Results for “technology specification” — Page 5

DOE OSTI2024

Impact of Technology Improvements on the Cost of Hydrogen Produced using SOEC Technology at Large Scale

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) provides system-level process, cost, and market analyses on solid oxide cell (SOC) based technologies. Specifically, techno-economic analyses (TEA), market assessments, and other technology evaluations serve to guide the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) Reversible Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (R-SOFC) Program technology goals and objectives. These studies are key to describing how the technologies contribute to improving domestic energy infrastructure in a clean, efficient manner. This effort focuses on hydrogen generation technologies, which have received recent attention due to their potential role in economy-wide decarbonization. In particular, the study is part of a series of investigations at NETL that seek to understand the techno-economic impacts of including SOC technology in energy production, hydrogen production, and/or storage configurations. The objective of this study is to establish a detailed TEA to assess the effectiveness of incremental technology improvements needed for solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) technology to achieve the U.S. DOE’s Hydrogen Shot goal of hydrogen production at less than $1 per kilogram. To take advantage of the benefits of economies of scale, the SOEC hydrogen facilities are sized to produce ≈250,000 metric tons of hydrogen annually with an electrolysis load of one gigawatt (direct current). Some additional critical assumptions include stacks that operate near the thermo-neutral voltage of 1.28 V to avoid adverse thermal gradients, all necessary steam and heat is generated by electric boilers and heaters to enable green hydrogen production, and an air sweep is used to control the oxygen concentration in the air electrode exhaust stream. System efficiency and levelized costs of hydrogen (LCOH) for each case are presented.

Hackett, Gregory↗

DOE OSTI2025

Preliminary Screening Techno-Economic Analysis of Industrial SOFC/SOEC and Reversible SOC Integration

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) provides system-level process, cost, and market analyses on solid oxide cell (SOC) based technologies. Specifically, techno-economic analyses (TEA), market assessments, and other technology evaluations serve to guide the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) Reversible Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (R-SOFC) Program technology goals and objectives. These studies are key to describing how the technologies contribute to improving domestic energy infrastructure in a clean, efficient manner. This effort seeks to elucidate the potential integration opportunities between reversible SOCs and industrial systems which would aid in SOC commercialization and deployment. These preliminary screening-level results show what opportunities exist for power generating SOFCs, hydrogen producing SOECs, and point-source carbon capture. Improvements can be seen through changes in cost of electricity, cost of hydrogen, and cost of carbon capture.

reversible SOC↗

NASA NTRS1991

Quantitative nondestructive evaluation: Requirements for tomorrow's reliability

Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation (QNDE) is the technology of measurement, analysis, and prediction of the state of material/structural systems for safety, reliability, and mission assurance. QNDE has impact on everyday life from the cars we drive, the planes we fly, the buildings we work or live in, literally to the infrastructure of our world. Here, researchers highlight some of the new sciences and technologies that are part of a safer, cost effective tomorrow. Specific technologies that are discussed are thermal QNDE of aircraft structural integrity, ultrasonic QNDE for materials characterization, and technology spinoffs from aerospace to the medical sector. In each case, examples are given of how new requirements result in enabling measurement technologies, which in turn change the boundaries of design/practice.

Heyman, Joseph S.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Ares Project Technology Assessment: Approach and Tools

Technology assessments provide a status of the development maturity of specific technologies. Along with benefit analysis, the risks the project assumes can be quantified. Normally due to budget constraints, the competing technologies are prioritized and decisions are made which ones to fund. A detailed technology development plan is produced for the selected technologies to provide a roadmap to reach the desired maturity by the project s critical design review. Technology assessments can be conducted for both technology only tasks or for product development programs. This paper is primarily biased toward the product development programs. The paper discusses the Ares Project s approach to technology assessment. System benefit analysis, risk assessment, technology prioritization, and technology readiness assessment are addressed. A description of the technology readiness level tool being used is provided.

Hueter, Uwe↗

NASA NTRS1984

Integration becomes the name of the OTV game

Since 1981, NASA has been supporting an Orbit Transfer Vehicle (OTV) propulsion technology development program which encompasses the efforts of three major engine manufacturers. A thrust variability ratio of 30:1 has been stipulated for the baseline 520 lbf-sec/lbm engines, in order to yield the versatility needed for low acceleration missions, orbit-transfer missions, and aeromaneuvering tasks. These goals may not be reachable either individually or collectively; the program supports generic technology benefitting all three engine concepts, as well as concept-specific technology. Engine/vehicle integration will determine the final configuration. The three engines under study differ as to turbomachinery types and operating speeds.

Garland, S.↗

NASA NTRS1987

Shuttle Ground Operations Efficiencies/Technologies (SGOE/T) study. Volume 1: Executive summary

Methods and technolgoy were defined to reduce the overall operations cost of a major space program. Space Shuttle processing at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) was designed as the working model that would be the source of the operational information. Methods of improving efficiency of ground operations were assessed and technology elements that could reduce cost identified. Emphasis is on: (1) specific technology items and (2) management approaches required to develop and support efficient ground operations. Prime study results are to be recommendations on how to achieve more efficient operations and identification of existing or new technology that would make vehicle processing in both the current program and future programs more efficient and, therefore, less costly.

Scholz, A. L.↗

NASA NTRS1993

Engine technology challenges for a 21st Century High-Speed Civil Transport

Ongoing NASA-funded studies by Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, General Electric, and Pratt & Whitney indicate that an opportunity exists for a 21st Century High-Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) to become a major part of the international air transportation system. However, before industry will consider an HSCT product launch and an investment estimated to be over $15 billion for design and certification, major technology advances must be made. An overview of the propulsion-specific technology advances that must be in hand before an HSCT product launch could be considered is presented.

Shaw, Robert J.↗

NASA NTRS1993

Engine technology challenges for a 21st Century High-Speed Civil Transport

Ongoing NASA-funded studies by Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, General Electric, and Pratt & Whitney indicate that an opportunity exists for a 21st Century High-Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) to become a major part of the international air transportation system. However, before industry will consider an HSCT product launch and an investment estimated to be over $15 billion for design and certification, major technology advances must be made. An overview of the propulsion-specific technology advances that must be in hand before an HSCT product launch could be considered is presented.

Shaw, Robert J.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) to defining gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities, gaps, and KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRS1994

Overview of space power electronic's technology under the CSTI High Capacity Power Program

The Civilian Space Technology Initiative (CSTI) is a NASA Program targeted at the development of specific technologies in the areas of transportation, operations and science. Each of these three areas consists of major elements and one of the operation's elements is the High Capacity Power element. The goal of this element is to develop the technology base needed to meet the long duration, high capacity power requirements for future NASA initiatives. The High Capacity Power element is broken down into several subelements that includes energy conversion in the areas of the free piston Stirling power converter and thermoelectrics, thermal management, power management, system diagnostics, and environmental compatibility and system's lifetime. A recent overview of the CSTI High capacity Power element and a description of each of the program's subelements is given by Winter (1989). The goals of the Power Management subelement are twofold. The first is to develop, test, and demonstrate high temperature, radiation-resistant power and control components and circuits that will be needed in the Power Conditioning, Control and Transmission (PCCT) subsystem of a space nuclear power system. The results obtained under this goal will also be applicable to the instrumentation and control subsystem of a space nuclear reactor. These components and circuits must perform reliably for lifetimes of 7-10 years. The second goal is to develop analytical models for use in computer simulations of candidate PCCT subsystems. Circuits which will be required for a specific PCCT subsystem will be designed and built to demonstrate their performance and, also, to validate the analytical models and simulations. The tasks under the Power Management subelement will now be described in terms of objectives, approach and present status of work.

Schwarze, Gene E.↗

NASA NTRS1987

Shuttle Ground Operations Efficiencies/Technologies (SGOE/T) study. Volume 3: Final presentation material

Charts used in the Final Phase 1 Oral Briefing at Kennedy Space Center on April 6, 1987, and to the Space Transportation Architecture Study (SPAS) Interim Program Review (IPS-5) held at MSFC on April 8, 1987, are contained. Topics discussed include: identification of existing or new technologies to reduce cost; management approaches; recommendations for research or development of specific technology for future use; and identification of new management techniques.

Scholz, A. L.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Technology Maturation in Preparation for the Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer (CPST) Technology Demonstration Mission (TDM)

In support of its goal to find an innovative path for human space exploration, NASA embarked on the Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer (CPST) Project, a Technology Demonstration Mission (TDM) to test and validate key cryogenic capabilities and technologies required for future exploration elements, opening up the architecture for large in-space cryogenic propulsion stages and propellant depots. Recognizing that key Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) technologies anticipated for on-orbit (flight) demonstration would benefit from additional maturation to a readiness level appropriate for infusion into the design of the flight demonstration, the NASA Headquarters Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) authorized funding for a one-year technology maturation phase of the CPST project. The strategy, proposed by the CPST Project Manager, focused on maturation through modeling, concept studies, and ground tests of the storage and fluid transfer of CFM technology sub-elements and components that were lower than a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 5. A technology maturation plan (TMP) was subsequently approved which described: the CFM technologies selected for maturation, the ground testing approach to be used, quantified success criteria of the technologies, hardware and data deliverables, and a deliverable to provide an assessment of the technology readiness after completion of the test, study or modeling activity. The specific technologies selected were grouped into five major categories: thick multilayer insulation, tank applied active thermal control, cryogenic fluid transfer, propellant gauging, and analytical tool development. Based on the success of the technology maturation efforts, the CPST project was approved to proceed to flight system development.

propellants↗

NASA NTRS2019

Overview of the Communications and Intelligent Systems Division at the NASA Glenn Research Center

NASA's plans for advancing aeronautics and space exploration requires optimization of current capabilities and development of new ones to support its mission. A key requirement associated with these efforts is the constant upgrading and optimization of communication systems. This presentation will provide a brief overview of NASA efforts, with emphasis on those being performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center, to develop communications technologies and systems in support of NASA aerospace communications needs. Status of specific technology examples in the area of cognitive communication systems, Advanced RF Technologies, Networks, and Systems Architectures will be presented and their impact in the overall scheme of needs will be discussed. In addition, cross- cutting technologies which enable sensing, control and communications technologies to perform in extreme environments as well as non-destructive evaluations techniques for vehicle health monitoring and related purposes will be presented.

Miranda, Felix A.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology vs when a mission element is also a strong consideration in which technologies should be pursued. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) capability areas include: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. These capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of ECLSS gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Crew Health and Performance Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

DOE OSTI2021

A Multilevel Approach To Addressing Emerging Technologies In Nuclear Security

Emerging technologies present a unique set of challenges to operators and regulators. Although emerging technologies can be used to strengthen nuclear security systems, they also can increase risks to nuclear facilities. The disruptive nature of emerging technologies could also leave operators unprepared for threats to nuclear materials or facilities. To address the potentially dangerous consequences associated with these innovations, strong adaptive mechanisms and international cooperation on threat mitigation and technological integration are vital. This paper examines the nuclear security implications of emerging technologies from an institutional (as opposed to technology-specific) perspective. Drawing on insights from a recent workshop series hosted by the Stimson Center and the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Office of Global Material Security, as well as research funded by Global Material Security and separate research conducted by Stimson, the paper begins with a definition of emerging technology that bounds the scope of the problem while leaving some margin for expert interpretation. The subsequent sections highlight the challenges as well as potential benefits that these technologies pose at each level of the nuclear security establishment, from the operators of sites hosting radiological or nuclear material, to regulators and national policy makers, to international institutions. Each section also includes specific recommendations for incorporating emerging technologies into radiological and nuclear security planning.

Andrews, Ian↗