Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Energy Policy”

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.

168 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1990

NASA's future space power needs and requirements

The National Space Policy of 1988 established the U.S.'s long-range civil space goals, and has served to guide NASA's recent planning for future space mission operations. One of the major goals was to extend the human presence beyond earth's boundaries and to advance the scientific knowledge of the solar system. A broad spectrum of potential civil space mission opportunities and interests are currently being investigated by NASA to meet the espoused goals. Participation in many of these missions requires power systems with capabilities far beyond what exists today. In other mission examples, advanced power systems technology could enhance mission performance significantly. Power system requirements and issues that need resolution to ensure eventual mission accomplishment are addressed, in conjunction with the ongoing NASA technology development efforts and the need for even greater innovative efforts to match the ambitious solar exploration mission goals. Particular attention is given to potential lunar surface operations and technology goals, based on investigations to date. It is suggested that the nuclear reactor power systems can best meet long-life requirements as well as dramatically reduce the earth-surface-to-lunar-surface transportation costs due to the lunar day/night cycle impact on the solar system's energy storage mass requirements. The state of the art of candidate power systems and elements for the lunar application and the respective exploration technology goals for mission life requirements from 10 to 25 years are examined.

Schnyer, A. D.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Test Facilities Subpanel

On 20 Jul. 1989, in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing, President George Bush proclaimed his vision for manned space exploration. He stated, 'First for the coming decade, for the 1990's, Space Station Freedom, the next critical step in our space endeavors. And next, for the new century, back to the Moon. Back to the future. And this time, back to stay. And then, a journey into tomorrow, a journey to another planet, a manned mission to Mars.' On 2 Nov. 1989, the President approved a national space policy reaffirming the long range goal of the civil space program: to 'expand human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the solar system.' And on 11 May 1990, he specified the goal of landing Astronauts on Mars by 2019, the 50th anniversary of man's first steps on the Moon. To safely and ever permanently venture beyond near Earth environment as charged by the President, mankind must bring to bear extensive new technologies. These include heavy lift launch capability from Earth to low-Earth orbit, automated space rendezvous and docking of large masses, zero gravity countermeasures, and closed loop life support systems. One technology enhancing, and perhaps enabling, the piloted Mars missions is nuclear propulsion, with great benefits over chemical propulsion. Asserting the potential benefits of nuclear propulsion, NASA has sponsored workshops in Nuclear Electric Propulsion and Nuclear Thermal Propulsion and has initiated a tri-agency planning process to ensure that appropriate resources are engaged to meet this exciting technical challenge. At the core of this planning process, NASA, DOE, and DOD established six Nuclear Propulsion Technical Panels in 1991 to provide groundwork for a possible tri-agency Nuclear Propulsion Program and to address the President's vision by advocating an aggressive program in nuclear propulsion. To this end the Nuclear Electric Propulsion Technology Panel has focused it energies; this final report summarizes its endeavor and conclusions.

Allen, George C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Systemic Risk From the Perspective of Climate, Environmental and Disaster Risk Science and Practice

Understanding and managing systemic risk is more important than ever due to our immense global connectivity (e.g., between sectors, such as food-health-water-energy, countries and continents, down to individuals). Despite the fact that the notion of systemic risk is several decades old, the term is used in diverse ways across different disciplines (e.g., financial systems, medicine, earth system sciences, disaster risk research and climate science). Triggered by the repercussions of the global financial crisis of the late 2000s, and more recently the COVID-19 pandemic, which are clear realization of systemic risk, the perception of systemic risk has often been focused on global and catastrophic or even existential risks. Systemic risk, however, can be seen as a feature of systems at all possible scales (e.g., global, national, regional, local) with system boundaries varying depending on the context. Addressing current societal challenges, such as climate change, in terms of systemic risk requires integrating different systems perspectives and fostering system thinking, while implementing key intergovernmental agendas, such as the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Sustainable Development Goals. Based on insights gained and knowledge collected from an expert workshop, literature review and expert elicitation, we give an integrated perspective of climate, environmental and disaster risk science and practice on systemic risk as summarized in a Briefing Note to the International Science Council. We provide an overview of concepts of systemic risk that have evolved over time and identify commonalities across terminologies and perspectives associated with systemic risk used in different contexts. Key attributes of systemic risk are outlined without prescribing a single definition, and information and data requirements are discussed that are essential for a better and more actionable understanding of the systemic nature of risk. Finally, the opportunities to connect research and policy for addressing systemic risk are highlighted.

systemic risk↗
NASA NTRS2018

Payload Utilization in NASA's Space Launch System

With Space Policy Directive 1, the United States administration has directed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Human Exploration & Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) to return to the Moon with missions and infrastructure designed to support a sustained presence in cislunar space, with robotic and human lunar surface operations. NASA’s new deep space exploration system — the super heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion crew spacecraft and revamped launch facilities at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) — will enable NASA and its commercial and international partners to meet this goal for human exploration of deep space. SLS is the most capable launch vehicle for these efforts, as well as for sending robotic missions deep into the solar system, or even to interstellar space. The vehicle will be available in crew and cargo configurations in progressively more powerful block variants. The initial Block 1 lift capability of at least 26 metric tons (t) to trans-lunar injection (TLI) will be followed by a more powerful Block 1B with the power to loft more than 37 t to TLI. The ultimate Block 2 variant will lift more than 45 t to TLI. For payload accommodation, the Block 1 vehicle can utilize a 5 meter (m) fairing in its cargo configuration with the crew version also able to provide berths for 6U and 12U CubeSats as secondary payloads. The Block 1B crew vehicle will provide as much volume as the space shuttle payload bay in a Universal Stage Adapter (USA) for co-manifested payloads (CPLs). Block 1B cargo vehicles will offer 8.4 m-diameter fairings in 19.1 m and possibly longer lengths, with enough volume to accommodate lunar-orbiting habitat modules and other elements of NASA’s Gateway science outpost. For Mars-class payloads, larger fairings for the Block 2 cargo launcher are under consideration. For missions beyond the Earth-Moon system, SLS offers greater characteristic energy (C3) than any other launch vehicle, enabling shorter transit times or heavier payloads with more robust science packages for missions to the outer solar system. Indeed, the unmatched combination of thrust, payload volume and departure energy that SLS provides opens new opportunities for human and robotic exploration of deep space. This paper will provide an overview of the various vehicle block configurations, their capabilities and payload accommodations for sending primary, co-manifested and secondary payloads to deep space

Creech, Stephen D.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Space Resources

Space resources must be used to support life on the Moon and exploration of Mars. Just as the pioneers applied the tools they brought with them to resources they found along the way rather than trying to haul all their needs over a long supply line, so too must space travelers apply their high technology tools to local resources. The pioneers refilled their water barrels at each river they forded; moonbase inhabitants may use chemical reactors to combine hydrogen brought from Earth with oxygen found in lunar soil to make their water. The pioneers sought temporary shelter under trees or in the lee of a cliff and built sod houses as their first homes on the new land; settlers of the Moon may seek out lava tubes for their shelter or cover space station modules with lunar regolith for radiation protection. The pioneers moved further west from their first settlements, using wagons they had built from local wood and pack animals they had raised; space explorers may use propellant made at a lunar base to take them on to Mars. The concept for this report was developed at a NASA-sponsored summer study in 1984. The program was held on the Scripps campus of the University of California at San Diego (UCSD), under the auspices of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). It was jointly managed under the California Space Inst. and the NASA Johnson Space Center, under the direction of the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) at NASA Headquarters. The study participants (listed in the addendum) included a group of 18 university teachers and researchers (faculty fellows) who were present for the entire 10-week period and a larger group of attendees from universities, Government, and industry who came for a series of four 1-week workshops. The organization of this report follows that of the summer study. Space Resources consists of a brief overview and four detailed technical volumes: (1) Scenarios; (2) Energy, Power, and Transport; (3) Materials; (4) Social Concerns. Although many of the included papers got their impetus from workshop discussions, most have been written since then, thus allowing the authors to base new applications on established information and tested technology. All these papers have been updated to include the authors' current work. This overview, drafted by faculty fellow Jim Burke, describes the findings of the summer study, as participants explored the use of space resources in the development of future space activities and defined the necessary research and development that must precede the practical utilization of these resources. Space resources considered included lunar soil, oxygen derived from lunar soil, material retrieved from near-Earth asteroids, abundant sunlight, low gravity, and high vacuum. The study participants analyzed the direct use of these resources, the potential demand for products from them, the techniques for retrieving and processing space resources, the necessary infrastructure, and the economic tradeoffs. This is certainly not the first report to urge the utilization of space resources in the development of space activities. In fact, Space Resources may be seen as the third of a trilogy of NASA Special Publications reporting such ideas arising from similar studies. It has been preceded by Space Settlements: A Design Study (NASA SP-413) and Space Resources and Space Settlements (NASA SP-428). And other, contemporaneous reports have responded to the same themes. The National Commission on Space, led by Thomas Paine, in Pioneering the Space Frontier, and the NASA task force led by astronaut Sally Ride, in Leadership and America's Future in Space, also emphasize expansion of the space Infrastructure; more detailed exploration of the Moon, Mars, and asteroids; an early start on the development of the technology necessary for using space resources; and systematic development of the skills necessary for long-term human presence in space. Our report does not represent any Government-authorized view or official NASA policy. NASA's official response to these challenging opportunities must be found in the reports of its Office of Exploration, which was established in 1987. That office's report, released in November 1989, of a 90-day study of possible plans for human exploration of the Moon and Mars is NASA's response to the new initiative proposed by President Bush on July 20, 1989, the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing on the Moon: "First, for the coming decade, for the 1990s, Space Station Freedom, our critical next step in all our space endeavors. And next, for the new century, back to the Moon, back to the future, and this time, back to stay. And then a journey into tomorrow, a journey to another planet, a manned mission to Mars." This report, Space Resources, offers substantiation for NASA's bid to carry out that new initiative.

McKay, Mary Fae↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Understanding The Top-Of-Atmosphere Fluxes Difference Between Aerocom Phase III Models And The CERES Product: Clear-Sky Perspective

The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project produces a long-term global climate data record (CDR) that can be used to detect decadal changes in the Earth’s radiation budget (ERB) from the surface to the top-of-atmosphere (TOA). The CERES Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) product includes monthly mean shortwave (SW), longwave (LW), and net TOA all-sky and clear-sky radiative fluxes over 1-degree latitude by 1-degree longitude regions. The EBAF SW and LW fluxes are adjusted within their uncertainties to be consistent with the heat storage in the Earth-atmosphere system (Johnson et al. 2016). EBAF also provides a gap-free monthly mean clear-sky flux map by inferring clear-sky fluxes from both CERES and MODIS measurements (Loeb et al. 2018). In this study, we compare the TOA clear-sky fluxes from Aerocom phase III output with those from the CERES EBAF products. Flux differences over the ocean are generally smaller than over the land, and the magnitude of the differences shows seasonal and regional dependency. To understand the flux differences, aerosol optical depths (AOD) from the Aerocom models are compared with the satellite retrievals from MODIS and MISR. Over the ocean, the AOD differences and the flux differences show consistent regional features, indicating that the differences between models and observations are robust as the CERES EBAF clear-sky SW fluxes and MODIS/MISR AODs are determined independently. However, very little resemblance is found between the AOD and flux differences over the land. To further understand the cause of the flux differences over the land, we compare the land surface albedo from MODIS with the albedo from the models and find consistency in regional albedo differences and flux differences. Monthly regional radiative kernels of AOD and surface albedo derived using the MERRA-2 reanalysis data (Thorsen et al. 2020) are applied to AOD and surface albedo differences between models and observations. For most of the models, the AOD and surface albedo differences can explain most of the flux differences between models and CERES EBAF. The EOS era satellites have provided 20 years of carefully calibrated and validated observations that are suitable for trend analysis. Both the MODIS AOD and CERES EBAF clear-sky SW flux show decreasing trends over the coastal regions of eastern China and the eastern United States due to the emission control policies enforced in both countries, and an increasing trend off the coast of India. The AOD and clear-sky SW flux trends are less consistent over land, as the surface albedo changes complicate the clear-sky SW flux trend. The AOD and clear-sky SW flux trends from the Oslo model HIST run are also examined. However, none of the aforementioned regional trends are found in the model results.

Wenying Su↗