Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Reference Model Project”

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.

1,433 records · Page 80
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Nuclear Criticality Safety Assessment of Criticality Control Containers without Moderation Control at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) provides for safe, permanent disposal of government-owned transuranic (TRU) and TRU mixed wastes. Receipt and disposal of waste at the WIPP site began in March 1999. The Sandia report, Consideration of Nuclear Criticality When Disposing of Transuranic Waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, addressed potential nuclear criticality safety issues based on the projected inventory characteristics known at the time [1]. As designs for inventory, waste forms, and disposal packages have changed, new analyses have been performed, and updates have been made to address any potential effects to the WIPP safety basis. New analyses performed include Saylor 2017 [2] and Brickner 2019 [3], which address certain waste containers with specified loadings under post-closure conditions. Both examined several hypothetical scenarios and included analyses to bound (from a criticality potential standpoint) credible configurations that could occur at WIPP during the repository regulatory post-closure disposal time period for feature, event, and process (FEP) considerations—10,000 years. During this post-closure period at WIPP, the screening of FEPs is governed by the risk-based standards and implementing regulations of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (i.e., 40 CFR 191 and 40 CFR 194, respectively) [4,5]. An FEP screening can be based on either a low-consequence or low-probability rationale. A low-probability rationale includes either (a) a qualitative rationale that the FEP is not credible or (b) a quantitative demonstration that the probability is less than 10-4 in 104 years. In this evaluation, a qualitative lowprobability rationale of not credible is used by demonstrating that bounding configurations of the waste are not critical. The demonstration of subcriticality is through quantitative calculations, but a probability of criticality is not evaluated. Rather, the rationale for this evaluation is that bounding configurations with an effective neutron multiplication factor (keff) well below the upper subcriticality limit (USL) make criticality incredible. Reference [2] documented a nuclear criticality assessment of the WIPP repository for disposal of dilute surplus plutonium materials using the Dilute and Dispose Approach and packaging in criticality control overpacks (CCOs). The CCO is the waste disposal container recently designed to allow for up to 380 fissile gram equivalent (FGE) 239 Pu per drum, which is a higher fissile loading than typical waste containers. The CCO consists of a criticality control container (CCC) positioned by upper and lower plywood spacers within a standard 55 gal drum. The CCC is used to establish a geometry control for fissile materials during transportation and WIPP emplacement operations. The current WIPP waste acceptance criteria for CCO payloads limit beryllium to less than or equal to 1% by weight of the waste contents and require the waste form to be non-machine compacted. Reference [2] considered two scenario progressions—room closure from salt creep, hereafter referred to as the reconfigured dry scenario, and flooding with brine, hereafter referred to as the reconfigured wet scenario. The subsequent drying out of the reconfigured wet scenarios was also considered. For all scenarios, subcriticality was maintained when 50 g of B 4 C (acting as a neutron absorber) per CCC was intermixed within the plutonium disposition waste form. The analysis used a waste form description that limits the amount of moderation that could be present within the waste form (i.e., it limits the amount of water and polyethylene that could be present based on planned processing conditions). This analysis to evaluate increased limits on the amount of moderation that could be present was performed as a companion to Reference [2] to address concerns associated with verifying moisture and/or plastic contents of waste materials following packaging of dilute surplus plutonium in the CCO. To that end, this analysis used the models and methods from Reference [2] to evaluate a more generic base waste form consisting of water and polyethylene that is more similar (and nearly identical) to the generic waste forms utilized in other models/analyses supporting the TRU Package Transporter Model II (TRUPACTII) safety analysis [6] (all are without moderation controls). The waste form in this analysis uses a base mixture of 75% water and 25% polyethylene, the total amount of which is varied to determine the optimum moderation to fissile material (H/Pu) ratio. The fissile loading is maintained at up to 380 FGE 239 Pu (modeled as PuO 2 ) per CCO with an additional 545 g of beryllium (to bound the 1% by weight contents restriction) and 50 g of B 4 C intermixed per CCO. The beryllium content (1% by weight) is based on the total allowed waste weight (this does not include packaging and container weights). Figures ES-1 and ES-2 display summary results, showing that with this model including 50 g of B 4 C per CCO, the system keff remains under 0.85 for all moderator amounts and provides a significant margin against post-closure criticality under postulated bounding conditions for compaction. Figure ES-1 compares an infinite model with a room model at the initial emplacement spacing and under full radial compaction. Full radial compaction places each CCC in direct contact and does not credit any anticipated spacing associated with current post-closure geomechanical modeling of the repository [7]. The effects of variations in the H/Pu ratio were evaluated by varying the amount of the water/polyethylene component of the waste model, with fissile loading maintained at 380 239 Pu FGE. Similarly, Figure ES-2 illustrates how various amounts of B 4 C per CCO influence k eff at different radial compactions, all at the H/Pu ratio of 200 (in the room array model). Therefore, while the results from Saylor 2017 [2] modeled more realistic process limits associated with packaging of dilute surplus plutonium, this analysis demonstrates that limits on moderation (plastic and water content) are not necessary to ensure subcriticality in the WIPP repository, provided the requisite B 4 C absorber is present.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS1995

Lead-Lag Control for Helicopter Vibration and Noise Reduction

As a helicopter transitions from hover to forward flight, the main rotor blades experience an asymmetry in flow field around the azimuth, with the blade section tangential velocities increasing on the advancing side and decreasing on the retreating side. To compensate for the reduced dynamic pressure on the retreating side, the blade pitch angles over this part of the rotor disk are increased. Eventually, a high enough forward speed is attained to produce compressibility effects on the advancing side of the rotor disk and stall on the retreating side. The onset of these two phenomena drastically increases the rotor vibratory loads and power requirements, thereby effectively establishing a limit on the maximum achievable forward speed. The alleviation of compressibility and stall (and the associated decrease in vibratory loads and power) would potentially result in an increased maximum forward speed. In the past, several methods have been examined and implemented to reduce the vibratory hub loads. Some of these methods are aimed specifically at alleviating vibration at very high flight speeds and increasing the maximum flight speed, while others focus on vibration reduction within the conventional flight envelope. Among the later are several types passive as well as active schemes. Passive schemes include a variety of vibration absorbers such as mechanical springs, pendulums, and bifilar absorbers. These mechanism are easy to design and maintain, but incur significant weight and drag penalties. Among the popular active control schemes in consideration are Higher Harmonic Control (HHC) and Individual Blade Control (IBC). HHC uses a conventional swash plate to generate a multi-cyclic pitch input to the blade. This requires actuators capable of sufficiently high power and bandwidth, increasing the cost and weight of the aircraft. IBC places actuators in the rotating reference frame, requiring the use of slip rings capable of transferring enough power to the actuators. Both schemes cause an increase in pitch link loads. Trailing Edge Flap (TEF) deployment can also used to generate unsteady aerodynamic forces and moments that counter the original vibratory loads, and thereby reduce rotor vibrations. While the vibrations absorbers, HHC, IBC, and TEF concepts discussed above attempt to reduce the vibratory loads, they do not specifically address the phenomena causing the vibrations at high advance ratios. One passive method that attempts to directly alleviate compressibility and stall, instead of reducing the ensuing vibrations, is the use of advanced tip designs. Taper, sweep, anhedral, and the manipulation of other geometric properties of the blade tips can reduce the severity of stall and compressibility effects , as well as reduce rotor power. A completely different approach to solve these problems is the tiltrotor configuration. As the forward velocity of the aircraft increases, the rotors, in this case, are tilted forward until they are perpendicular to the flow and act as propellers. This eliminates the edgewise flow encountered by conventional rotors and circumvents all the problems associated with flow asymmetry. However, the success involves a tremendous increase in cost and complexity of the aircraft. Another possible approach that has been proposed for the alleviation of vibratory loads at high forward flight speeds involves the use of controlled lead-lag motions to reduce the asymmetry in flow. A correctly phased 1/rev controlled lag motion could be introduced such that it produces a backward velocity on the advancing side and a forward velocity on the retreating side, to delay compressibility effects and stall to a higher advance ratio. Using a large enough lead-lag amplitude, the tip velocities could be reduced to levels encountered in hover. This concept was examined by two groups in the 1950's and early 1960's. In the United States, the Research Labs Division of United Aircraft developed a large lead-lag motion rotor, meant to achieve lag motion amplitudes up to 45 degrees. In order to reduce the required actuation force, the blade hinges were moved to 40% of the blade radius to increase the rotating lag frequency to approximately 1/rev. The blade hinges were redesigned to produce a flap-lag coupling so the large flapwise aerodynamic loads could be exploited to actuate the blades in the lag direction. A wind tunnel test of this rotor concept revealed actuation and blade motion scheduling problems. The project was eventually discontinued due to these problems and high blade stresses. Around the same time, at Boelkow in Germany, a similar lead-lag rotor program was conducted under the leadership of Hans Derschmidt. Here, too, the blade hinges were moved outboard to 34% radius to reduce the actuation loads. The main difference between this and the United Aircraft program was the use of a mechanical actuation scheme with maximum lead-lag motions of 400. This program was also discontinued for unclear reasons. The present study is directed toward conducting a comprehensive analytical examination to evaluate the effectiveness of controlled lead-lag motions in reducing vibratory hub loads and increasing maximum flight speed. Since both previous studies on this subject were purely experimental, only a limited data set and physical understanding of the problem was obtained. With the currently available analytical models and computational resources, the present effort is geared toward developing an in-depth physical understanding of the precise underlying mechanisms by which vibration reduction may be achieved. Additionally, in recognition of the fact that large amplitude lead-lag motions would - (i) be difficult to implement, and (ii) produce very large blade stresses; the present study examines the potential of only moderate-to-small lead-lag motions for reduction of vibratory hub loads. Using such an approach, the emphasis is not on eliminating the periodic variations in tangential velocity at the blade tip, but at best reducing these variations slightly so that compressibility and stall are delayed to slightly higher advance ratios. This study was conducted in two steps. In the first step, a hingeless helicopter rotor was modeled using rigid blades undergoing flap-lag-torsion rotations about spring restrained hinges and bearings. This model was then modified by separating the lead-lag degree of freedom into two components, a free and a prescribed motion. Using this model, a parametric study of the effect of phase and amplitude of a prescribed lead-lag motion on hub vibration was conducted. The data gathered was analyzed to obtain an understanding of the basic physics of the problem and show the capability of this method to reduce vibration and expand the flight envelope. In the second half of the study, the similar analysis was conducted using an elastic blade model to confirm the effects predicted by the simpler model.

Gandhi, Farhan↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2013

Annual Report: Carbon Capture Simulation Initiative (CCSI) (30 September 2013)

The Carbon Capture Simulation Initiative (CCSI) is a partnership among national laboratories, industry and academic institutions that is developing and deploying state-of-the-art computational modeling and simulation tools to accelerate the commercialization of carbon capture technologies from discovery to development, demonstration, and ultimately the widespread deployment to hundreds of power plants. The CCSI Toolset will provide end users in industry with a comprehensive, integrated suite of scientifically validated models, with uncertainty quantification (UQ), optimization, risk analysis and decision making capabilities. The CCSI Toolset incorporates commercial and open-source software currently in use by industry and is also developing new software tools as necessary to fill technology gaps identified during execution of the project. Ultimately, the CCSI Toolset will (1) enable promising concepts to be more quickly identified through rapid computational screening of devices and processes; (2) reduce the time to design and troubleshoot new devices and processes; (3) quantify the technical risk in taking technology from laboratory-scale to commercial-scale; and (4) stabilize deployment costs more quickly by replacing some of the physical operational tests with virtual power plant simulations. CCSI is led by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and leverages the Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories’ core strengths in modeling and simulation, bringing together the best capabilities at NETL, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The CCSI’s industrial partners provide representation from the power generation industry, equipment manufacturers, technology providers and engineering and construction firms. The CCSI’s academic participants (Carnegie Mellon University, Princeton University, West Virginia University, Boston University and the University of Texas at Austin) bring unparalleled expertise in multiphase flow reactors, combustion, process synthesis and optimization, planning and scheduling, and process control techniques for energy processes. During Fiscal Year (FY) 13, CCSI announced the initial release of its first set of computational tools and models during the October 2012 meeting of its Industry Advisory Board. This initial release led to five companies licensing the CCSI Toolset under a Test and Evaluation Agreement this year. By the end of FY13, the CCSI Technical Team had completed development of an updated suite of computational tools and models. The list below summarizes the new and enhanced toolset components that were released following comprehensive testing during October 2013. 1. FOQUS. Framework for Optimization and Quantification of Uncertainty and Sensitivity. Package includes: FOQUS Graphic User Interface (GUI), simulation-based optimization engine, Turbine Client, and heat integration capabilities. There is also an updated simulation interface and new configuration GUI for connecting Aspen Plus or Aspen Custom Modeler (ACM) simulations to FOQUS and the Turbine Science Gateway. 2. A new MFIX-based Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model to predict particle attrition. 3. A new dynamic reduced model (RM) builder, which generates computationally efficient RMs of the behavior of a dynamic system. 4. A completely re-written version of the algebraic surrogate model builder for optimization (ALAMO). The new version is several orders of magnitude faster than the initial release and eliminates the MATLAB dependency. 5. A new suite of high resolution filtered models for the hydrodynamics associated with horizontal cylindrical objects in a flow path. 6. The new Turbine Science Gateway (Cluster), which supports FOQUS for running multiple simulations for optimization or UQ using a local computer or cluster. 7. A new statistical tool (BSS-ANOVA-UQ) for calibration and validation of CFD models. 8. A new basic data submodel in Aspen Plus format for a representative high viscosity capture solvent, 2-MPZ system. 9. An updated RM tool for CFD (REVEAL) that can create a RM from MFIX. A new lightweight, stand-alone version will be available in late 2013. 10. An updated RM integration tool to convert the RM from REVEAL into a CAPE-OPEN or ACM model for use in a process simulator. 11. An updated suite of unified steady-state and dynamic process models for solid sorbent carbon capture included bubbling fluidized bed and moving bed reactors. 12. An updated and unified set of compressor models including steady-state design point model and dynamic model with surge detection. 13. A new framework for the synthesis and optimization of coal oxycombustion power plants using advanced optimization algorithms. This release focuses on modeling and optimization of a cryogenic air separation unit (ASU). 14. A new technical risk model in spreadsheet format. 15. An updated version of the sorbent kinetic/equilibrium model for parameter estimation for the 1st generation sorbent model. 16. An updated process synthesis superstructure model to determine optimal process configurations utilizing surrogate models from ALAMO for adsorption and regeneration in a solid sorbent process. 17. Validation models for NETL Carbon Capture Unit utilizing sorbent AX. Additional validation models will be available for sorbent 32D in 2014. 18. An updated hollow fiber membrane model and system example for carbon capture. 19. An updated reference power plant model in Thermoflex that includes additional steam extraction and reinjection points to enable heat integration module. 20. An updated financial risk model in spreadsheet format.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
NASA NTRS2007

Large Solar-Rejection Filter

NASA utilized Image Intensified Video Cameras for ATV data acquisition from a jet flying at 12.8 km. Afterwards the video was digitized and then analyzed with a modified commercial software package, Image Systems Trackeye. Astrometric results were limited by saturation, plate scale, and imposed linear plate solution based on field reference stars. Time-dependent fragment angular trajectories, velocities, accelerations, and luminosities were derived in each video segment. It was evident that individual fragments behave differently. Photometric accuracy was insufficient to confidently assess correlations between luminosity and fragment spatial behavior (velocity, deceleration). Use of high resolution digital video cameras in future should remedy this shortcoming. A scenically accurate description of matter interpreted as a substance made up of corpuscular constituents was established during the course of the 19th century. In this description, atoms--the building blocks of the matter--form molecules. The properties of the molecules were described by chemistry or thermodynamics depending on what characteristics of the matter were investigated. In both theories, the molecules can dissociate to atoms when the kinetic energies of the atoms exceed the strength of the chemical bonds. The number of atoms is always preserved in a closed system. This is not true, however, when the matter takes up much higher energies at relativistic scales. New particles can be produced at the expense of the kinetic energy. The number of particles is no longer preserved. There are other conserved quantities, however, these quantities, the charge, baryon number, lepton number, are associated with particles that are considered elementary today. The properties and behavior of these elementary particles is the subject of Particle Physics or High Energy Physics. Practice Page: A crewmember touching a positively charged surface was thought to be galvanically isolated from the vehicle ground analogous to a bird on a high voltage power wire. Recent analysis confirms that positive floating potentials, ionospheric currents to the EVA suit, can be hazardous. The analysis is wrong in that the ionospheric plasma itself can close the circuit. Parametric analysis of very low voltage exposures (2 to 15 volts) could cause pain and/or involuntary muscle tetani or spinal cord shock. NASA worked with the Naval Health Research Center Detachment Directed Energy Bioeffects Laboratory to examine the affects electrical hazards could have on extravehicular activity using two models. The results of the two computational models were combined to predict areas of the body in which neurons of different diameters would be excited. They predicted that physiologically active current could be conducted across the crew member causing catastrophic hazards. Future work to analyze additional current paths was proposed. The FUSE spectrum of BB Dor, observed in a high state, is modeled with an accretion disk with a very low inclination (possibly lower than 10 degrees). Assuming an average WD mass of 0.8 solar mass leads to a distance of the order of approximately 650pc, consistent with the extremely low galactic reddening in its direction, and a mass accretion rate of 10 (exp -9) solar mass a year. The spectrum presents some broad and deep silicon and sulfur absorption lines, indicating that these elements are over-abundant: silicon is 3 times solar, and sulfur is 20 times solar. The FUSE spectrum of BB Dor, observed in a high state, is modeled with an accretion disk with a very low inclination (possibly lower than 10 degrees). Assuming an average WD mass of 0.8 solar mass leads to a distance of the order of approximately 650pc, consistent with the extremely low galactic reddening in its direction, and a mass accretion rate of 10 (exp -9) solar mass a year. The spectrum presents some broad and deep silicon and sulfur absorption lines, indicating that these elements are over-abundant: silicon is times solar, and sulfur is 20 times solar. From its previously observed optical emission lines, P831-57 (WD 0334 6400 or Ret 1 in A Catalog and Atlas of Cataclysmic Variables: Living Edition) has been suspected to contain an accretion disk associated with a companion star in orbit around a subdwarf star with a temperature T is greater than 21,000K. P831-57 has therefore been classified as a nova-like. However, our present observations show it to be a DA + dMe binary. The analysis of its Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) spectrum (continuum and lines) reveal an average mass white dwarf (Log(g) approximately equals 7.8 plus or minus 0.1)with a temperature T approximately equals 37,000 plus or minus 500K, an extremely low projected rotational velocity, and a distance of about 115 plus or minus 5pc. The photosphere contains C, N, Si, and S (at about 1% of solar abundances). The dMe star is seen as a flux excess in near-infrared photometry and appears to show occasional flaring of about one magnitude as seen in the Harvard plates. There is no evidence of periodic variability in the spectroscopic or photometric data. We find no evidence of a an accretion disk, instead we find evidence of wind accretion as the stellar carbon abundance (N(C)/N(H) = 2.5 x 10 (exp -6) is about ten times larger than predicted by radiative levitation for such a gravity and temperature. The power needs and solutions for the space exploration and lunar mobility program are discussed. Long term missions in space and on the lunar surface require high energy batteries. Rechargeable batteries for mobility systems and portable utility pallet are needed for successful exploration missions. Nanomaterial usage increases the energy density of the cells apart from increasing the power density. The symptoms and threats from acute mountain sickness (AMS) are discussed. The underlying assumptions concerning spacecraft atmosphere mean there is a potential risk to astronauts. The baseline worst case scenario is about 25% based on direct ascent to 8.0 psia with 32% O2. The practical mitigation approach is a staged depressurization scheme. Due to the uncertainty about potential AMS risk the flight surgeon should prepare, focused research should proceed, and current analytical efforts should continue. This slide presentation reviews the threat astronauts face from acute mountain sickness (AMS). The incidence of AMS is highly variable and the risk to astronauts is unclear. However, the potential risk is higher than current EAAs suggest and precautions should be implemented. Due to the uncertain nature of the risk flight surgeons should prepare, and focused research should proceed. Quasiparticle tunneling can be understood at low temperatures using a non-equilibrium kinetic theory. Low-temperature tunneling can be suppressed using existing techniques: island-lead gap engineering, lead cooling with SIN junctions, and quasiparticle traps. The slide presentation reviews the science goals and mission planning for the proposed Jupiter System Observer (JSO). The spacecraft would accommodate 9 instruments making the instrument payload more capable than any previously flown to Jupiter. The would-be mission includes study programs for Jupiter's satellites, interior, magnetosphere and atmosphere. The power needs and solutions for the space exploration and lunar mobility program are discussed. Long term missions in space and on the lunar surface require high energy batteries. Rechargeable batteries for mobility systems and portable utility pallet are needed for successful exploration missions. Nanomaterial usage increases the energy density of the cells apart from increasing the power density. This slide presentation reviews the power requirements for the space exploration and the lunar surface mobility programs. It includes information about the specifications for high energy batteries and the power requirements for lunar rovers,

Roberts, William↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.

Economics↗
NASA NTRS2015

Advanced Concept Studies for Supersonic Commercial Transports Entering Service in the 2018-2020 Period Phase 2

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LM), working in conjunction with General Electric Global Research (GE GR) and Stanford University, executed a 19 month program responsive to the NASA sponsored "N+2 Supersonic Validation: Advanced Concept Studies for Supersonic Commercial Transports Entering Service in the 2018-2020 Period" contract. The key technical objective of this effort was to validate integrated airframe and propulsion technologies and design methodologies necessary to realize a supersonic vehicle capable of meeting the N+2 environmental and performance goals. The N+2 program is aligned with NASA's Supersonic Project and is focused on providing system level solutions capable of overcoming the efficiency, environmental, and performance barriers to practical supersonic flight. The N+2 environmental and performance goals are outlined in the technical paper, AIAA-2014-2138 (Ref. 1) along with the validated N+2 Phase 2 results. Our Phase 2 efforts built upon our Phase 1 studies (Ref. 2) and successfully demonstrated the ability to design and test realistic configurations capable of shaped sonic booms over the width of the sonic boom carpet. Developing a shaped boom configuration capable of meeting the N+2 shaped boom targets is a key goal for the N+2 program. During the LM Phase 1 effort, LM successfully designed and tested a shaped boom trijet configuration (1021) capable of achieving 85 PLdB under track (forward and aft shock) and up to 28 deg off-track at Mach 1.6. In Phase 2 we developed a refined configuration (1044-2) that extended the under 85 PLdB sonic boom level over the entire carpet of 52 deg off-track at a cruise Mach number of 1.7. Further, the loudness level of the configuration throughout operational conditions calculates to an average of 79 PLdB. These calculations rely on propagation employing Burger's (sBOOM) rounding methodology, and there are indications that the configuration average loudness would actually be 75 PLdB. We also added significant fidelity to the design of the configuration in this phase by performing a low speed wind tunnel test at our LTWT facility in Palmdale, by more complete modelling of propulsion effects in our sonic boom analysis, and by refining our configuration packaging and performance assessments. Working with General Electric, LM performed an assessment of the impact of inlet and nozzle effects on the sonic boom signature of the LM N+2 configurations. Our results indicate that inlet/exhaust streamtube boundary conditions are adequate for conceptual design studies, but realistic propulsion modeling at similar stream-tube conditions does have a small but measurable impact on the sonic boom signature. Previous supersonic transport studies have identified aeroelastic effects as one of the major challenges associated with the long, slender vehicles particularly common with shaped boom aircraft (Ref. 3). Under the Phase 2 effort, we have developed a detailed structural analysis model to evaluate the impact of flexibility and structural considerations on the feasibility of future quiet supersonic transports. We looked in particular at dynamic structural modes and flutter as a failure that must be avoided. We found that for our N+2 design in particular, adequate flutter margin existed. Our flutter margin is large enough to cover uncertainties like large increases in engine weight and the margin is relatively easy to increase with additional stiffening mass. The lack of major aeroelastic problems probably derives somewhat from an early design bias. While shaped boom aircraft require long length, they are not required to be thin. We intentionally developed our structural depths to avoid major flexibility problems. So at the end of Phase 2, we have validated that aeroelastic problems are not necessarily endemic to shaped boom designs. Experimental validation of sonic boom design and analysis techniques was the primary objective of the N+2 Supersonic Validations contract; and in this Phase, LM participated in four high speed wind tunnel tests. The first so-called Parametric Test in the Ames 9x7 tunnel did an exhaustive look at variation effects of the parameters: humidity, total pressure, sample time, spatial averaging distance and number of measurement locations, and more. From the results we learned to obtain data faster and more accurately, and made test condition tolerances easy to meet (eliminating earlier 60 percent wasted time when condition tolerances could not be held). The next two tests used different tunnels. The Ames 11 ft tunnel was used to test lower Mach numbers of 1.2 and 1.4. There were several difficulties using this tunnel for the first time for sonic boom including having to shift the measurement Mach numbers to 1.15 and 1.3 to avoid flow problems. It is believed that the 11 ft could be used successfully to measure sonic boom but there are likely to be a number of test condition restrictions. The Glenn 8x6 ft tunnel was used next and the tunnel has a number of desirable features for sonic boom measurement. While the Ames 9x7 can only test Mach 1.55 to 2.55 and the 11 ft can only test Mach 1.3 and lower, the Glenn 8x6 can test continuously from Mach 0.3 to 2.0. Unfortunately test measurement accuracy was compromised by a reference pressure drift. Post-test analysis revealed that the drift occurred when Mach number drifted slightly. Test measurements indicated that if Mach number drift is eliminated, results from the 8x6 would be more accurate, especially at longer distances, than results from the 9x7. The fourth test in the 9x7, called LM4, used everything we learned to comprehensively and accurately measure our new 1044-02 configuration with a full-carpet shaped signature design. Productivity was 8 times greater than our Phase 1 LM3 test. Measurement accuracy and repeatability was excellent out to 42 in. However, measurements at greater distances require the rail in the aft position and become substantially less accurate. Further signature processing or measurement improvements are needed for beyond near-field signature validation.

Morgenstern, John↗
DOE OSTI2018

Development of Thermoacoustic Sensors for Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors

This Final Report refers to the project “Development of Thermoacoustic Sensors for Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor Systems”, which was led by Westinghouse Electric Company (Westinghouse) and carried out in collaboration with Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and University of Pittsburgh. Thermo-acoustic Power Sensors (TAPS) are self-powered, wireless sensors envisioned for measuring key parameters, such as local temperature and neutron flux, in a nuclear reactor core. This project was intended to specifically investigate their applicability to Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors (SFR). TAPS are non-invasive (wireless) and passive (self-powered) devices. The passivity derives from their ability to use conditions that “naturally” exist in a nuclear reactor, such as gamma and neutron flux, as power sources. They generate oscillating pressure waves (i.e., sound waves) which, with a frequency and amplitude dependent upon these conditions, can travel through the core and associated structures, and reach the outside of the reactor vessel where a properly designed network of receivers can detect and interpret them. These receivers require a very small amount of power which, during loss of power events, can be provided for example by harvesting gamma radiation energy, thus resulting in a monitoring system that can function both during normal operation and during loss of power events. The project aimed at TAPS development through a series of tasks which are listed and briefly discussed as follows. TASK 1 – Sensor hardware design Subtask 1a: Assessment of sensor applications to SFRs Subtask 1b: Development of sensor functional requirements Subtask 1c: Definition of sensor hardware design specifications Task description: TAPS design was informed by considerations on their application (Subtask 1a), both the ultimate one in an SFR and the actual one in the ANL testing facilities that was intended to be used in support of the project. Considerations were made to identify optimum sensor design features that optimize the sensor size, materials, and output signal, for installation inside an SFR core. These considerations led to the development of Functional Requirements (Subtask 1b) and Design Requirements (Subtask 1c). TASK 2 – Sensor Hardware Manufacture Subtask 2a: Sensor hardware construction drawing development Subtask 2b: Sensor manufacture and assembly Task description: TAPS technical drawings were developed (Subtask 2a) using the Design Requirements established under Task 1. Subsequently, in spite of some problems which ultimately caused the program to be delayed, TAPS manufacturing was completed based on drawings (Subtask 2b). TASK 3 – Development of TAPS Signal Measurement System and TAPS Testing in Water Subtask 3a: Design, assembly and testing of signal measurement system, and TAPS testing in water Subtask 3b: Signal prediction-correction methodology development Task description: An assessment was performed on the techniques that can potentially be used to detect the signals emitted by the TAPS, e.g. a fiber-optic based acoustic signal measurement system, a laser vibrometer system, or an accelerometer-based system. The most suited technology, i.e. the accelerometer-based system, was developed further, and tested in water (Subtask 3a). Moreover, efforts were made to develop the methodology required to determine the actual system temperature and neutron flux distribution using differences between the measured and predicted TAPS responses (Subtask 3b). TASK 4 – Sensor System Testing in Sodium Subtask 4a: Test plan development Subtask 4b: Design, assembly and testing in small-scale sodium facility Subtask 4c: Design, assembly and testing in large-scale sodium and structures facility Task description: Upon proper test plan development (Subtask 4a), the fabricated TAPS was planned to be tested in sodium, by using two sodium facilities at ANL having different size and different purpose. The Under Sodium Viewing (USV) small-scale facility was intended to be used to investigate the effect of sodium on the sensor and its performance (Subtask 4b). The Mechanism Engineering Test Loop (METL) large-scale facility was instead intended to be used to assess the additional effect of prototypical SFR structures, such as fuel assembly mockup or parts of the core restrain structure, on sensor performance (Subtask 4c). As discussed in Section 3.2.2.7, unexpected issues during the TAPS manufacturing process resulted in some activities being delayed, with the TAPS and USV facility developed to the point to be ready for testing in sodium, however without the possibility to actually perform such testing (including the testing in METL) due to the end of the program’s performance period. Overall, through the development and testing (in water only) of two TAPS devices (a First-Generation TAPS followed by an optimized Second-Generation TAPS), the project confirmed the capability of this technology to generate acoustic signals proportional to temperature, which can be detected through a network of accelerometers identified as the best-suited type of receivers for acoustic signal detection. Moreover, the project also developed a computational model to predict the characteristics of the acoustic signals being generated, which combines thermal analysis of the TAPS with Finite Element Modeling (FEM)-aided acoustic characterization of the system. This model was benchmarked against experimental data collected during the project and, although general agreement was obtained, some limitations of the modeling methods were identified, which require additional development. Additional testing is needed in order to assess the effect, on TAPS operation and performance, of environmental changes resulting from the transition from water to liquid sodium. Such testing, which is suggested to be performed in the future, should look specifically at 1) both the effect resulting from the different thermoacoustic behavior of sodium (relative to water) and the effects of higher temperature on TAPS performance, and 2) the performance of the sensor-receiver system when multiple TAPS are used simultaneously and prototypical reactor structures are positioned in the testing environment. The latter testing is needed to assess the effects that potential signal attenuation/ distortion phenomena, as well as potential interference between signals emitted simultaneously, have on the performance of the technology for ultimate application in a nuclear reactor.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Habitation Development Status: Current Concepts and ISRU Opportunities

Introduction: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on a bold journey to return humankind to the Moon and onward to Mars with innovative commercial, international, and academic partnerships. Under the Artemis series of missions, NASA seeks to establish sustained human exploration of deep space through an objectives-based approach. This approach drives the identification of needed system functionality and the current and future capabilities which will eventually allow humanity to sustainably live beyond Earth. Providing evolvable and scalable habitation is a cornerstone function that calls for the collection and integration of current, developmental, and future technologies that can meet near-term exploration needs while growing into long-term sustained presence. NASA is advancing in-space habitation through its Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) model while designing lunar, Mars transit, and Mars surface habitat government reference concepts for Artemis missions. These efforts have unveiled possible near-term opportunities for the in-space resource utilization community if human habitation is considered a future customer of space resources. NextSTEP Habitation Development: NASA is closely working with commercial partners under its NextSTEP Appendix A model to advance habitation systems in the arena of inflatable and composite habitation structures. Such efforts promise efficiencies in volumetric packaging and overall spacecraft mass respectively. Recent testing by commercial partners have helped to quantify possible failure mechanisms for inflatable structures while advancing their technology towards eventual flight certification. The advancement of such Class II habitation structures, in which the habitat is only fully deployed once in-space or on a planetary surface, is critical to providing increased habitable volume for long-duration missions with no additional mass penalties. The progression of such technology is infused into NASA’s government reference concepts for notional deep space habitation concepts. Current Government Reference Concepts: To best inform the formulation of future collaborative solicitations, NASA employs the practice of internally developing reference concepts for future exploration elements. These concepts aid in identifying the functions and capabilities needed to complete NASA missions as well as feasible solutions within the timeframe needed. Government reference concepts for a lunar Surface Habitat, Mars Transit Habitat, and Mars Sur-face Habitat are continuously being developed and updated to better guide the Agency’s overall exploration architecture. Lunar Surface Habitat. As NASA returns to the Moon, it is evaluating possible lunar surface habitation concepts. The Surface Habitat (SH) reference concept entails a hybrid metallic-inflatable structure capable of initially housing two crew for surface stays of up to 30 days in duration. While initial missions may span ~7 days in duration, consideration is being given to expanding SH’s capability to support a crew of four for up to 60 days over its 15-year design life. Functionally, the SH serves as a ‘hub’ for all Artemis crewed surface operations, providing internal volume for maintenance, medical, logistics, science utilization, and extravehicular activity (EVA) support in addition to core habitation functionality such as environmental control and life support (ECLS) and power generation and distribution among many others. Additionally, NASA has entered a study agreement with the Italian Space Agency (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana – ASI) to investigation a possible Multi-Purpose Habitat (MPH) as an additional or augmenting habit-able element for the lunar surface. Mars Transit Habitat. NASA’s current architectural concept for initial human missions to Mars entails the utilization of a transit habitat (TH) to transport a four-person crew to and from Mars orbit, departing from and returning to a lunar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO), over the course of a ~1,200-day mission. While holding a similar 15-year design lifetime, TH will also support a series of analog mission activities in NRHO to gradually test the systems and interaction with lunar surface elements, some of which may be adapted for Mars surface exploration. Holding similar functional capabilities as SH, TH is sized to support much longer durations in space and greater logistical independence. Mars Surface Habitat. NASA is still exploring the concept of operations for initial crewed missions to Mars. As such, the Mars Surface Habitat (MSH) concept is still in its infancy as options for mobile, pressurized habitation and stationary habitats are being explored. It is expected MSH will leverage heavily from the lunar SH and possible lunar pressurized rover, however the very different Martian environment will likely necessitate modifications. ISRU Opportunities: Despite the advancements under NASA’s NextSTEP habitation work and continually optimized reference concepts, NASA is facing near-term mass and power challenges that may create opportunities to the ISRU community by providing yet another possible customer for space resources. While NASA desires to use regenerative ECLS systems (ECLSS) for all habitation concepts, their operation comes with initial mass penalties and maintenance overheads when compared to simpler open-loop architectures. Because of this, NASA is currently pro-posing an open-loop, consumables-based architecture for its surface habitats to achieve initial launch and delivery lander mass targets while scarring for the in-corporation of regenerative ECLSS to meet longer mission durations and sustained presence. With such an architecture, oxygen and potable water are needed consumables, which initial ISRU systems may be able to provide in a pilot capacity. Although the TH is expecting to utilize regenerative ECLSS, advancements in lunar surface-based ISRU and possible re-supply of spacecraft in lunar or Mars orbit could significantly reduce the logistical need for ECLSS related spares on TH and possibly allow a similar open-loop and consumables-based architecture. In addition to ECLSS mass concerns, the SH is facing challenges with energy storage to support operations over periods of darkness exceeding 100 hours. Both battery and fuel cell-based power architectures are being traded, opening options for external power generation and energy storage. One possibility is ISRU-produced H2 and O2 feeding external primary fuel cell systems which could supplement habitation power generation while reducing initial mass and volume until much more powerful fission power systems might be deployed. Conclusion: Significant advancements are being made in evolvable habitation concepts that span from near-term technologies, such as inflatable structures under NextSTEP, to potentially revolutionary capabilities like the lunar surface construction as funded through the Moon-to-Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technologies (MMPACT) project. As NASA investigates both heritage capabilities and rap-idly advancing, disruptive technologies, there are likely many near-term opportunities for initial ISRU capabilities to significantly aid human habitation and increase self-sufficiency beyond Earth.

habitation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Habitation Development Status: Current Concepts and ISRU Opportunities

Introduction: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on a bold journey to return humankind to the Moon and onward to Mars with innovative commercial, international, and academic partnerships [1]. Under the Artemis series of missions, NASA seeks to establish sustained human exploration of deep space through an objectives-based approach [2]. This approach drives the identification of needed system functionality and the current and future capabilities which will eventually allow humanity to sustainably live beyond Earth. Providing evolvable and scalable habitation is a cornerstone function that calls for the collection and integration of current, developmental, and future technologies that can meet near-term exploration needs while growing into long-term sustained presence. NASA is advancing in-space habitation through its Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) model while designing lunar, Mars transit, and Mars surface habitat government reference concepts for Artemis missions. These efforts have unveiled possible near-term opportunities for the in-space resource utilization community if human habitation is considered a future customer of space resources. NextSTEP Habitation Development: NASA is closely working with commercial partners under its NextSTEP Appendix A model to advance habitation systems in the arena of inflatable and composite habitation structures. Such efforts promise efficiencies in volumetric packaging and overall spacecraft mass respectively. Recent testing by commercial partners have helped to quantify possible failure mechanisms for inflatable structures while advancing their technology towards eventual flight certification. The advancement of such Class II habitation structures, in which the habitat is only fully deployed once in-space or on a planetary surface [3], is critical to providing increased habitable volume for long-duration missions with no additional mass penalties. The progression of such technology is infused into NASA’s government reference concepts for notional deep space habitation concepts. Current Government Reference Concepts: To best inform the formulation of future collaborative solicitations, NASA employs the practice of internally developing reference concepts for future exploration elements. These concepts aid in identifying the functions and capabilities needed to complete NASA missions as well as feasible solutions within the timeframe needed. Government reference concepts for a lunar Surface Habitat, Mars Transit Habitat, and Mars Sur-face Habitat are continuously being developed and updated to better guide the Agency’s overall exploration architecture. Lunar Surface Habitat. As NASA returns to the Moon, it is evaluating possible lunar surface habitation concepts. The Surface Habitat (SH) reference concept entails a hybrid metallic-inflatable structure capable of initially housing two crew for surface stays of up to 30 days in duration [4]. While initial missions may span ~7 days in duration, consideration is being given to expanding SH’s capability to support a crew of four for up to 60 days over its 15-year design life [5]. Functionally, the SH serves as a ‘hub’ for all Artemis crewed surface operations, providing internal volume for maintenance, medical, logistics, science utilization, and extravehicular activity (EVA) support in addition to core habitation functionality such as environmental control and life support (ECLS) and power generation and distribution among many others. Additionally, NASA has entered a study agreement with the Italian Space Agency (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana – ASI) to investigation a possible Multi-Purpose Habitat (MPH) as an additional or augmenting habit-able element for the lunar surface [6]. Mars Transit Habitat. NASA’s current architectural concept for initial human missions to Mars entails the utilization of a transit habitat (TH) to transport a four-person crew to and from Mars orbit, departing from and returning to a lunar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO), over the course of a ~1,200-day mission [5]. While holding a similar 15-year design lifetime, TH will also support a series of analog mission activities in NRHO to gradually test the systems and interaction with lunar surface elements, some of which may be adapted for Mars surface exploration. Holding similar functional capabilities as SH, TH is sized to support much longer durations in space and greater logistical independence. Mars Surface Habitat. NASA is still exploring the concept of operations for initial crewed missions to Mars. As such, the Mars Surface Habitat (MSH) concept is still in its infancy as options for mobile, pressurized habitation and stationary habitats are being explored. It is expected MSH will leverage heavily from the lunar SH and possible lunar pressurized rover, however the very different Martian environment will likely necessitate modifications. ISRU Opportunities: Despite the advancements under NASA’s NextSTEP habitation work and continually optimized reference concepts, NASA is facing near-term mass and power challenges that may create opportunities to the ISRU community by providing yet another possible customer for space resources. While NASA desires to use regenerative ECLS systems (ECLSS) for all habitation concepts, their operation comes with initial mass penalties and maintenance overheads when compared to simpler open-loop architectures. Because of this, NASA is currently pro-posing an open-loop, consumables-based architecture for its surface habitats to achieve initial launch and delivery lander mass targets while scarring for the in-corporation of regenerative ECLSS to meet longer mission durations and sustained presence. With such an architecture, oxygen and potable water are needed consumables, which initial ISRU systems may be able to provide in a pilot capacity. Although the TH is expecting to utilize regenerative ECLSS, advancements in lunar surface-based ISRU and possible re-supply of spacecraft in lunar or Mars orbit could significantly reduce the logistical need for ECLSS related spares on TH and possibly allow a similar open-loop and consumables-based architecture. Table 1 Notional ECLSS consumables per mission use for SH and TH [5]. SH (28-day) Open Loop: Water (kg) 288 | Oxygen (kg) 30 TH (1110-day) Closed-Loop: Water (kg) 182 | Oxygen (kg) 123 In addition to ECLSS mass concerns, the SH is facing challenges with energy storage to support operations over periods of darkness exceeding 100 hours. Both battery and fuel cell-based power architectures are being traded, opening options for external power generation and energy storage. One possibility is ISRU-produced H2 and O2 feeding external primary fuel cell systems which could supplement habitation power generation while reducing initial mass and volume until much more powerful fission power systems might be deployed. Conclusion: Significant advancements are being made in evolvable habitation concepts that span from near-term technologies, such as inflatable structures under NextSTEP, to potentially revolutionary capabilities like the lunar surface construction as funded through the Moon-to-Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technologies (MMPACT) project [7]. As NASA investigates both heritage capabilities and rap-idly advancing, disruptive technologies, there are likely many near-term opportunities for initial ISRU capabilities to significantly aid human habitation and increase self-sufficiency beyond Earth.

habitation↗
DOE OSTI2025

TRAILS Output Files

Overview This data repository contains ZIP files that store compressed versions of the output of running the WaterPaths utility planning and management tool in the DU Re-Evaluation mode (to download the tool, please see this GitHub repository). The tool was used to simulate the six-utility North Carolina Research Triangle problem. Details on the contents of each ZIP file can be seen below. Data details Temporal range: Weekly data for 2,344 weeks from 2015 to 2060 (45 years). Spatial range: Six water utilities in the North Carolina Research Triangle region (0: Chapel Hil/OWASA, 1: Durham, 2: Cary, 3: Raleigh, 4: Pittsboro, and 5: Chatham) File types: CSV and OUT Different solutions available The solution numbers correspond to the different pathway strategies (henceforth referred to as "solutions") discussed in paper's main and supporting text (abstract and link to the paper here). They are as follows: Sol92: The Durham-focused pathway strategy Sol132: The Raleigh-focused pathway strategy Sol140: The regionally-robust pathway strategy Objectives files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Objectives_RDMXX_solsXX_to_XX.csv files. Each CSV file will consist of a row representing all the objective values for that specific solution, while every six columns represents the reliability, restriction frequency, infrastructure net present value ($ mil), peak financial cost, worst-case cost, and unit cost ($ per MG; in that order) for each of the six utilities. There will be 1,000 such files, denoting the performance of the six utilities across the 1,000 deeply uncertain states of the world (DU SOWs). Pathway files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Pathways_sXX_RDMXX.out file. Each OUT corresponds to the set of infrastructure being triggered in a specific DU SOW, and each file will have the name file will consist of four tab-delimited columns that are described as follows: Realization: The realization in which an infrastructure options being triggered utility: The utility currently triggering infrastructure week: The week in which a specific infrastructure option is being triggered infra.: The infrastructure option being triggered If the OUT file contains only the header line, no infrastructure was triggered for that specific DU SOW. Policies files These files can be obtained by unzipping Policies.zip. Each of the 1,000 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly water use restriction policies for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: 0rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 0 (values between 0 and 1) 1rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 1 (values between 0 and 1) 2rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 2 (values between 0 and 1) 3rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 3 (values between 0 and 1) 4rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 4 (values between 0 and 1) 5rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 5 (values between 0 and 1) 0transf: transfer volume for utility 0 (in MGD) 1transf: transfer volume for utility 1 (in MGD) 2transf: transfer volume for utility 2 (in MGD) 3transf: transfer volume for utility 3 (in MGD) 4transf: transfer volume for utility 4 (in MGD) 5transf: transfer volume for utility 5 (in MGD) Water Sources files These files can be obtained by unzipping WaterSources_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each water source for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xvolume: available water volume from source X (in MGD) Xs_area: surface area of source X (in ACF) Xdemand: demand drawn from a water source from source X (in MGD) Xup_spill: upstream spillage from source X (in MGD) Xww_inflow: wastewater inflow from source X (in MGD) Xcatch_inflow: upstream catchment inflow to source X (in MGD) Xevap: evaporation multiplier for source X (values between 0 and 1) Xds_spill: downstream spillage from source X (in MGD) X_Y_alloc_cap: the allocated capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) X_Y_alloc_dem: the allocated demand from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Xtrmt_alloc_Y: the allocated treatment capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Utilities files These files can be obtained by unzipping Utilities_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each utility for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xcapacity: total storage capacity of utility X (in MG) Xnet_inf: : net inflow for all storage infrastructure for utility X (in MGD) Xst_rof: short term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_stor_rof: short-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_trmt_rof: short-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_rof: long-term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_stor_rof: long-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_trmt_rof: long-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xrest_demand: restricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunrest_demand: unrestricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunfulf_demand: unfulfilled demand for utility X (in MGD) Xwastewater: wastewater return for utility X (in MGD) Xtreat_capacity: total treatment capacity for utility X (in MG) Xcont_fund: reserve (contingency) fund balance for utility X Xins_pout: insurance payout for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xins_price: insurance price for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xinfra_npv: infrastructure net present value for utility ($mil) Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xdebt_serv: debt service for utility X (usually once per year if the infrastructure is triggered; % annual volumetric revenue) Xstor_vol: total stored volume (in MGD) Xobs_ann_dem: observed annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xproj_dem: projected annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xpv_debt_serv: present value of debt service payments for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xgross_rev: gross revenue for utility X ($mil) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

Artificial Intelligence↗