coal power plants (operating in 1980 or earlier) are replaced with zero-emission generation, electrification of all U.S. freight would result in $32.3–39.2 billion in avoided damages annually and health benefits throughout the U.S. Electrifying transport of consumer manufacturing goods (including electronics, transport equipment, and precision instruments) and food, beverage, and tobacco products would provide the largest absolute health and climate benefits, whereas mixed freight and manufacturing goods would result in the largest benefits per tonne-km. We find small variations in health damages across race and income. These results will help policymakers prioritize electrification and charging investment strategies for the freight transportation sub-sector.

Hennessy, Eleanor M. (ORCID:0000000294715765)↗
DOE OSTI2020

Modeling Photovoltaics Innovation and Deployment Dynamics

PV’s historically rapid cost reduction is exceptional among technologies. Further cost reductions could play a major role in increasing deployment in the future. To enable such cost reductions, new modeling frameworks are needed to understand the determinants of innovation in PV. In this project, we study the mechanisms driving PV module and system cost reductions, delving deeply into the specific technological innovations that have occurred in the past and the policies that encouraged them, and also opportunities for future cost reduction and widespread deployment. The project contributes new fundamental insight on the determinants of technological innovation by developing novel methods and insights that are generalizable and can therefore be applied to other technologies. The results will allow policy makers, engineers, and other stakeholders to better prioritize their efforts and investments in the future. The project is organized around four journal articles as described below. The first article [1] identifies ‘low-level’ (e.g. conversion efficiency improvement) and ‘high- level’ (e.g. R&D efforts) mechanisms of cost reduction in PV systems (Tasks 1-4). This work builds on a previous DOE grant, where we developed a framework for technological innovation leading to PV module cost reduction [2]. We advance a method to disentangle the contributions of physical (‘hardware’) and non-physical (‘soft technology’) changes. Our results uncover reasons behind the relatively slow evolution of soft technology and can inform new innovation approaches to these technologies. The second article [3] identifies specific engineering or institutional innovations that enabled the low-level mechanisms of cost reduction in PV module and balance-of-systems (BOS) (Tasks 5, 9, 10). We identify 85 innovations and connect them to the cost variables they affected. By developing an innovations typology, this study shows the differences between the types of innovations affecting PV modules and BOS components. Finally, by analyzing the industry origins of innovations, this study also finds that PV was well-positioned within an ecosystem of continuously advancing technologies. The third article [4] studies prospective cost reduction opportunities (Task 10). We explore how design approaches that emphasize standardization and automation, such as plug-and-play PV systems, can create cost reduction opportunities by reducing interactions and speeding up activities with high process costs. We show that this can lead to cost reduction in cost components with the most untapped opportunity for improvement such as installation labor, overhead, electrical BOS, and customer acquisition. The fourth article [5] analyzes how various policies supporting PV deployment and R&D contributed to PV’s cost improvement by enabling high-level mechanisms, specific innovations, and ultimately low-level mechanisms of cost reduction (Tasks 8, 13, 14). We investigate examples from different countries and connect these policies to quantifiable cost change mechanisms. Our study sheds light on the roles that different nations played over time, through a diverse set of policy approaches.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Community Resilience Indicator Analysis: Commonly Used Indicators from Peer-Reviewed Research (Updated for Research Published 2003-2021)

In 2017, FEMA’s National Integration Center (NIC) Technical Assistance (TA) Branch identified a need to establish a data-driven basis for prioritizing locations for TA investment and guiding local emergency management planning. To achieve this goal, FEMA tasked Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) with identifying commonly used indicators of community resilience across the landscape of published peer-reviewed research. FEMA and Argonne completed the first Community Resilience Indicator Analysis (CRIA) in 2018 and repeated the process in 2022. The CRIA process begins with a literature review and cataloguing of published peer-reviewed assessment methodologies on social vulnerability and community resilience. The literature review findings are then filtered by inclusion criteria established by the CRIA research team to ensure the methodologies are: (1) Quantitative, (2) Data and methodology are publicly available, (3) Calculated at the county level or lower, (4) Examine generalized hazard risk (rather than a singular hazard), and (5) Focused on pre-disaster community conditions. After this, the research team identifies the commonly used indicators across these methodologies and selects the best data source for each indicator. Finally, the research team bins the data for visual display, conducts a correlation analysis and creates a composite index, the FEMA Community Resilience Index (FEMA CRI). In 2018, the CRIA identified eight resilience and vulnerability assessment methodologies and 20 commonly used indicators (indicators used in three or more of the eight methodologies). The FEMA CRI in 2018 was created from these 20 indicators and was produced for at the county level. The 2022 CRIA updated the literature review to expand the list of methodologies examined and followed the same process, resulting in an analysis of 14 methodologies published between 2003 and 2021 and 22 indicators identified as commonly used (indicators used in five or more of the 14 methodologies). In 2022, the research team produced the FEMA CRI at the county and the census tract levels. To make the CRIA data more accessible and more actionable, each individual indicator and the FEMA CRI is binned and included in FEMA’s Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT). RAPT enables emergency managers and community partners to quickly visualize relative differences in potential resilience by county, tribe and census tract. By reviewing the data for each of these 22 indicators individually, emergency managers can gain insights for targeted outreach strategies, planning, mitigation investments and response and recovery operations. Communities, regional governments and others can use this data to better understand potential challenges to resilience. As the social science field of examining and validating indicators of resilience evolves, FEMA will update RAPT to provide emergency managers and community partners with additional data and tools to inform planning, mitigation, response and recovery. It is important to understand that the role of the emergency manager is not to change or to “improve” the data, but to plan appropriately for the community characteristics reflected in the data. These datasets are community characteristics that researchers have identified as important considerations for resilience. For example, people with disabilities may have greater challenges to be resilient to disasters. If a community has a high population of people with disabilities, the emergency manager(s) may need to create tailored preparedness outreach programs and strategies to ensure those residents have support if evacuation is necessary. Rather than label these indicators as an absolute measure of resilience, FEMA considers “potential challenges to resilience” a better frame to understand these indicators. Everyone is vulnerable to disasters. While scholars theorize that certain characteristics may make an individual or a household more socially vulnerable, the data does not reflect measures that individuals and/or communities have taken to address potential challenges, such as emergency management planning and outreach or household preparedness measures. To aid emergency managers in understanding how to use these indicators, calling them potential challenges to resilience supports a more positive and strategic application of the data in all phases of emergency management.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Residential Building Stock Characterization in Palm Beach County, Florida

This building stock characterizations is intended to help Palm Beach County (PBC) Office of Resilience (OOR) and municipalities composing the Municipal Resilience Partnership prioritize building energy efficiency investments to reduce energy costs and increase resilience for the county's most vulnerable residents. The analysis utilizes NREL’s ResStock model to characterize PBC’s residential building stock, including building type, renter/owner status, size (square footage), age of buildings (vintage), HVAC system types, and, for multi-family buildings, number of units. Building energy efficiency, weatherization, and electrification upgrade packages were assessed for approximate cost, customer bill-savings, and emissions reductions potential and findings will help guide OOR financial assistance program design.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗