Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Review”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Review of Particle Physics

The Review summarizes much of particle physics and cosmology. Using data from previous editions, plus 3,200 new measurements from 903 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons and the recently discovered Higgs boson, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as supersymmetric particles, heavy bosons, axions, dark photons, etc. Particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as Higgs Boson Physics, Supersymmetry, Grand Unified Theories, Neutrino Mixing, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Cosmology, Particle Detectors, Colliders, Probability and Statistics. Most of the 118 reviews are updated, including many that are heavily revised.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
NASA NTRS2011

Reducing NPR 7120.5D to Practice: Transitioning from Design Reviews to the SIR Hardware Review

The Gravity Recovery And Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission was the first Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) project initiated under NASA's revised rules for space flight project management, NPR 7120.5D, "NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements." NASA selected GRAIL through a competitive Announcement of Opportunity process and funded its Phase B Preliminary Design effort. The team's first major milestone was a JPL institutional milestone, the Project Mission System Review (PMSR), which proved an excellent tune-up for the end-of-Phase-B NASA life-cycle review, the Preliminary Design Review (PDR). Building on JPL experience on the Prometheus and Juno projects, the team successfully organized for and conducted these reviews on an aggressive schedule. For the Project Critical Design Review (CDR), lessons learned from the PDR and updated Standing Review Board (SRB) practices from the Agency were factored into the review preparation effort. Additionally, the review was held at the Principal Investigator's institution, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, rather than at the project management center (JPL), which necessitated additional cross-country coordination steps. The PMSR, PDR, and CDR were design reviews and largely paper-oriented. For the System Integration Review (SIR), the project needed to transition to a hardware review and deal with paper in a very different manner. While many of the practices employed for the design reviews were modified and retained (e.g., review preparation team, gate products management, pre-reviews, SRB coordination), the review agenda, presentation style, and slide templates were significantly changed. A key success factor concerned the handling of project open paper, which was succinctly and effectively communicated to the SRB in presentations.This paper provides a brief overview of the GRAIL mission and its project management challenges, provides a detailed description of project SIR preparation and execution activities, including positive and negative lessons learned and identifies recommendations for future NASA (and non- NASA) project teams.

NPR 7120.5D↗
NASA NTRS1991

Portable Common Execution Environment (PCEE) project review: Peer review

The purpose of the review was to conduct an independent, in-depth analysis of the PCEE project and to provide the results of said review. The review team was tasked with evaluating the potential contribution of the PCEE project to the improvement of the life cycle support of mission and safety critical (MASC) computing components for large, complex, non-stop, distributed systems similar to those planned for such NASA programs as the space station, lunar outpost, and manned missions to Mars. Some conclusions of the review team are as follow: The PCEE project was given high marks for its breath of vision on the overall problem with MASC software; Correlated with the sweeping vision, the Review Team is very skeptical that any research project can successfully attack such a broad range of problems; and several recommendations are made such as to identify the components of the broad solution envisioned, prioritizing them with respect to their impact and the likely ability of the PCEE or others to attack them successfully, and to rewrite its Concept Document differentiating the problem description, objectives, approach, and results so that the project vision becomes assessible to others.

Locke, C. Douglass↗
NASA NTRS1994

SEQ-REVIEW: A tool for reviewing and checking spacecraft sequences

A key component of JPL's strategy to make space missions faster, better and cheaper is the Advanced Multi-Mission Operations System (AMMOS), a ground software intensive system currently in use and in further development. AMMOS intends to eliminate the cost of re-engineering a ground system for each new JPL mission. This paper discusses SEQ-REVIEW, a component of AMMOS that was designed to facilitate and automate the task of reviewing and checking spacecraft sequences. SEQ-REVIEW is a smart browser for inspecting files created by other sequence generation tools in the AMMOS system. It can parse sequence-related files according to a computer-readable version of a 'Software Interface Specification' (SIS), which is a standard document for defining file formats. It lets users display one or several linked files and check simple constraints using a Basic-like 'Little Language'. SEQ-REVIEW represents the first application of the Quality Function Development (QFD) method to sequence software development at JPL. The paper will show how the requirements for SEQ-REVIEW were defined and converted into a design based on object-oriented principles. The process starts with interviews of potential users, a small but diverse group that spans multiple disciplines and 'cultures'. It continues with the development of QFD matrices that related product functions and characteristics to user-demanded qualities. These matrices are then turned into a formal Software Requirements Document (SRD). The process concludes with the design phase, in which the CRC (Class, Responsibility, Collaboration) approach was used to convert requirements into a blueprint for the final product.

Maldague, Pierre F.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Design for Review - Applying Lessons Learned to Improve the FPGA Review Process

Flight Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) designs are required to be independently reviewed. This paper provides recommendations to Flight FPGA designers to properly prepare their designs for review in order to facilitate the review process, and reduce the impact of the review time in the overall project schedule.

Process Improvement↗
DOE OSTI2025

High Energy Physics Network Requirements Review: Final Report, July 2024–December 2024

The world-class research infrastructure at the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science (SC) provides the research community with premier observational, experimental, computational, and network capabilities. Each user facility is designed to provide unique capabilities to advance the core DOE mission in science and technology for its SC program to stimulate rich scientific discoveries and enhance its innovation ecosystem. Research communities gather and flourish around each user facility, bringing together new and enhanced perspectives. The continual reinvention of the practice of science — as users and staff forge novel approaches expressed in research workflows — unlocks new discoveries and propels scientific progress. Within this research ecosystem, the high-performance computing (HPC) and networking user facilities stewarded by the SC’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program play a dynamic cross-cutting role, enabling complex workflows demanding high-performance data, networking, and computing solutions. The ASCR facilities enterprise seeks to understand and meet the needs and requirements across SC and DOE domain science programs and priority efforts, highlighted by the formal requirements review methodology. Between July and December 2024, the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) and the Office of High Energy Physics (HEP) of the DOE-SC organized an ESnet requirements review of HEP-supported program activities. Preparation for these events included identification of key stakeholders: program and facility management, research groups, and technology providers. Each stakeholder group was asked to prepare formal case study documents about its relationship to the HEP program to build a complete understanding of the current, near-term, and long-term status, expectations, and processes that will support the science going forward.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
NASA NTRS2015

2015 Sensorimotor Risk Standing Review Panel Evidence and Status Review For: the Risk of Impaired Control of Spacecraft/Associated Systems and Decreased Mobility Due to Vestibular/Sensorimotor Alterations Associated with Spaceflight

The 2015 Sensorimotor Risk Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) participated in a WebEx/teleconference with members of the Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) Element, representatives from the Human Research Program (HRP), NASA Headquarters, and NASA Research and Education Support Services (NRESS) on December 17, 2015 (list of participants is in Section VI of this report). The SRP reviewed the new Evidence Report for the Risk of Impaired Control of Spacecraft/Associated Systems and Decreased Mobility Due to Vestibular/Sensorimotor Alterations Associated with Spaceflight (from here on referred to as the 2015 Sensorimotor Evidence Report), and also received a status review of the Risk. The opening section of the 2015 Sensorimotor Evidence Report provides written descriptions of various incidents that have occurred during space missions. In most of these incidents, the main underlying contributing factors are not easy to identify unambiguously. For example, in section 1.9, a number of falls occurred while astronauts were walking on the moon. It is not clear to the SRP, however, why they fell. It is only possible to extrapolate from likely specific psychophysical or physiological abnormalities, but how these abnormalities were determined, and how they were directly responsible for the falls is unclear to the SRP. Section 2.1.2 on proprioception is very interesting, but the functional significance of the abnormalities detected is not clear. The SRP sees this as a problem throughout the report: a mapping between the component abnormalities identified and the holistic behaviors that are most relevant, for example, controlling the vehicle, and locomotion during egress, is generally lacking. The SRP thinks the cognitive section is too strongly focused on vestibular functioning. The SRP questions the notion that the main cognitive effects are mainly attributable to reversible vestibular changes induced by spaceflight. The SRP thinks that there can also be independent cognitive effects. The Functional Task Test (FTT) protocols and the Field Test are particularly valuable. The conclusion is that the unloading of major postural muscles experienced during spaceflight plays a central role in the alteration of functional task performance and balance control. This conclusion stands in contrast with the statements in other parts of the document that emphasize the role of vestibular changes on these functions. It would help to more fully integrate these two views on the predominant effects of spaceflight. Although the SRP thinks the countermeasures section is interesting, the proposed countermeasures are not well integrated with the abnormalities described in previous sections. The SRP thinks it would help enormously to have explicit links among each abnormality, its 2015 Sensorimotor Risk SRP Evidence Review Final Report 2 overall importance/impact on function, and the appropriate countermeasure that can be implemented to maintain adequate functioning.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2014

2013 Immune Risk Standing Review Panel Research Plan Review for: The Risk of Crew Adverse Health Event Due to Altered Immune Response

The 2013 Immune Risk Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) participated in a meeting with representatives from the Human Research Program (HRP) Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) Element and HRP management on February 3-4, 2014 in Houston, TX to review the updated Research Plan for the Risk of Crew Adverse Health Event Due to Altered Immune Response in the HRP Integrated Research Plan. The SRP is impressed with the work the immune discipline has done since the 2012 SRP review and agrees with the new wording of the Gaps, no longer questions, now statements. The SRP also likes the addition of adding targets for closing the Gaps, but it is not clear how they got to some of the interim stages (interval percentages). A major concern that the SRP has mentioned since the initial 2009 SRP meeting is that there is still not enough emphasis on the interdisciplinary aspect of the immune risk associated with other risks (i.e., nutrition, radiation, etc.). The SRP recommends that a "translational SRP" or advisory group be developed that is composed of members from all of the HRP SRPs. The SRP also thinks that the immune discipline should consider a more systems biology approach. Lastly, the SRP is concerned that the risks observed in research from low Earth orbit (LEO) missions may not accurately reflect all the risks of longer duration flight beyond LEO. Also, there does not seem to be a concern for immune responses that may occur when someone is in space longer than six months, for example, a Mars mission would take three years. The absence of disease in past and current flight scenarios does not mean the risk may not be there in future flight settings.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2014

2013 Immune Risk Standing Review Panel Evidence Review for: The Risk of Crew Adverse Health Event Due to Altered Immune Response

The 2013 Immune Risk Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on February 3-4, 2014. The SRP reviewed the new Evidence Report for the Risk of Crew Adverse Health Event Due to Altered Immune Response (from here on referred to as the 2013 Immune Evidence Report), as well as the Research Plan for this Risk that is in the current version of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Integrated Research Plan (IRP).

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2016

Thermal Analysis of Iodine Satellite (iSAT) from Preliminary Design Review (PDR) to Critical Design Review (CDR)

The Iodine Satellite (iSAT) is a 12U cubesat with a primary mission to demonstrate the iodine fueled Hall Effect Thruster (HET) propulsion system. The spacecraft (SC) will operate throughout a one year mission in an effort to mature the propulsion system for use in future applications. The benefit of the HET is that it uses a propellant, iodine, which is easy to store and provides a high thrust-to-mass ratio. This paper will describe the thermal analysis and design of the SC between Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR). The design of the satellite has undergone many changes due to a variety of challenges, both before PDR and during the time period discussed in this paper. Thermal challenges associated with the system include a high power density, small amounts of available radiative surface area, localized temperature requirements of the propulsion components, and unknown orbital parameters. The thermal control system is implemented to maintain component temperatures within their respective operational limits throughout the mission, while also maintaining propulsion components at the high temperatures needed to allow gaseous iodine propellant to flow. The design includes heaters, insulation, radiators, coatings, and thermal straps. Currently, the maximum temperatures for several components are near to their maximum operation limit, and the battery is close to its minimum operation limit. Mitigation strategies and planned work to solve these challenges will be discussed.

Mauro, Stephanie↗
DOE OSTI2025

Physics-informed machine learning for building performance simulation-A review of a nascent field

Building performance simulation (BPS) is critical for understanding building dynamics and behavior, analyzing the performance of the built environment, optimizing energy efficiency, improving demand flexibility, and enhancing building resilience. However, conducting BPS is not trivial. Traditional BPS relies on accurate building energy models, which are primarily physics-based and heavily dependent on detailed building information, expert knowledge, and case-by-case model calibrations, significantly limiting their scalability. With the development of sensing technology and the increased availability of data, there is growing attention and interest in data-driven BPS. However, purely data-driven models often suffer from limited generalization ability and a lack of physical consistency, resulting in poor performance in real-world applications. To address these limitations, recent studies have begun integrating physics priors into data-driven models, a methodology known as physics-informed machine learning (PIML). PIML is an emerging field where its definitions, methodologies, evaluation criteria, application scenarios, and future directions remain open. To bridge those gaps, this study systematically reviews the state-of-the-art PIML for BPS, offering a comprehensive definition of PIML and comparing it to traditional BPS approaches regarding data requirements, modeling effort, performance, and computational cost. We also summarize the commonly used methodologies, validation approaches, application domains, available data sources, open-source packages, and testbeds. In addition, this study provides a general guideline for selecting appropriate PIML models based on BPS applications. Finally, this study identifies key challenges and outlines future research directions, providing a solid foundation and valuable insights to advance R&D of PIML in BPS.

Jiang, Zixin↗
NASA NTRS1992

Review of the physical and mechanical properties and potential applications of the B2 compound NiAl: Unabridged version of a paper published in International materials review

Considerable work has been performed on NiAl over the last three decades, with an extremely rapid growth in research on this intermetallic occurring in the last few years due to recent interest in this material for electronic and high temperature structural applications. However, many physical properties and the controlling fracture and deformation mechanisms over certain temperature regimes are still in question. Part of this problem lies in the incomplete characterization of many of the alloys previously investigated. Fragmentary data on processing conditions, chemistry, microstructure and the apparent difficulty in accurately measuring composition has made direct comparison between individual studies sometimes tenuous. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to summarize all available mechanical and pertinent physical properties on NiAl, stressing the most recent investigations, in an attempt to understand the behavior of NiAl and its alloys over a broad temperature range.

Noebe, Ronald D.↗
NASA NTRS1995

Emergence of relations and the essence of learning: a review of Sidman's Equivalence relations and behavior: a research story. Book review

The author reviews and comments on the book Equivalence relations and behavior: a research story by Murray Sidman. Sidman's book reports his research about equivalence relations and competencies in children with mental retardation and how it relates to behavior. Sidman used the idea of stimulus-stimulus relations among features of the environment to develop his theories about equivalence relations. Experimental work with children and animals demonstrated their ability to use equivalence relations to learn new tasks. The subject received feedback and reinforcement for specific choices made during training, then was presented with new choices during testing. Results of the tests indicate that subjects were able to establish relations and retrieve them in different situations.

NASA Discipline Space Human Factors↗
NASA NTRS2014

2013 Space Radiation Standing Review Panel Status Review for: The Risk of Acute and Late Central Nervous System Effects from Radiation Exposure, The Risk of Acute Radiation Syndromes Due to Solar Particle Events (SPEs), The Risk Of Degenerative Tissue Or Other Health Effects From Radiation Exposure, and The Risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis

The Space Radiation Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) was impressed with the strong research program presented by the scientists and staff associated with NASA's Space Radiation Program Element and National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI). The presentations given on-site and the reports of ongoing research that were provided in advance indicated the potential Risk of Acute and Late Central Nervous System Effects from Radiation Exposure (CNS) and were extensively discussed by the SRP. This new data leads the SRP to recommend that a higher priority should be placed on research designed to identify and understand these risks at the mechanistic level. To support this effort the SRP feels that a shift of emphasis from Acute Radiation Syndromes (ARS) and carcinogenesis to CNS-related endpoints is justified at this point. However, these research efforts need to focus on mechanisms, should follow pace with advances in the field of CNS in general and should consider the specific comments and suggestions made by the SRP as outlined below. The SRP further recommends that the Space Radiation Program Element continue with its efforts to fill the vacant positions (Element Scientist, CNS Risk Discipline Lead) as soon as possible. The SRP also strongly recommends that NASA should continue the NASA Space Radiation Summer School. In addition to these broad recommendations, there are specific comments/recommendations noted for each risk, described in detail below.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2025

Erratum: Review—Materials Science Predictions of Thermal Runaway in Layered Metal-Oxide Cathodes: A Review of Thermodynamics [ J. Electrochem. Soc. , 167, 090543 (2020)]

It was found that corrections are required for the published article cited in the title of this document. A revised Table VII is shown below, in which the values for S (entropy of the liquid solvents) have been corrected for consistency with the original sources. No corrections were required for the enthalpies, but they are included for completeness. The cited references and table footnotes found in the originally published version of Table VII remain applicable.

Shurtz, Randy C. [Sandia National Laboratories (SN↗