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.
This is a guidance document of how to request an exemption from Standard Compliance (SC) under the US DOE's Energy Policy Act (EPAct).
This is a guidance document on EPAct Section 707 emergency repair and restoration vehicle exclusions under the US DOE's Energy Policy Act (EPAct).
The U.S. Department of Energy developed an electronic planning spreadsheet to facilitate fleets' preparation of a complete Alternative Compliance (AC) waiver application. All fleets that participate in AC are encouraged to use the spreadsheet. The example in this guidance document includes all components that must be included in a fleet’s AC waiver application.
Rigorous verification, validation, and credibility (VVC) processes are imperative to ensure that models and simulations (MS) are sufficiently reliable to address issues within their intended scope. The NASA standard for MS, NASA-STD-7009 (7009) [1] was a resultant outcome of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) to ensure MS are developed, applied, and interpreted appropriately for making decisions that may impact crew or mission safety. Because the 7009 focus is engineering systems, a NASA-STD-7009 Guidance Document is being developed to augment the 7009 and provide information, tools, and techniques applicable to the probabilistic and deterministic biological MS more prevalent in human health and performance (HHP) and space biomedical research and operations.
For over a decade, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has tracked and configuration-managed approximately 30 risks to astronaut health and performance that occur before, during and after spaceflight. The Human System Risk Board (HSRB), a Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) Board at NASA Johnson Space Center, is the entity responsible for identifying, assessing, analyzing, and monitoring the official understanding of the risk or risk posture for each of the Human System Risks and determining – based on evaluation of the available evidence – when that risk posture changes. The ultimate purpose of tracking and researching these risks is to find ways to reduce the risk that astronaut crews face during spaceflight. Historically, research, development and operations relevant to one risk have been conducted in isolation from other risks; these individual risk ‘silos’ enabled initial characterization of each specific risk. In spaceflight however, the impact of exposure to risk for astronaut crews is cumulative, and not independent of exposures or other risks, as all the adverse effects of the spaceflight environment begin at launch, continue throughout the duration of the mission and in some cases across the lifetime of the crews. In January of 2020, the HSRB at NASA embarked on a pilot project designed to assess the potential value of causal diagramming as a tool to facilitate understanding these cumulative and interdependent effects as applied within Human System Risk management. This process uses directed acyclic graphs as a means of formalizing a shared mental model of the causal flow of risk among Risk Board stakeholders. Initially this model was to improve communication among those stakeholders, but the potential value exceeds communication alone. Formalization of the process for creating these causal diagrams will enable the creation of a composite risk network that is vetted by members of the NASA community and configuration managed. The causal diagrams are formulated as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to function as a type of knowledge graph for reference for the board and its stakeholders. This document outlines the pilot process, the standardized approaches, and guidance for risk custodian teams when creating and updating DAGs as a part of the NASA Human System Risk Management process.
This is an example of how to file for alternative compliance waiver application under the US DOE's Energy Policy Act (EPAct).
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Section 707 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) amended section 301(9)(E) of EPAct 1992 by adding to the list of vehicles excluded from the definition of "fleet" a new subcategory of emergency motor vehicles, i.e., "vehicles directly used in the emergency repair of transmission lines and in the restoration of electricity service following power outages, as determined by the Secretary." Like other excluded vehicles, these light-duty vehicles (LDVs) do not count (1) when determining whether a fleet is covered under the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) State and Alternative Fuel Provider Fleet Program (Program), and (2) for fleets that are covered under the Program, when calculating annual alternative fuel vehicle (AFV)-acquisition requirements. If AFV models of excluded vehicles are acquired, however, a fleet may count them toward their acquisition requirement by including them in the calculation of the number of AFVs acquired. Exclusion Process.
The U.S. Department of Energy established the Alternative Fuel Transportation Program (Program) and associated regulatory requirements pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Program, otherwise known as the State and Alternative Fuel Provider Fleet Program, requires covered state government and alternative fuel provider fleets operating under Standard Compliance to acquire alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) as a specific percentage of their annual non-excluded light-duty vehicle acquisitions. The opportunity for covered fleets operating under Standard Compliance to request exemptions from their AFV-acquisition requirements serves as administrative relief in the unlikely event a fleet is unable to satisfy its requirements through the normally available compliance alternatives. These alternatives include the acquisition of light-duty AFVs, the acquisition of other, creditable vehicles (e.g., gasoline-fueled hybrid electric vehicles), making certain investments, the purchase of biodiesel for use in medium- or heavy-duty vehicles to the maximum extent allowed, and purchasing or trading for banked AFV credits. This document addresses requests for exemptions from the AFV-acquisition requirements to help covered fleets better understand: How to file a request for an exemption, information and documentation DOE needs to process an exemption request, and important policies relevant for filing exemption requests.
Developers of robotic scientific and commercial spacecraft are trending towards use of onboard autonomous capabilities for responding quickly to dynamic environments and rapidly changing situations. These capabilities need to know the state of the spacecraft’s health. Model-based fault diagnosis (MBFD) is an approach to estimating health by continuously verifying accurate behavior and diagnosing off-nominal behavior. Proper functioning of MBFD depends on 1) the quality of the diagnostic system model that is analyzed and compared to commands and onboard measurements to estimate a system’s health state, and 2) the correct functionality of the diagnosis engine interrogating the model and comparing its analyses to observed system behavior. Our goal is to develop Verification and Validation (V&V) techniques for MBFD to provide future missions sufficient confidence in its functionality and performance to deploy it on the systems they develop. Our work has been focused on infusing the techniques we developed earlier to an operational mission. First, we are constructing diagnostic models of a spacecraft attitude control system and updating our diagnostic engine so they can be demonstrated aboard the Arcsecond Space Telescope Enabling Research in Astrophysics (ASTERIA) mission, an operational spacecraft for which experiments in autonomy are being planned and executed, using the V&V techniques we have previously developed to assure they are both correct and complete. Since it is nearing the end of its life, ASTERIA provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate MBFD since the monitored components are expected to fail. Our demonstration will give system developers additional confidence to make timely, informed MBFD deployment decisions. Second, we will be completing performance assessments of the diagnostic engine/diagnostic model ensemble both on the flight system and ground-based testbeds to gain confidence in MBFD’s ability to run successfully in a spacecraft’s resource-constrained environment without adversely affecting other on-board activities. Finally, we are capturing our experience in preparing this demonstration in a set of checklists and guidance documents. Current practice includes high-level institutional guidance documents and standards, but at a high level of abstraction that does not necessarily address specific MBFD concerns. The purpose of the new checklists is to provide future mission developers clear, unambiguous, procedure-oriented guidance on assuring MBFD. This paper describes our work in these areas. For the first area, we describe the diagnostic models and updated diagnostic engine that will be used for the on-board demonstration. We describe how the V&V techniques we developed earlier are used to assure model and engine correctness and completeness. For the second area, we identify the performance measurement and assessment techniques used to characterize the diagnostic engine and diagnostic models, and discuss the effect of measured performance on overall mission operation. Finally, we present the checklist and guidance documents and describe how they meet the goals of providing system developers with clear, unambiguous, procedure-oriented guidance on MBFD assurance. We show how the techniques we have developed map into those artifacts.
Guidance in preparing and updating an integrated logistics support plan (ILSP) is given. Clear, concise, and detailed instructions are provided on the preparation and content of an ILSP in order to ensure a quality document that reflects total program requirements.
A FORTRAN computer program was developed which automatically targets two and three burn rendezvous missions and performs feedback guidance using the GUIDE algorithm. The program was designed to accept a large class of orbit specifications and to automatically choose a two or three burn mission depending upon the time alignment of the vehicle and target. The orbits may be specified as any combination of circular and elliptical orbits and may be coplanar or inclined, but must be aligned coaxially with their perigees in the same direction. The program accomplishes the required targeting by repeatedly converging successively more complex missions. It solves the coplanar impulsive version of the mission, then the finite burn coplanar mission, and finally, the full plane change mission. The GUIDE algorithm is exercised in a feedback guidance mode by taking the targeted solution and moving the vehicle state step by step ahead in time, adding acceleration and navigational errors, and reconverging from the perturbed states at fixed guidance update intervals. A program overview is presented, along with a user's guide which details input, output, and the various subroutines.
For over a decade, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has tracked and configuration-managed approximately 30 risks to astronaut health and performance that occur before, during and after spaceflight. The Human System Risk Board (HSRB), a Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) Board at NASA Johnson Space Center, is the entity responsible for identifying, assessing, analyzing, and monitoring the official understanding of the risk or risk posture for each of the Human System Risks and determining – based on evaluation of the available evidence – when that risk posture changes. The ultimate purpose of tracking and researching these risks is to find ways to reduce the risk that astronaut crews face during spaceflight. Historically, research, development and operations relevant to one risk have been conducted in isolation from other risks; these individual risk ‘silos’ enabled initial characterization of each specific risk. In spaceflight however, the impact of exposure to risk for astronaut crews is cumulative, and not independent of exposures or other risks, as all the adverse effects of the spaceflight environment begin at launch, continue throughout the duration of the mission and in some cases across the lifetime of the crews. In January of 2020, the HSRB at NASA embarked on a pilot project designed to assess the potential value of causal diagramming as a tool to facilitate understanding of these cumulative and interdependent effects as applied within Human System Risk management. This process uses directed acyclic graphs as a means of formalizing a shared mental model of the causal flow of risk among Risk Board stakeholders. Initially this model was to improve communication among those stakeholders, but the potential value exceeds communication alone. The causal diagrams are formulated as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to function as a type of knowledge graph for reference for the board and its stakeholders. This document is a sister document to NASA/TM 20220006812 Directed Acyclic Graph Guidance Documentation (1). In that document, the basic guidance for creating and standardizing directed acyclic graphs as tools for cross-risk analysis is provided. This document contains the initial configuration managed DAGs that were created as a result of applying those principles. These initial versions were accepted by the HSRB in January of 2022. Each of the Human System Risks are represented by a DAG that has been reviewed by the larger Human Health and Performance community at NASA including life scientists, physical scientists, physicians, nurses, pharmacists, exercise specialists and more. These results show the starting point for Human System Risk DAGs as shared mental models and communication aids across the boundaries of the various expertise needed to understand and mitigate the human risks in spaceflight. Because they are a starting point, each of these DAGs can be expected to change over time as new or refined evidence becomes available. The process for updating these DAGs can be found in the JSC-66705 Human System Risk Management Plan (2) that is publicly available on the NASA Technical Reports Server.
This document provides guidance to the FAA on important human factors considerations that can be used to support the certification of a UAS Aircraft Control Station (ACS). This document provides a synopsis of the human factors analysis, design and test activities to be performed to provide a basis for FAA certification. The data from these analyses, design activities, and tests, along with data from certification/qualification tests of other key components should be used to establish the ACS certification basis. It is expected that this information will be useful to manufacturers in developing the ACS Certification Plan,, and in supporting the design of their ACS.
The intent of this addendum is to support the guidance document, Tri-Agency Reliability Engineering Guidance: Post Mission Disposal and Extension Assessment (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210024973). It is intended to further assist spacefaring entities in assessing their designs and operational plans for extending missions and Post Mission Disposal (PMD) by providing an hypothetical mission example.
The demand for new energy infrastructure is increasing across the United States, but heterogenous permitting processes and embedded requirements across different local jurisdictions can cause project delays, increase “soft costs,” and hinder developer expansion. This study analyzes the variability in local permitting requirements across the U.S. and develops a quantitative approach to describe their clarity and effectiveness in enabling infrastructure project development. By using an Energy Language Model (ELM), a large language model (LLM) for energy technologies, we systematically gathered permitting information from nearly 300 state-, county-, and city-level documents, creating a structured dataset of requirements and procedures on an unprecedented scale and speed. Our analysis revealed that local (city and county) permitting requirement documents are underrepresented compared to state-level guidance documents, which can impede timely and cost-effective installation of new electric infrastructure. Our validation process showed that the final database has an accuracy of approximately 95%. We, further, created a new quantitative method to score permitting requirements for clarity and efficiency, with electric vehicle supply equipment as an initial use case. The average local permitting document scored a 1.8 out of 5, which we interpret as meaning that half of the requirements developers face when installing electric infrastructure are ambiguous, increasing both cost and time. We also created a “Generalized Permit Process”, highlighting common procedural steps and identifying specific opportunities for municipalities to improve their documentation. This research establishes a systematic and scalable framework for evaluating the complexities of local infrastructure permitting processes by combining LLM-powered data collection and quantitative scoring. The framework enables policymakers and developers to identify and mitigate procedural bottlenecks, with the expectation that these improvements can accelerate application review and approval, reduce project costs, and expedite connection to utility distribution grids. As a foundational approach for streamlining local project development processes, this study’s methods are intended to be extended to a wide range of energy applications.
This Commissioning Guidance for Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) is DOE’s official guidance for ordering agencies under the current DOE ESPC IDIQ contract. This guidance document explains how commissioning of energy conservation measures (ECMs) and water conservation measures (WCMs) is incorporated into the ESPC process, roles and responsibilities in project commissioning, and key elements of commissioning. This document updates the previous version, released in 2015. This guidance can also be used as applicable in the development of ESPC ENABLE and UESC performance assurance plans.
The purpose of this Handbook is to provide technical information, clarification, examples, processes, and techniques to help institute good modeling and simulation practices in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a companion guide to NASA-STD- 7009, Standard for Models and Simulations, this Handbook provides a broader scope of information than may be included in a Standard and promotes good practices in the production, use, and consumption of NASA modeling and simulation products. NASA-STD-7009 specifies what a modeling and simulation activity shall or should do (in the requirements) but does not prescribe how the requirements are to be met, which varies with the specific engineering discipline, or who is responsible for complying with the requirements, which depends on the size and type of project. A guidance document, which is not constrained by the requirements of a Standard, is better suited to address these additional aspects and provide necessary clarification. This Handbook stems from the Space Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation (2003), which called for Agency-wide improvements in the "development, documentation, and operation of models and simulations"' that subsequently elicited additional guidance from the NASA Office of the Chief Engineer to include "a standard method to assess the credibility of the models and simulations."2 General methods applicable across the broad spectrum of model and simulation (M&S) disciplines were sought to help guide the modeling and simulation processes within NASA and to provide for consistent reporting ofM&S activities and analysis results. From this, the standardized process for the M&S activity was developed. The major contents of this Handbook are the implementation details of the general M&S requirements ofNASA-STD-7009, including explanations, examples, and suggestions for improving the credibility assessment of an M&S-based analysis.