SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
NASA's flagship developments have historical cost and schedule growth. A repeated offender is funding: funding assessments and funding execution. This white paper explores strategies to improve both of these: have more accurate cost assessments and more appropriate funding methods for significantly better development cost and schedule performance.
This document is the compilation of the sampling activities associated with the FY2021 NNSA funded characterization of the 03-0016, Ion Beam facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Included within this document are the radiological and non-radiological sampling plans, results from the executed sampling plans, areas not sampled, summary of findings for each area sampled, and anticipated waste streams.
U.S. Government spending to fund the research and development of electronics for a variety of applications is discussed. Commercial enterprises also spend large sums on research and development of electronics and other areas of interest to the U.S. Government and its agencies. The government can take advantage of industrial research programs and thereby maximize the utilization of their own.
To meet clean energy goals, states will need significant capital. Federal funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will help, including by capitalizing clean energy state revolving loan funds (RLFs). States can leverage state clean water revolving funds to finance even more clean energy improvements. New York and Pennsylvania have used this innovative mechanism to extend the impact of their clean energy loan programs. For states looking to extend the reach of their clean energy financing programs, the brief: -Explains how each state leveraged their state revolving funds, -Identifies critical success factors for doing so, and -Offers key elements for replicating this model In New York, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority structured a sale of bonds secured by the repayments from a portfolio of residential energy efficiency loans from its Green Jobs – Green New York Program, with the additional support of a guarantee from the state’s clean water revolving fund. The Pennsylvania Treasury Department received a direct investment of funds from Pennsylvania’s clean water revolving fund to support the relaunch of the Keystone Home Energy Loan Program (HELP), which had previously been shuttered due to lack of support funding. From our review of these two case studies, when facilitating state clean water revolving fund transactions to support clean energy lending, the following critical success factors emerged: -Reference to preventing atmospheric deposition resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels in the state’s Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan, which sets out that state’s strategy for reducing pollution into state waterways. -Strong relationships and trust between the clean water revolving fund administrator and the state agency administering the clean energy loan program. -Limited funding exposure for the clean water revolving funds—which are generally large and well capitalized—to ensure that any losses experienced by clean water revolving funds would have a negligible impact on the fund’s ability to support core water and wastewater projects. -Willingness, on the part of the clean water revolving fund administrator, to innovate and engage in careful analysis to support transaction structuring, and support from state energy partner organizations. The brief provides case studies of these states’ experiences, critical success factors, and key elements for replicating the model.
State wildlife management agencies in the United States have depended on a “user-pay” funding model for conservation efforts that relies on revenue from hunting license sales and a federal excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Declines in hunting participation, however, jeopardize sustainability of the current funding model. Ensuring support among stakeholders for wildlife management and conservation may require expanding sources of funding and incorporating the perspectives and values of a diversifying constituency into decision making processes. We used a web-based survey of wildlife-associated recreationists in Michigan, USA to evaluate support for a range of conservation funding policies. Respondents self-identified primarily as hunters (n = 2,558) or wildlife watchers (n = 942). We used binary logistic regression to evaluate support for four conservation funding policy options: state sales tax, lottery proceeds, extractive industry revenue, and a user-based tax on outdoor gear (i.e., “backpack tax”). Determinants of support varied by type of policy and stakeholder characteristics. We found no statistically significant differences between hunters and wildlife watchers in their support for conservation funding policies when accounting for other variables such as wildlife value orientations, engagement in stewardship behaviors, age, and gender. The industry-based policy achieved the greatest level of approval, while the backpack tax had the lowest. Respondents were mixed in their support of the sales tax and lottery proceeds options. Cluster analysis revealed three homogenous groups related to conservation funding policies: “strong support,” “mixed/opposed,” and “anti-backpack tax.” Clusters differed in their support for conservation funding policies and on psychological and demographic variables. The “strong support” and “anti-backpack tax” groups differed in their levels of stewardship engagement, knowledge of conservation funding mechanisms, and support for the backpack tax option. The “mixed-opposed” group tended to be older, less educated, and less likely to be a member of a conservation organization. Results suggest support for conservation funding differs by policy type and social and psychological characteristics of stakeholders. Based on differences in policy support revealed in this study, we suggest a multi-tiered approach to funding conservation and building on support among wildlife stakeholders to mitigate the looming funding crisis for state wildlife agencies.
This report provides an overview of test results for four energy storage systems funded under the Washington Clean Energy Fund deployed at three utilities in Washington State. Integration of energy storage into the U.S. grid has been gathering momentum across the industry, especially as penetration of power generated by renewable resources increases. Several states have storage procurement targets to deal with a variety of issues, such as afternoon total system load ramping requirements, frequency regulation/control, and integration power generated from by renewable resources. This report presents the performance test results for battery energy storage systems (BESS) funded by the Washington Clean Energy Fund (CEF) 1 Program ($\$$14.3 million in state funding supporting a total investment of $\$$43 million). For each project, the technical attributes of the BESS were tested, defined, and evaluated in detail. These projects were funded jointly by Avista, the Snohomish Public Utility District (SnoPUD), Puget Sound Energy (PSE), the Washington CEF, and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (DOE-OE).
This memo reviews and evaluates existing funding mechanisms that support off-farm irrigation modernization and conduit hydropower projects. Irrigation modernization projects, both on and off-farm, can be challenging to move through planning, permitting, development and installation processes and some evidence indicates that funding mechanisms can be a barrier to successful deployments. This memo is important because access to equitably and efficiently deployed project planning and development funding may be a key pre-requisite to increasing the pace and scale of irrigation modernization project deployments that incorporate hydropower. We evaluated an array of federal and state funding programs and took a close look at Energy Trust of Oregon’s funding mechanisms due to the organization’s apparent success in increasing the pace and scale of modernization in its state.
Clean Energy Trust (CET) set out to identify approaches to attract new investors to early-stage cleantech businesses. Over the course of the project, significant research and validation was conducted on the feasibility of different pathways by which to secure additional financial support for early-stage clean energy startups. CET explored both a hybrid fund approach and a stand-alone, affiliated fund approach. Over the course of this work, CET developed quantitative models for optimum fund size and specifications, conducted extensive market research, evaluated fund implementation best practices, developed a strong understanding of the legal requirements for fund design, and identified likely candidates who could replicate this approach.
Rare earth elements (REE) and lithium are non-toxic metals that are considered critical materials due to their use in electronics, magnets, batteries, and a wide variety of industrial processes important for the economy and military preparedness. Demand for REE and lithium is increasing and these critical materials are imported, so identifying and exploiting domestic sources of REE and lithium is a national priority. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) has been in the forefront of sponsoring research investigating the potential recovery of REE, lithium, and other critical minerals from geothermal brines. It has been proposed that the future of geothermal energy should include “hybrid systems” that combine electricity generation with other revenue-generating activities, such as recovery of valuable and critical minerals, including REE and lithium. Two recent GTO funding opportunities have focused on the recovery of REE and other valuable minerals from geothermal brines. The research supported by the GTO’s mineral recovery program is focused on three areas: resource characterization, technology for the extraction of REE, and technology for the extraction of lithium (Tables 1 and 2). This report is a retrospective study examining the outcome of GTO’s two recent mineral recovery programs (DE-FOA-0001016 in FY 2014 and DE-FOA-0001376 in FY 2016). In this report, the knowledge, technology, and techniques that were developed by researchers funded by GTO are summarized and discussed. Four projects were funded to assess the concentrations and amounts of REE found in geothermal brines and oil field produced waters. The GTO-funded studies compiled publically available data on REE concentrations from brines and produced water from all over the USA. In addition, new samples were collected and characterized from major geothermal and hydrocarbon basins in the Western USA. The studies examined the relationship between lithology and REE concentrations and developed models examining the influence of geology on REE concentrations in produced brines. It was determined that REE are frequently found at higher concentrations in oil field produced water than geothermal brines, but that some geothermal areas had significant REE resources. Significant reservoirs of REE were identified in the Western USA. In some cases, concentrations of REE were more than 1000 times the concentrations found in seawater. Collectively, these studies represent a comprehensive picture of REE resources associated with geothermal and hydrocarbon systems in the USA. The studies did not examine lithium resources, but in some cases, lithium concentration data was collected. Data from these studies are housed in the Geothermal Data Repository (GDR) and represent a significant information resource and it is recommended that these data be further analyzed in a future study. Eight projects were funded to develop new technology for REE extraction from geothermal fluids. These projects investigated sorption as an approach for removal and recovery of REE from geothermal brines. The projects investigated cutting-edge technology for selective sorption of ions from complex solutions, including the application of metal-organic frameworks and biosorbent proteins. The REE sorption studies tested different combinations of metal-binding ligands and solid supports. The most promising metal-binding ligands for REE included phosphonic acid, thiol, and carboxylic acid functional groups. Ligands were attached or incorporated into a wide variety of solid supports. In most cases, attachment was via covalent bonding to organic resins, polymers, or silica-based supports. Most of the REE projects were conducted at a low technology readiness level (TRL) and showed promise, but direct comparison between technologies was not possible based on the available information. It is recommended that testing and reporting be standardized to the extent possible to facilitate comparisons between technologies. Two projects were directed at novel lithium extraction technology. Both projects investigated the use of inorganic sorbents, including manganese oxides. One study also examined the use of metal- ion imprinted polymers as selective ion-exchange resins for the separation of lithium and manganese from brines. Both approaches showed promise for the selective extraction of lithium from brines, including potentially geothermal brines. Results from these GTO studies indicated that selective REE and lithium extraction is possible, but interference from co-occurring solutes, such as calcium, magnesium, or heavy metals, will interfere with process efficiency and negatively impact process economics. Techno-economic analysis conducted as part of the resource and technology studies suggest extraction of REE from geothermal brines is unlikely to be economically viable, especially since non-geothermal produced waters frequently have higher REE concentrations. It is recommended that benchmarks for techno-economic analysis be established to the extent possible for future studies, to facilitate direct comparison of various technologies. Based on the collective results of this program, it appears that hybrid geothermal power would benefit more from recovery of lithium and other metals, rather than REE. It is recommended that future studies be conducted at a higher- TRL and that sorbents be tested against actual geothermal fluid samples. Prior higher-TRL efforts to extract metals from geothermal brines should be further evaluated for lessons learned.
Federally-funded research and development (R&D) represents a significant annual investment (approximately $79 billion in fiscal year 1996) on the part of U.S. taxpayers. Based on the results of a 10-year study of knowledge diffusion in U.S. aerospace industry, the authors take the position that U.S. competitiveness will be enhanced if knowledge management strategies, employed within a capability-enhancing U.S. technology policy framework, are applied to diffusing the results of federally-funded R&D. In making their case, the authors stress the importance of knowledge as the source of competitive advantage in today's global economy. Next, they offer a practice-based definition of knowledge management and discuss three current approaches to knowledge management implementation-mechanistic, "the learning organization," and systemic. The authors then examine three weaknesses in existing U.S. public policy and policy implementation-the dominance of knowledge creation, the need for diffusion-oriented technology policy, and the prevalence of a dissemination model- that affect diffusion of the results of federally-funded R&D. To address these shortcomings, they propose the development of a knowledge management framework for diffusing the results of federally-funded R&D. The article closes with a discussion of some issues and challenges associated with implementing a knowledge management framework for diffusing the results of federally-funded R&D.
The Glenn Technical Library is a science and engineering library that primarily supports research activities at the Glenn Research Center, and provides selected services to researchers at all of the NASA research centers. Resources available in the library include books, journals, CD-ROMs, and access to various online sources, as well as live reference and inter-library loan services. The collection contains over 77,000 books, 800,000 research reports, and print or online access to over 1,400 journals. Currently the library operates within the Logistics and Technical Information Division, and is funded as an open-access resource within the GRC. Some of the research units at the GRC have recently requested that the library convert to a "pay-for-services" model, in which individual research units could fund only those journal subscriptions for which they have a specific need. Under this model, the library would always maintain a certain minimum level of pooled-expense services, including the ready reference and book collections, and inter-library loan services. Theoretically the "pay-for-services" model would encourage efficient financial allocation, and minimize the extent to which paid journal subscriptions go unused. However, this model also could potentially negate the benefits of group purchases for journal subscriptions and access. All of the major journal publishers offer package subscriptions that compare favorably in cost with the sum of individual subscription costs for a similar selection of titles. Furthermore, some of these subscription packages are "consortium" purchases that are funded collectively by the libraries at multiple NASA research centers; such consortia1 memberships would be difficult for the library to pay, if enough GRC research units were to withdraw their pooled contributions. cost of collectively-funded journal access with the cost of individual subscriptions. My primary task this summer is to create the cost dataset framework, and collect as much of the relevant data as possible. Hopefully this dataset will permit the research units at the GRC, and library administration as well, to make informed decisions about future library funding. Prior to the creation of the actual dataset, I established a comprehensive list of the library s print and online journal subscriptions. This list will be useful outside the context of the cost analysis project, as an addition to the library website. The cost analysis dataset s primary fields are: journal name, vendor, publisher, ISSN (International Standard Serial Number, to uniquely identify the titles), stand-alone price, and indication as to the presence of the journal in current GRC Technical Library consortium membership subscriptions. The dataset will hopefully facilitate comparisons between the stand-alone journal prices and the cost of shared journal subscriptions for groups of titles.
The Heliophysics Low Cost Access to Space (H-LCAS) and Flight Opportunities in Research and Technology (H-FORT) grant budgets primarily fund the development and construction of instrumentation. A side effect of this approach is that mission operations, including data collection and data processing, tend to be severely under budget (or unfunded). In order to satisfy the requirements of modern missions, we recommend a new funding source for mission operations. This funding source is increasingly vital going forward as new missions collect exponentially more data compared to past missions. Similarly, to take full advantage of underutilized historical datasets, we recommend adding another funding source to analyze these valuable datasets. Without these funding sources, mission datasets will, in the best case, be significantly underdeveloped and underutilized, and more likely, will fall dramatically short of their required scope.
Introduction: The goal of this summer internship research project was to explore the relationship between the level of funding for science team research and science productivity for planetary spaceflight missions. The productivity and funding for the prime and extended missions were compared when possible. Determining the actual rather than anecdotal relationship between the level of science team funding and their productivity will help determine the adequacy of science team funding. Additionally, determining whether productivity increases or decreases over time (within missions, or within the years between different missions) provides insights into ongoing trends. This project was conducted using data from 11 extended missions within the Planetary Science Division. The main goals of this project were to 1) quantify the level of productivity of the science team during the extended portion of each mission, 2) compare the level of productivity between different types of missions, and 3) compare the level of productivity between the prime missions and extended missions. Methodology: The central metric enters around the “publication rate” of each mission. This rate is normalized in a variety of ways, including the number of publications per year, per Co-I, and per instruments. For the most part, this data was attainable through mission websites, team rosters, and data collected from previous projects. The publication data for this project utilized the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System, and it consisted of a search for any papers from the extended mission that had a co-investigator as an author. The time period for these searches also included an additional two years after the end of the extended mission to account for additional time it typically takes to finish data analysis and publish papers. Data from prime missions was collected from a previous project that measured similar metrics for the same missions. When comparing the different types of missions, three factors were used: mission size, dates of the prime and extended missions, and the type of the mission (rover, flyby, orbiter, or lander). To determine mission size, missions were compared by the number of Co-I’s on the mission, the number of instruments in the payload, and the mission class. Findings: On average, prime mission publication rates were generally higher than those of extended missions. Out of the nine missions used for this comparison, six had a higher prime mission publication rate and three had a higher extended mission publication rate. This distinction was interesting to observe, but it should be noted that the methodology for determing the number of published papers differed for the prime missions and the extended missions Discovery missions were found to be the most scientifically productive. Additionally, more recent extended missions tend to possess greater productivity. When comparing missions of different types, it was found that orbiters were much more productive than other types of missions. Future Work: There are a number of opportunities to extend and improve on this project in the future. Even though the metrics used were the same, the prime mission data could be recollected from the same sources as the extended mission data (Astrophysics Data System) to insure greater consistency. The impact level of the publications could also be accounted for, and financial data could be used to compare teams with different levels of funding. Additionally, more missions could be examined to increase the sample size of these comparisons, especially the comparison of different mission types which had an incredibly small sample size for some categories.
AIAA ASCEND 2023 Panel Session Proposal: Community Perspectives on Establishing a Government-Funded National Laboratory in a Commercially-Driven LEO Ecosystem Submitted by the NASA Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy March 8, 2023 Session Format: Panel Session Topic: Expanding and Evolving the Space Economy Session Title: Community Perspectives on Establishing a Government-Funded National Laboratory in a Commercially-Driven LEO Ecosystem Short Session Description: NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of government-sponsored low-Earth orbit (LEO) activities to Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs), which includes a government-funded national lab. This transition necessitates new models to connect government-funded users of the LEO environment to CLDs. This panel will highlight updates on what may constitute a national laboratory, share perspectives from members of LEO user communities, and open the discussion for additional comments. Requested Session Duration: 90 minutes Extended Session Description: NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of low-Earth orbit (LEO) activities to Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs), including planning for a national laboratory. This transition necessitates new models for connecting government-funded users of the LEO environment to CLDs. NASA has made progress on models and a stepwise strategy to enable this national laboratory. This session will discuss guiding national strategies and highlight perspectives on what constitutes a national laboratory from current user communities. A NASA panel participant will introduce the rationale for continuing a national laboratory utilizing CLDs and speak on progress-to-date. This includes furthering national priorities to continue a space-based microgravity national laboratory. It also may include a brief overview of a study conducted by NASA which elucidates a trade space of models for a national laboratory and highlights from an interagency working group on microgravity for additional context. A moderator and five panelists representing diverse LEO user communities will then share perspectives on topics relating to this new dynamic ecosystem, expectations for models and activities, and other thoughts on NASA’s progress. Panelists may consist of members from the following communities: NASA, other U.S. government agencies, startups, small businesses, academia, and non-profits. The panel then plans to open discussion to the audience for questions, input, and additional feedback. Session Goal(s)/Outcome(s): By hosting a panel session, NASA aims to accomplish two goals. First, NASA wishes to update the community on progress towards establishing a national laboratory in low-Earth orbit. This includes sharing key perspectives heard from stakeholder communities. The second goal is to highlight the collaborative nature of such an undertaking and to facilitate additional discussion with other current and future users of the LEO community. Participants (not exhaustive): Erica Rodgers; Robyn Gatens
Concerns about systemic racism at academic and research institutions have increased over the past decade. Here, we investigate data from the National Science Foundation (NSF), a major funder of research in the United States, and find evidence for pervasive racial disparities. In particular, white principal investigators (PIs) are consistently funded at higher rates than most non-white PIs. Funding rates for white PIs have also been increasing relative to annual overall rates with time. Moreover, disparities occur across all disciplinary directorates within the NSF and are greater for research proposals. The distributions of average external review scores also exhibit systematic offsets based on PI race. Similar patterns have been described in other research funding bodies, suggesting that racial disparities are widespread. The prevalence and persistence of these racial disparities in funding have cascading impacts that perpetuate a cumulative advantage to white PIs across all of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
The present exploration of the diffusion of federally-funded R&D via the information-seeking behavior of scientists and engineers proceeds under three assumptions: (1) that knowledge transfer and utilization is as important as knowledge production; (2) that the diffusion of knowledge obtained through federally-funded R&D is necessary for the maintenance of U.S. preeminence in the aerospace field; and (3) that federally-funded NASA and DoD technical reports play an important, albeit as-yet undefined, role in aerospace R&D diffusion. A conceptual model is presented for the process of knowledge diffusion that stresses the role of U.S. government-funded technical reports.
The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded research and development are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the 'NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project'. In this report, we summarize the literature on technical reprts and provide a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D via the U.S. government technical report. We present results from five studies of our investigation of aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-a-vis the U.S. government technical report and close with a brief overview of on-going research into the use of the U.S. government technical report as a rhetorical device for transferring federally funded aerospace R&D.
In this paper, the diffusion of federally funded aerospace R&D is explored from the perspective of the information-seeking behavior of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. The following three assumptions frame this exploration: (1) knowledge production, transfer, and utilization are equally important components of the aerospace R&D process; (2) the diffusion of knowledge resulting from federally funded aerospace R&D is indispensable for the U.S. to remain a world leader in aerospace; and (3) U.S. government technical reports, produced by NASA and DOD, play an important, but as yet undefined, role in the diffusion of federally funded aerospace R&D. A conceptual model for federally funded aerospace knowledge diffusion, one that emphasizes U.S. goverment technical reports, is presented. Data regarding three research questions concerning the information-seeking behavior of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists are also presented.