Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Makers Faire”

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.

6 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

NASA Centennial Challenge: Three Dimensional (3D) Printed Habitat, Phase 2

The NASA Centennial Challenges: 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge seeks to develop the fundamental technologies necessary to manufacture an off-world habitat using mission recycled materials and/or local indigenous materials. The vision is that autonomous habitat manufacturing machines will someday be deployed to the Moon or Mars to construct shelters for human habitation. NASA and Bradley University, are holding a new US$ 2.5 million competition to design and build a 3-D printed habitat for deep space exploration, including the agency's journey to Mars. The multi-phase 3-D Printed Habitat Challenge, part of NASA's Centennial Challenges program, is designed to advance the additive construction technology needed to create sustainable housing solutions for Earth and beyond. The first phase of the competition ran through Sept. 27, 2015. This phase, a design competition, called on participants to develop state-of-the-art architectural concepts that take advantage of the unique capabilities 3-D printing offers. The top 3 prizes with a prize purse of $40,000 were awarded at the 2015 World Maker Faire in New York. The second phase of the competition is called the Structural Member Competition and it is divided into three levels happening in the spring and summer of 2017. The Compression Test Competition (Level 1) focuses on the fabrication technologies needed to manufacture structural components from a combination of indigenous materials and recyclables, or indigenous materials alone. For Level 1, teams will develop 3D printable materials, build a 3D printing machine, and print two specimens: a truncated cone and a cylinder. The Level 2 Beam Member Competition is the second of three sub-competitions within the overall Structural Member Competition. For Level 2, teams will print a beam that will be tested. The Level 3 Head to Head Competition is the third of three sub-competitions within the overall Structural Member Competition. For Level 3, teams will develop 3D printable materials, use a 3D printing machine, and print three compression specimens of the elected material, three flexural specimens of the elected material, and one dome structure. Tests conducted on the specimens and the dome structure will determine Level 3 scores and awards. On Earth these same habitat manufacturing capabilities could be used to produce housing wherever affordable housing is needed and access to conventional building materials and skills is limited. Terrestrially, it is envisioned that local indigenous materials (dirt, clay, sand, etc.) could be combined with readily available recyclable materials and used to construct semi-permanent shelters against environmental elements for human habitation. The goal of the 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge is to foster the development of new technologies necessary to additively manufacture a habitat using local indigenous materials with, or without, recyclable materials. This paper will summarize the Level 2 results of this NASA Centennial Challenge competition and it will discuss related technology advancement.

3D printing↗
DOE OSTI2024

iFair: Achieving Fairness in the Allocation of Scarce Resources for Senior Health Care

Efficient resource allocation is crucial in many domains, particularly in senior care, where assigning resources to older adults must consider uncertainties associated with vulnerable populations. In collaboration with Senior Health Facilities (SHFs) and domain experts, this paper presents iFair, a novel framework designed to assist decision-makers in equitably allocating scarce resources to older adults. iFair was prototyped in the context of ongoing work on a data exchange platform, CAREDEX, used for enhancing older adults' resilience during disasters. A key novelty of iFair focuses on aligning resident preferences with resources in urgent situations, expediting care, and enhancing task efficiency. We integrate static and dynamic environmental data, including facility layouts and sensor data, with detailed resident profiles to cater to the individual needs and preferences of residents. While our framework primarily focuses on allocation within facilities, it also extends to a regional scale to support the planning and transfer of seniors to mutual aid facilities. Our experiments adapt data from a real SHF to emulate resource allocation in an emergency fire evacuation setting and highlight the delicate balance that decision-makers can achieve between efficiency and fairness.

Kenne, Modeste Mefenya↗
DOE OSTI2024

Civil Procedure for the Anthropocene

Climate considerations must become an element of procedural analysis. Scholars, rule makers, legislators, and judges have historically prioritized procedural values including cost, speed, and accuracy. More recent waves of scholarship—including critical perspectives—have emphasized participation as a further procedural goal. Yet this list has grown stale. Current environmental realities force all areas of law, including civil procedure, to reckon with climate change. In the future, proceduralists will be forced to integrate climate-aware thinking into their analyses, proposals, and discussions. Predictably, minds will disagree on how to accomplish this and the kinds of trade-offs that are warranted. Yet the fundamental point of this article remains: climate change resilience is a procedural concern that has not been recognized but must be. This signals not the genesis of a new branch of procedural scholarship but an opportunity to broaden the discussion for all procedural scholarship. In addition, this Article serves as a guide for rule makers and legislators who have just recently begun to show interest in climate-aware procedures. It directs them to procedural topics that require urgent attention, provides implementation strategies for developing resilient procedures, and considers the attendant costs and benefits of different approaches ranging from laissez-faire to aggressive engagement. Just as civil procedural innovations contributed to the emergence and success of the civil rights movement, our collective response to climate change will also be shaped by civil procedure. This Article prepares for this future and offers a corrective to the field’s failure to anticipate and respond to climate change.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

MSD CoP Webinar: Accounting for distributive justice in model-based decision support

Context: This webinar was hosted by the MultiSector Dynamics Community of Practice (MSD CoP; https://multisectordynamics.org). Abstract: Model-based analyses play an ever-increasing role in informing policy and decision-making. However, many large-scale societal challenges unavoidably involve questions about the fair distribution of positive and negative consequences. How are the costs of the energy transition distributed over households and businesses? How are flood risks redistributed under different flood risk management plans? How are the impacts of climate change and climate mitigation distributed over different parts of the world?These kinds of questions play an important role when deliberating public policy, and the lack, in many cases, of clear answers becomes an obstacle to decision-making. At recent COPs, for example, wicked questions about loss and damages and the phase-out versus phase-down of coal became obstacles to global climate action, illustrating the misalignment of the direction of scientific research and decision-makers' information needs. In this talk, I'll explore advances that are being made that enable analysts to start providing grounded model-based answers to questions of distributive justice, as well as argue that analysts should embrace and explicate the normative nature of their work instead of hiding behind the purported neutrality of science. Presenters: Dr. Jan Kwakkel (Delft University of Technology) Moderator(s): Rebecca Saari (MSD CoP Working Group Co-Chair; Univ. of Waterloo), Matt Sparks (Univ. of Waterloo); Sarah Fletcher (MSD CoP Working Group Co-Chair; Stanford University), Juan Moreno-Cruz (Univ. of Waterloo), Patrick Reed (MSD CoP Facilitation Team Member, Moderator and Organizer) This webinar was held on: November 13, 2024 from 1 PM - 2:15 PM ET

Kwakkel, Jan H.↗
DOE OSTI2021

An overview of data tools for representing and managing building information and performance data

Building information modeling (BIM) has been widely adopted for representing and exchanging building data across disciplines during building design and construction. However, BIM's use in the building operation phase is limited. With the increasing deployment of low-cost sensors and meters, as well as affordable digital storage and computing technologies, growing volumes of data have been collected from buildings, their energy services systems, and occupants. Such data are crucial to help decision makers understand what, how, and when energy is consumed in buildings—a critical step to improving building performance for energy efficiency, demand flexibility, and resilience. However, practical analyses and use of the collected data are very limited due to various reasons, including poor data quality, ad-hoc representation of data, and lack of data science skills. To unlock value from building data, there is a strong need for a toolchain to curate and represent building information and performance data in common standardized terminologies and schemas, to enable interoperability between tools and applications. This study selected and reviewed 24 data tools based on common use cases of data across the building life cycle, from design to construction, commissioning, operation, and retrofits. The selected data tools are grouped into three categories: (1) data dictionary or terminology, (2) data ontology and schemas, and (3) data platforms. The data are grouped into ten typologies covering most types of data collected in buildings. This study resulted in five main findings: (1) most data representation tools can represent their intended data typologies well, such as Green Button for smart meter data and Brick schema for metadata of sensors in buildings and HVAC systems, but none of the tools cover all ten types of data; (2) there is a need for data schemas to represent the basis of design data and metadata of occupant data; (3) standard terminologies such as those defined in BEDES are only adopted in a few data tools; (4) integrating data across various stages in the building life cycle remains a challenge; and (5) most data tools were developed and maintained by different parties for different purposes, their flexibility and interoperability can be improved to support broader use cases. Finally, recommendations for future research on building data tools are provided for the data and buildings community based on the FAIR principles to make data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗