Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “annual update”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Annual Technology Baseline: The 2021 Electricity Update [Slides]

Consistent cost and performance data for various electricity generation technologies can be difficult to find and may change frequently for certain technologies. With the Annual Technology Baseline (ATB), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory annually provides an organized and centralized set of such cost and performance data. The ATB uses the best information from the Department of Energy national laboratories' renewable energy analysts. The ATB has been reviewed by experts and it includes the following electricity generation technologies: land-based wind, offshore wind, utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV), commercial-scale solar PV, PV plus storage, residential-scale solar PV, concentrating solar power, geothermal power, hydropower, utility-scale battery storage, coal, and natural gas. EIA data for nuclear and conventional biopower are included for reference. This webinar presentation introduces the 2021 update to the ATB Electricity data and documentation.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Impacts of Model Building Energy Codes

The Department of Energy (DOE) Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) periodically evaluates national and state-level impacts associated with energy codes in residential and commercial buildings. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), funded by DOE, conducted an assessment of the prospective impacts of national model building energy codes from 2010 through 2040. A previous PNNL study evaluated the impact of the Building Energy Codes Program. A 2016 study looked more broadly at overall code impacts and this report describes the methodology used for the assessment and presents the impacts in terms of energy savings, consumer cost savings, and reduced emissions at the state level and at aggregated levels. In 2021, DOE conducted an interim and limited update to its 2016 study to evaluate potential building code updates using the 2016 methodology. That interim update includes estimated savings resulting from updates to the model energy codes, including the ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016 (ASHRAE 90.1-2016) and 2019 editions, as well as the 2018 and 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). In 2023, DOE developed a fully updated report that includes code updates (ASHRAE 90.1-2019 and 2021 IECC), as well as additional enhancements and updates, including updated energy prices, annual floorspace additions, state code adoption dates, and emission factors, among others. This current version is another fully updated report that includes code updates (ASHRAE 90.1-2022 and 2024 IECC), as well as additional enhancements and updates, including updated energy prices, state code adoption dates, emission factors, and renewable energy contribution among others. Energy codes follow a three-phase cycle that starts with the development of a new model code, proceeds with the adoption of the new code by states and local jurisdictions, and finishes when the new code is implemented and builders, architects, and engineers are required to comply with the new provisions. The development of new model code editions creates the potential for increased energy savings. After a new model code is adopted, potential savings are realized in the field when new buildings (or additions and alterations) are constructed to comply with the new code. The contributions of all three phases are crucial to the overall impact of codes and are considered in this assessment. Figure ES.1 schematically describes the analysis framework. Energy savings are expressed in terms of energy use intensity (EUI) in the figure.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
NASA NTRS2023

NASA Standing Review Board Handbook

This handbook provides guidance based on best practices for the planning, preparation, review, reporting, and closeout of Standing Review Board (SRB) activities. Revision C updates the Revision B version of the SRB Handbook published in 2016 to incorporate updates to NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5F, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements. These updates include: - Changing the Dissenting Opinion process to the Formal Dissent process, which retains the current process augmented with an expedited escalation path. - Updates to requirements for establishing an Agency Baseline Commitment (ABC) and for performing Joint Cost and Schedule Confidence Level (JCL) analyses for tightly coupled programs. - Additional requirements for performing a JCL analysis for single-project programs and projects over $1B Life-Cycle Cost (LCC). - Use of initial capability cost estimates instead of LCC estimates in specific, identified instances for single-project programs and projects that plan continuing operations and production, including integration of capability upgrades, with an unspecified Phase E end point. These single-project programs and projects define an initial capability during Phase A and develop an initial capability cost that establishes the ABC at Key Decision Point (KDP) C. Initial capability is the first operational mission flight (or as defined in the KDP B Review Plan) and is documented in the KDP B Decision Memorandum. Initial capability cost includes operations cost for the initial capability. The Phase E cost estimate for continuing operations and production is established separately as part of the Operational Readiness Review (ORR) and KDP E for the 5 years after initial capability and subsequently updated and documented annually for the next 5-year period. Upgrades during Phase E that meet the Agency criteria for a major project for external reporting are treated as projects for the purposes of establishing their own development ABC outside the Phase E cost estimate. The Phase E cost estimate is updated to include production and operations costs associated with these upgrades. Development, production, and operations costs of other (i.e., non-major) upgrades are included in the Phase E cost estimate. (See NPR 7120.5, Sections 2.4.1.5 and 2.4.1.6 and the NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Handbook (PM Handbook), Section 5.5.4 for additional information.) The scope of the SRB’s assessment with respect to initial capability, Phase E cost estimate, and major upgrades for these single-project programs and projects is defined in the Terms of Reference (ToR).

Kevin Michael Gilligan↗
NASA NTRS2017

Integrated Extravehicular Activity Human Research Plan: 2017

Multiple organizations within NASA as well as industry and academia fund and participate in research related to extravehicular activity (EVA). In October 2015, representatives of the EVA Office, the Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD), and the Human Research Program (HRP) at NASA Johnson Space Center agreed on a formal framework to improve multi-year coordination and collaboration in EVA research. At the core of the framework is an Integrated EVA Human Research Plan and a process by which it will be annually reviewed and updated. The over-arching objective of the collaborative framework is to conduct multi-disciplinary cost-effective research that will enable humans to perform EVAs safely, effectively, comfortably, and efficiently, as needed to enable and enhance human space exploration missions. Research activities must be defined, prioritized, planned and executed to comprehensively address the right questions, avoid duplication, leverage other complementary activities where possible, and ultimately provide actionable evidence-based results in time to inform subsequent tests, developments and/or research activities. Representation of all appropriate stakeholders in the definition, prioritization, planning and execution of research activities is essential to accomplishing the over-arching objective. A formal review of the Integrated EVA Human Research Plan will be conducted annually. Coordination with stakeholders outside of the EVA Office, CTSD, and HRP is already in effect on a study-by-study basis; closer coordination on multi-year planning with other EVA stakeholders including academia is being actively pursued. Details of the preliminary Integrated EVA Human Research Plan are presented including description of ongoing and planned research activities in the areas of: physiological and performance capabilities; suit design parameters; EVA human health and performance modeling; EVA tasks and concepts of operations; EVA informatics; human-suit sensors; suit sizing and fit; and EVA injury risk and mitigation. This paper represents the 2017 update to the Integrated EVA Human Research Plan.

Abercromby, Andrew↗
NASA NTRS2016

An Integrated Extravehicular Activity Research Plan

Multiple organizations within NASA and outside of NASA fund and participate in research related to extravehicular activity (EVA). In October 2015, representatives of the EVA Office, the Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD), and the Human Research Program (HRP) at NASA Johnson Space Center agreed on a formal framework to improve multi-year coordination and collaboration in EVA research. At the core of the framework is an Integrated EVA Research Plan and a process by which it will be annually reviewed and updated. The over-arching objective of the collaborative framework is to conduct multi-disciplinary cost-effective research that will enable humans to perform EVAs safely, effectively, comfortably, and efficiently, as needed to enable and enhance human space exploration missions. Research activities must be defined, prioritized, planned and executed to comprehensively address the right questions, avoid duplication, leverage other complementary activities where possible, and ultimately provide actionable evidence-based results in time to inform subsequent tests, developments and/or research activities. Representation of all appropriate stakeholders in the definition, prioritization, planning and execution of research activities is essential to accomplishing the over-arching objective. A formal review of the Integrated EVA Research Plan will be conducted annually. External peer review of all HRP EVA research activities including compilation and review of published literature in the EVA Evidence Book is already performed annually. Coordination with stakeholders outside of the EVA Office, CTSD, and HRP is already in effect on a study-by-study basis; closer coordination on multi-year planning with other EVA stakeholders including academia is being actively pursued. Details of the current Integrated EVA Research Plan are presented including description of ongoing and planned research activities in the areas of: Benchmarking; Anthropometry and Suit Fit; Sensors; Human-Suit Modeling; Suit Trauma Monitoring and Countermeasures; EVA Workload and Duration Effects; Decompression Sickness Risk Mitigation; Deconditioned EVA Performance; and Exploration EVA Concept of Operations.

Abercromby, Andrew F. J.↗
NASA NTRS2024

Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate: Moon to Mars Architecture Definition Document

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery. Extending the reach of humanity through the human exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond is key to that mission. NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives document establishes long-term goals and objectives for crewed deep space exploration; however, satisfying NASA’s Moon to Mars Objectives requires an innovative approach to the definition, management, and execution of NASA’s Moon to Mars Architecture. An architecture offers a high-level unifying structure and defines a system. It provides rules, guidelines, and constraints that define a cohesive and coherent framework that identifies constituent parts, relationships, and connections and establishes how those parts fit and work together. This Architecture Definition Document (ADD) establishes the process for the decomposition of objectives empowers the agency’s success in achieving human exploration of the cosmos. NASA updates this document annually to reflect the maturation of the architecture and the progress NASA and partners make toward achieving exploration objectives. The ADD is not a manifest or requirements document. Instead, it serves as a tool for the programs, projects, and engineers who will implement and execute NASA’s bold ambitions for crewed exploration of deep space. As established in the Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives, “Why” we explore encompasses three pillars: Science, Inspiration, and National Posture. Ensuring success in all three areas requires an architectural approach that incorporates innovation, collaboration, and partnerships that can be sustained across a multi-decadal effort. This second revision (Rev-B) of the ADD, developed to support NASA’s 2024 Architecture Concept Review (ACR), incorporates several key updates to support the continued evolution of the architecture. Since the last revision of the ADD, NASA has significantly improved the clarity of the objective decomposition, which distills exploration objectives into the characteristics and needs and use cases and functions needed to achieve them. The updated decomposition incorporates findings from internal studies and diverse stakeholder feedback. A model-based systems engineering approach ensures coherence and consistency, removing inconsistency and repetition. Revision B also incorporates advancements to NASA’s Mars architecture, including insight into initial capabilities, systems, and operations necessary to support the Humans to Mars segment. Updates to objective decomposition for Mars add significant detail to the ADD and hint at areas of forward work and future study. An appendix adds greater depth in the future decisions needed for Mars that will drive lunar needs. They are not the only decisions to be made, but they will have huge effects on subsequent decisions. NASA continues to introduce new exploration systems into the architecture. Two new elements — initial surface habitat and lunar surface cargo lander—successfully passed mission concept review in 2024 as a result of extensive analysis, concept refinement, and studies. These elements and their respective reference missions appear in this revision. NASA also continues to apply architecture processes to cross-agency efforts and coordination with external stakeholders by including definitions of architecture technology gaps — essential areas for engagement across and beyond the agency. The technology gaps appendix identifies areas that need attention and innovation to enable future exploration. In publishing this information, NASA communicates the technologies and capabilities that may benefit from partnership with industry, academia, other U.S. government agencies, and international space agencies. Ultimately, NASA established the Moon to Mars Architecture approach to communicate and facilitate humanity’s journey into the universe according to the principles and recurring tenets of NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives. The NASA architecture team thanks their many stakeholders, participants, and partners for their efforts to review and provide feedback. Their support has been critical to the success of this approach.

Elements↗
DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2022

2022 Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) Cost and Performance Data for Electricity Generation Technologies

These data provide the 2022 update of the Electricity Annual Technology Baseline (ATB). Starting in 2015 NREL has presented the ATB, consisting of detailed cost and performance data, both current and projected, for electricity generation and storage technologies. The ATB products now include data (Excel workbook, Tableau workbooks, and structured summary csv files), as well as documentation and user engagement via a website, presentation, and webinar. Starting in 2021, the data are cloud optimized and provided in the OEDI data lake. The data for 2015 - 2020 are can be found on the NREL Data Search Page. The website documentation can be found on the ATB Website.

Array↗
DOE OSTI2023

2023 Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) Cost and Performance Data for Electricity Generation Technologies

These data provide the 2023 update of the Electricity Annual Technology Baseline (ATB). Starting in 2015 NREL has presented the ATB, consisting of detailed cost and performance data, both current and projected, for electricity generation and storage technologies. The ATB products now include data (Excel workbook, Tableau workbooks, and structured summary csv files), as well as documentation and user engagement via a website, presentation, and webinar. Starting in 2021, the data are cloud optimized and provided in the OEDI data lake. The data for 2015 - 2020 are can be found on the NREL Data Search Page. The website documentation can be found on the ATB Website.

Array↗
DOE OSTI2024

2024 Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) Cost and Performance Data for Electricity Generation Technologies

These data provide the 2024 update of the Electricity Annual Technology Baseline (ATB). Starting in 2015 NREL has presented the ATB, consisting of detailed cost and performance data, both current and projected, for electricity generation and storage technologies. The ATB products now include data (Excel workbook, Tableau workbooks, and structured summary csv files), as well as documentation and user engagement via a website, presentation, and webinar. Starting in 2021, the data are cloud optimized and provided in the OEDI data lake. The data for 2015 - 2020 are can be found on the NREL Data Search Page. The website documentation can be found on the ATB Website.

Array↗
DOE OSTI2021

efam: an e xpanded, metaproteome-supported HMM profile database of viral protein fam ilies

Viruses infect, reprogram and kill microbes, leading to profound ecosystem consequences, from elemental cycling in oceans and soils to microbiome-modulated diseases in plants and animals. Although metagenomic datasets are increasingly available, identifying viruses in them is challenging due to poor representation and annotation of viral sequences in databases. Here, we establish efam, an expanded collection of Hidden Markov Model (HMM) profiles that represent viral protein families conservatively identified from the Global Ocean Virome 2.0 dataset. This resulted in 240 311 HMM profiles, each with at least 2 protein sequences, making efam >7-fold larger than the next largest, pan-ecosystem viral HMM profile database. Adjusting the criteria for viral contig confidence from ‘conservative’ to ‘eXtremely Conservative’ resulted in 37 841 HMM profiles in our efam-XC database. To assess the value of this resource, we integrated efam-XC into VirSorter viral discovery software to discover viruses from less-studied, ecologically distinct oxygen minimum zone (OMZ) marine habitats. This expanded database led to an increase in viruses recovered from every tested OMZ virome by ~24% on average (up to ~42%) and especially improved the recovery of often-missed shorter contigs (<5 kb). Additionally, to help elucidate lesser-known viral protein functions, we annotated the profiles using multiple databases from the DRAM pipeline and virion-associated metaproteomic data, which doubled the number of annotations obtainable by standard, single-database annotation approaches. Together, these marine resources (efam and efam-XC) are provided as searchable, compressed HMM databases that will be updated bi-annually to help maximize viral sequence discovery and study from any ecosystem.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
NASA NTRS2018

The Use of Gridded Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions (FFCO2) Inventory for Climate Mitigation Applications: Errors, Uncertainties, and Current and Future Challenges

Emission Inventory (EI) is a fundamental tool to monitor global compliance of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions reduction actions. Inventory guidelines provide a best practice to help EI compilers to make comparable national emission estimates, in spite of the differences in data availability across countries and regions. There are a variety of sources of errors and uncertainties, however, that originate beyond what the inventory guidelines define. For example, spatially-explicit EIs, which are a key product for atmospheric modeling applications, are often developed for research purposes, and there are no specific guidelines to disaggregate emission estimates from country scale. On top of that, EIs are fundamentally prone to systematic biases due to the simple calculation methodology and thus an objective evaluation (e.g. atmospheric top-down estimates) is needed to assure the accuracy of the estimates. ODIAC is a global high-resolution (1x1 km) fossil fuel carbon dioxide (CO2) gridded EI that is now often used in atmospheric CO2 modeling. ODIAC is based on disaggregation of national emission estimates made by CDIAC, which is the well accepted standard in the community. The ODIAC emission data product is updated on an annual basis using best available statistical data. Subnational spatial emission patterns are estimated using power plant profiles and satellite-observations of nighttime lights. In addition to the conventional CDIAC gridded data product, ODIAC carries international bunker emissions (shipping and aviation), which allows flux inversion modelers to accurately impose the global total fossil fuel emissions and their horizontal and vertical distribution. We have extensively evaluated ODIAC emissions using fine-grained EIs as well as a high-resolution atmospheric model simulation across different scales (national, subnational/regional, and urban policy relevant) with a focus on the uncertainties associated with the emission disaggregation. We have examined the use of NASA's Black Marble Suomi-NPP/VIIRS nightlight data.

Oda, Tomohiro↗
DOE OSTI2023

Design and License Application Development for TRISO-X (Final Scientific Technical Report)

This is the final progress report submitted by X-energy, LLC (XE) to the Department of Energy in support of cooperative agreement DE-NE0008745. This report provides a high-level summary of the work performed during the entire period of performance, running from August 24, 2018 – August 22, 2022. This span of time covers the original 3-year award and a one year no-cost extension. There were five tasks within this project: (1) project management, (2) systems engineering and studies, (3) TRISO-X Facility design, (4) facility license application development, and (5) support to application review. Detailed reporting during execution of the project was provided by a total of 16 quarterly reports, voluntary monthly update presentations, and annual summary presentations. Technical work products include 103 X-energy technical reports, 38 subcontractor (Centrus technical reports), 75 Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluations/Calculation reports, and 272 miscellaneous design documents (e.g., Engineering Service Orders, Engineering Component Specifications, Procedures, Guidelines/Policies, Design and Interface Requirements documents, and Drawings). All 29 of the X Energy milestones/deliverables were met early or on time and are archived in the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy’s Program Information Control System: Nuclear Energy under Fiscal Year 2018, Work Breakdown Structure F.OA – Industry FOA FY 2018 Awards, F.03 – X-Energy TRISO-X Project. All other work products are available to DOE upon request.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

CARD: CFD for Advanced Reactor Design

Software Tools and Expertise To Address Multiphase Flow Challenges in<p>Research, Design, and Optimization</p><p>This is the annual CARD project update to be presented at the 2024 FECM/NETL Spring R&amp;D Project Review Meeting.</p>

Dietiker, Jeff↗
NASA NTRS2004

National Educators' Workshop: Update 2003. Standard Experiments in Engineering, Materials Science, and Technology

The 18th Annual National Educators Workshop [NEW:Update 2003] was a part of NASA Langley s celebration of the Centennial of Controlled, Powered Flight by Orville and Wilbur Wright on December 17, 1903. The conference proceedings from NEW:Update 2003 reflect the Flight 100 theme by first providing a historic perspective on the remarkable accomplishments of the Wright Brothers. The historical perspective set the stag for insights into aeronautics and aerospace structures and materials now and into the future. The NEW:Update 2003 proceedings provide valuable resources to educators and students in the form of visuals, experiments and demonstrations for classes/labs at levels ranging from precollege through college education.

Prior, Edwin J.↗
NASA NTRS2004

National Educators' Workshop: Update 2003. Standard Experiments in Engineering, Materials Science, and Technology

The 18th Annual National Educators Workshop [NEW:Update 2003] was a part of NASA Langley s celebration of the Centennial of Controlled, Powered Flight by Orville and Wilbur Wright on December 17, 1903. The conference proceedings from NEW:Update 2003 reflect the Flight 100 theme by first providing a historic perspective on the remarkable accomplishments of the Wright Brothers. The historical perspective set the stag for insights into aeronautics and aerospace structures and materials now and into the future. The NEW:Update 2003 proceedings provide valuable resources to educators and students in the form of visuals, experiments and demonstrations for classes/labs at levels ranging from precollege through college education.

Prior, Edwin J.↗