Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Modular Data Center”

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 289 records · Page 16

Electronics for a Picosecond Time-of-flight Measurement

TITLE: Electronics for a Picosecond Time-of-flight Measurement ABSTRACT: Time-of-flight (TOF) detectors have historically been used as part of the particle identification capability of multi-purpose particle physics detectors. An accurate time measurement, combined with a momentum measurement based on the curvature of the track in a magnetic field, is often sufficient to determine the particle's mass, and thus its identity. Such detectors typically have measured the particle flight time extremely precisely, with an uncertainty of one hundred trillionths of a second (also referred to as 100 picoseconds). To put this in perspective it would be like counting all the people on the Earth and getting it right within 1 person! Another use of TOFs is to measure the vertex of the event, which is the location along the beam line where the incoming particles (typically protons) collide. This vertex positon is a well measured quantity for events where the protons collide “head on” as the outgoing particles produced when you blast the proton apart can be used to trace back to a vertex point from which they originated. More frequently the protons just strike a glancing blow and remain intact—in this case they are nearly parallel to the beam and you cannot tell their vertex without this ability to precisely measure the time of flight of the protons. Occasionally both happen in the same event, that is, a central system and two protons are produced. But are they from the same collision, or just a boring background where more than one collision in the same bunch crossing conspire to fake the signal of interest? That’s where the timing of the protons comes into play. The main idea is to measure the time it takes for the two protons to reach TOF detectors positioned equidistant from the center of the main detector. If the vertex is displaced to one side than that detector will measure a shorter time while the other side detector will measure a correspondingly longer time. Taking into account the speed of the particles, which is very close to the speed of light, an accuracy of 100 ps gives a vertex measurement of a few cm or a little more than an inch. At the Large Hadron Collider, where there are up to a hundred billion protons per bunch, and the collision region is compressed to a few inches, that is just not good enough. A higher level of precision is needed to determine whether the vertex of the protons and that of the central system are the same. A factor 10 improvement in the timing measurement to the 10 trillionths of a second level, for example would give the requisite 10 times improvement in the vertex measurement. An accurate measurement of the flight time depends on three key elements: the radiator that produces light when the proton passes through it, the photo-sensor that converts the light to an electrical signal, and the electronics that convert this electrical signal into a time measurement with a compact recordable format. With recent improvements in detector design featuring a series of quartz radiators connected to a micro-channel plate photomultiplier tube, this superior measurement capability is within reach if the readout electronics are sufficiently performant. As a result of the funding of this proposal, we have achieved our primary goals. 1) We have developed from scratch or improved upon existing designs of the full chain of electronics that can maintain the performance of a TOF detector from the output of the photo-sensor to the recording of a compressed data packet containing the timing information. We have accomplished this with a cost effective modular approach such that some or all of the components in the chain could easily be adapted for use in diverse particle physics experiments or in other areas where precise timing is required, such as medical and homeland security devices.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

Preliminary Analysis of Nuclear-Powered Data Center Scenarios

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential for nuclear energy to meet the growing energy demands of data centers (DCs). It evaluates the technical, economic, and socio-environmental implications of coupling Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) with DCs, providing initial responses to several key research questions: What is the potential increased energy demand from DCs in the U.S., in the short, medium and long term? The U.S. is experiencing a rapid increase in energy demand from DCs, with projections indicating a total increase of 24-74 GWy(e) by 2028. Meeting this demand with nuclear energy would require 27–85 GWe of installed capacity. While this surge is expected to slow in the long term, the DC industry needs reliable, scalable, and clean energy sources. How much nuclear capacity can be deployed to meet DC demand and in which timeframe? Several pathways for increasing nuclear capacity were identified, including uprates, restarts of recently retired reactors, power purchase agreements with existing fleet, and new construction. Approximately 20‒28 GWe of nuclear capacity could be dedicated to DCs by the early 2030s. How much High Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) would be needed to support some nuclear deployment scenarios for DCs? Meeting the deployment targets announced by Google and Amazon for the Kairos Power Fluoride-Salt-Cooled High-Temperature Reactor or KP-FHR (~500 MWe by 2035) and the Xe-100 (~1 GWe by 2040), respectively, requires ramping up 19.75% enriched HALEU production to ~6 t/yr by 2040. What types of nuclear energy/DC coupling options exist, and what are the different benefits/challenges? Five coupling options were analyzed, ranging from grid-connected configurations to colocated, behind-the-meter setups. Key design considerations include the proximity to high- and/or medium-voltage transmission lines, the desired internal fault tolerance, and the sources of alternative/backup power during outages. Each coupling option offers unique benefits and challenges in terms of reliability, system costs, regulation, timeline, etc. A list of NPP/DC deployment scenarios was developed, considering existing or newly built NPP or DC projects. Colocated DCs with new small modular reactors or large reactors on greenfield and brownfield sites are the focus of this report. What types of reactors, especially what size, may be incentivized by DCs? Reactor sizing optimization revealed that the ideal reactor size and number of units depend on DC demand, coupling configurations defined in this report, and other economic factors. Larger reactors are preferred for high-demand DCs and grid-connected systems, while larger number of smaller reactors are better suited for DC configurations without grid backup. Which sites may be compatible with co-located nuclear-powered DCs? Siting those projects is a complicated evaluation factoring local water resources, grid connection availability and reliability, IT infrastructure, local work force, proximity to population zones, etc. For this effort greenfield and brownfield sites such as retired coal-fired plants were used to evaluate this question. This evaluation is not meant to recommend any particular site but it highlights key siting criteria and demonstrates large-scale site availability. What are the socio-economic impacts of co-located nuclear-powered DCs? Those projects generate substantial economic benefits to the local economy, particularly in urban settings. Hyperscale DCs colocated with nuclear power plants (sized around 1 GW of power) can create nearly 1,700 jobs for annual operations and more than 7,300 jobs among the supply chain and local businesses as a result of increased household spending. Rural projects also provide significant benefits, but at lower magnitudes compared to urban deployments.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Differential Power Processing for Ultra-Efficient Data Storage

Here this paper presents the hardware, software, and power codesign of an ultra-efficient data storage server with differential power processing (DPP). DPP can reduce the power conversion stress, improve the efficiency, and enhance the functionality of modular power electronics systems. The power inputs of a large number of hard disk drives (HDDs) were connected in series and supported by a multiport ac-coupled differential power processing (MAC-DPP) converter through a multiwinding transformer. Methods for controlling the multi-input multi-output power flow in the multiwinding transformer while avoiding core saturation were investigated. A ten-port MAC-DPP prototype with 700-W/in 3 power density was built to support a 450-W HDD storage system with ten series-stacked voltage domains. The prototype was tested on a 50-HDD server testbench, and the overall system loss is below 1 W (99.77% system efficiency). The server was able to maintain high-speed reading and writing operation of all 50 HDDs against the worst hot-swapping scenarios. A variety of hardware/software configurations and many cloud storage techniques were tested on the fully functioning server. Experimental results show that the energy efficiency of large-scale information systems (CPU/GPU clusters, memory banks, HDD arrays, etc.) can be greatly improved by software, hardware, and power codesign.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Crowder College MARET Center (Final Scientific Technical Report)

Following decades of success in solar energy projects, the Missouri Legislature designated Crowder College in 1992 as the State's renewable energy education center. The resulting Missouri Alternative and Renewable Energy Technology (MARET) Center is recognized internationally for its contributions to the energy field. The mission of the MARET Center is to expand renewable energy throughout the region with education, applied research, and economic development. Educational programs include certification and transfer degrees encompassing green construction, solar thermal energy, solar electricity, and wind. The MARET Center also assists in new product development and other business support services in renewable energy. The Missouri Alternative and Renewable Energy Technology (MARET) Center at Crowder College hopes to eventually develop a 27,500 ft 2 facility as a living laboratory to support solar and other renewable and sustainable energy development through professional degrees, new product development and commercialization, renewable energy business incubation, and consumer education. The primary objective of the current project was to complete Stage One of this building, with solar, wind, and geothermal technologies installed to power its 9,216 ft 2 office, classroom, and research spaces. This MARET Center includes a modular roof structure that permits both solar module mounting and daylighting, PV/thermal hybrid modules pioneered in Crowder Solar Decathlon homes, modular electrical management subsystems; and modular delivery systems for heating and cooling the structure. The MARET Facility will operate as a Net Positive energy building, consistently producing surplus energy for distributed generation on the utility grid. The modular design of the energy systems within the building is to serve as a scalable and repeatable model for a wide variety of building applications and climate zones. As a living laboratory of renewable energy, exploring and validating new applications of solar and other renewable technologies, the MARET Facility will house a wide variety of programs which will advance implementation of renewable energy throughout the region. These program goals include; Curriculum in renewable energy for pre-engineering transfer programs; Certification and degree programs for technical degrees for Energy Efficiency, Wind, Photovoltaic and Solar Thermal professionals; Short courses and workshops for building management and design professionals; Public education and demonstration projects in renewable energy through conferences and K-12 educational outreach; Technical degree offering in building construction incorporating “best practices” for energy efficiency and renewables; and Business incubators for new renewable energy businesses and new product development. The new MARET facility will support the mission of the US Department of Energy (DOE) Solar Program, “to improve America’s security, environmental quality, and economic prosperity through public-private partnerships that bring reliable and affordable solar energy technologies to the marketplace,” through a variety of educational and business assistance programs. Further, technical innovations planned for the MARET facility and its applied research activities will advance the Solar Program strategic goals to “reduce the cost of solar energy to the point it becomes competitive in relevant energy markets (e.g., buildings, power plants) and for solar technology to enable a sustainable solar industry.” Overarching Goals relative to program needs, future expansion, flexibility, quality of materials, and construction and operational costs:; Experimental: The structure and systems of the building operate as an educational resource. The systems are meant to be a source for data collection and study for building users and instructors; Educational: Part of the evolution of this building and its ongoing goals is to use the building as an educational tool, one where new ideas developed in the world and especially at Crowder can be tested further as part of MARET's curriculum; LEED Platinum: achieve highest level of LEED certification; Net Zero: The building will utilize existing wind and alternate energy sources on campus and add solar PVT panels and achieve as close as possible to a net zero energy usage; and Phase II: The phase II portion of this project will expand the Internet student area, additional classrooms, and labs, as well as an auditorium and exhibit area.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Renewable Firming EnergyFarm Final Report

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with funds to modernize the electric power grid. One program under this initiative is the Smart Grid Demonstration program (SGDP). The SGDP mandate is to demonstrate how a suite of existing and emerging smart grid technologies can be innovatively applied and integrated to prove technical, operational, and business-model feasibility. Primus Power is a provider of low cost, long life and long duration energy storage systems. The Company’s flow batteries are shipping to US and international microgrid, utility, military, commercial and industrial customers. Primus Power’s EnergyPod® is a modular battery system for grid scale applications available in configurations ranging from 25 kW to more than 25 MW. The EnergyPod provides nameplate power for 5 hours. This long duration unlocks economic benefits on both sides of the electric meter. It allows commercial and industrial customers to shift low cost electricity purchased at night to offset afternoon electrical peaks to reduce utility demand charges. It also allows utilities to economically reduce power peaks and defer costly upgrades to distribution infrastructure. An EnergyPod contains one or more EnergyCells-a highly engineered flow battery core made from low cost, readily available materials. An EnergyCell includes a membrane-free stack of titanium electrodes located above a novel liquid electrolyte management system. This patented design enables reliable, low maintenance operation for decades. It is safe and robust, featuring non-flammable aqueous electrolyte, sophisticated fault detection and built-in secondary containment. Unlike Li Ion batteries, the EnergyCell is not susceptible to thermal runaway. This cooperative agreement project was started in Feb 2010. The objectives of the project are: 1. Trigger rapid adoption of grid storage systems in the US by demonstrating a low cost, robust and flexible EnergyFarm®. 2. Accelerate adoption of renewable energy and enhance grid stability by firming the output of wind & solar farms. 3. Demonstrate improved grid asset utilization by storing energy during off-peak periods for dispatch during local load peaks. 4. Establish an advanced battery manufacturing industry in the U.S. 5. Reduce CO2 emissions from utilities. This report summarizes the key milestones, data, results and lessons learned from the project. The desired goals and benefits of the cooperative agreement with the DOE have all been achieved. The project has contributed to reducing power costs, accelerating adoption of renewable energy resources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and establishing advanced battery manufacturing in the U.S. The Recovery Act funds provided thru the DOE have been leveraged multiple times by additional private equity investment. Primus Power continues to ship low cost, long life and long duration EnergyPod® flow battery systems to utilities, commercial/industrial, microgrid and data center customers. After the conclusion of this project, Primus Power has modified the EnergyPod® design to optimize around energy performance. Primus Power has moved to a prefabricated enclosure instead of multiple EnergyCells in a container. This lowers capital and maintenance costs and can optimize site design. Utilities are starting to adopt energy storage for a variety of functions. The market will grow as the technology is proven and profitable applications expand.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

WE-AB-201-00: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG # 5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

WE-AB-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

WE-AB-201-04: The Recommendations of MPPG #5 and Practical Implementation Strategies

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

The Life Cycle Application of Intelligent Software Modeling for the First Materials Science Research Rack

Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has been funding development of intelligent software models to benefit payload ground operations for nearly a decade. Experience gained from simulator development and real-time monitoring and control is being applied to engineering design, testing, and operation of the First Material Science Research Rack (MSRR-1). MSRR-1 is the first rack in a suite of three racks comprising the Materials Science Research Facility (MSRF) which will operate on the International Space Station (ISS). The MSRF will accommodate advanced microgravity investigations in areas such as the fields of solidification of metals and alloys, thermo-physical properties of polymers, crystal growth studies of semiconductor materials, and research in ceramics and glasses. The MSRR-1 is a joint venture between NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) to study the behavior of different materials during high temperature processing in a low gravity environment. The planned MSRR-1 mission duration is five (5) years on-orbit and the total design life is ten (IO) years. The MSRR-1 launch is scheduled on the third Utilization Flight (UF-3) to ISS, currently in February of 2003). The objective of MSRR-1 is to provide an early capability on the ISS to conduct material science, materials technology, and space product research investigations in microgravity. It will provide a modular, multi-user facility for microgravity research in materials crystal growth and solidification. An intelligent software model of MSRR-1 is under development and will serve multiple purposes to support the engineering analysis, testing, training, and operational phases of the MSRR-1 life cycle development. The G2 real-time expert system software environment developed by Gensym Corporation was selected as the intelligent system shell for this development work based on past experience gained and the effectiveness of the programming environment. Our approach of multi- uses of the simulation model and its intuitive graphics capabilities is providing a concurrent engineering environment for rapid prototyping and development. Operational schematics of the MSRR-1 electrical, thermal control, vacuum access, and gas supply systems, and furnace inserts are represented graphically in the environment. Logic to represent first order engineering calculations is coded into the knowledge base to simulate the operational behavior of the MSRR-1 systems. An example of engineering data provided includes electrical currents, voltages, operational power, temperatures, thermal fluid flow rates. pressures, and component status indications. These type of data are calculated and displayed at appropriate instrumentation points, and the schematics are animated to reflect the simulated operational status of the MSRR-1. The software control functions are also simulated to represent appropriate operational behavior based on automated control and response to commands received by the crew or ground controllers. The first benefit of this simulation environment is being realized in the high fidelity engineering analysis results from the electrical power system G2 model. Secondly, the MSRR-1 simulation model will be embedded with a hardware mock-up of the MSRR-1 to provide crew training on MSRR-1 integrated payload operations. G2 gateway code will output the simulated instrumentation values, termed as telemetry, in a flight-like data stream so that the crew has realistic and accurate simulated MSRR-1 data on the flight displays which will be designed for crew use. The simulation will also respond appropriately to crew or ground initiated commands, which will be part of normal facility operations. A third use of the G2 model is being planned; the MSRR-1 simulation will be integrated with additional software code as part of the test configuration of the primary onboard computer, or Master Controller, for MSRR-1. We will take advantage of the G2 capability to simulate the flight like data stream to test flight software responses and behavior. A fourth use of the G2 model will be to train the Ground Support Personnel that will monitor the MSRR-1 systems and payloads while they are operating aboard the ISS. The intuitive, schematic based environment will provide an excellent foundation for personnel to understand the integrated configuration and operation of the MSRR-1, and the anticipated telemetry feedback based on operational modes of the equipment. Expert monitoring features will be enhanced to provide a smart monitoring environment for the operators. These features include: (1) Animated, intuitive schematic-based displays which reflect telemetry values, (1) Real-time plotting of simulated or incoming sensor values, (3) High/Low exception monitoring for analog data, (4) Expected state monitoring for discrete data, (5) Data trending, (6) Automated malfunction procedure execution to diagnose problems, (7) Look ahead capability to planned MSRR-1 activities in the onboard timeline. And finally, the logic to calculate telemetry values will be deactivated, and the same environment will interface to the incoming data for the real-time telemetry stream to schematically represent the onboard hardware configuration. G2 will be the foundation for the real-time monitoring and control environment. In summary, our MSRR-1 simulation model spans many elements of the life cycle development of this project: Engineering Analysis, Test and Checkout, Training of Crew and Ground Personnel, and Real-time monitoring and control. By utilizing the unique features afforded by an expert system development environment, we have been able to synergize a powerful tool capable of addressing our project needs at every phase of project development.

Rice, Amanda↗

SUBTASK 1.6 – BASIN ELECTRIC CARBON STORAGE RESEARCH PROJECT: NOVEL MONITORING TECHNIQUES

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) conducted baseline activities associated with an applied research project at Basin Electric Power Cooperative’s (Basin’s) carbon capture and storage (CCS) site in Beulah, North Dakota, to establish novel carbon storage-monitoring techniques as commercial methods under Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FE0024233, Subtask 1.6. The following report summarizes the baseline activities performed and briefly describes the subsequent (operational monitoring) activities that have been proposed to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the overall project to develop and demonstrate novel monitoring techniques at North America’s largest permitted CCS operation. Dakota Gasification Company (DGC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Basin, owns and operates the Great Plains Synfuels Plant (GPSP) approximately 5 miles northwest of the town of Beulah, North Dakota (Figure 1). In 2023, DGC received approval from the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) to develop a storage facility on-site for injecting a stream of carbon dioxide (CO2) captured from GPSP. DGC will transport the captured CO2 stream with approximately 6.8 miles of transmission lines that extend north of GPSP and inject >1 million tonnes (MMt) of CO2 annually (>1 MMt/yr) over a 12-year period with up to six underground injection control (UIC) Class VI-compliant injection wells completed in the Broom Creek Formation, a predominantly sandstone reservoir and saline aquifer underlying GPSP. The Broom Creek Formation lies approximately 5900 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs) at GPSP. The commercial scale (i.e., >1 MMt/yr) of DGC’s permitted carbon storage project is ideal for developing and testing the novel monitoring techniques included within Subtask 1.6. The goals of this project are to demonstrate 1) the cost-effectiveness of novel monitoring technologies included as part of this research, 2) technology capability for tracking the CO2 plume and/or associated pressure response in the subsurface and monitoring out-of-zone migration, and 3) compliance with UIC Class VI program requirements. The research activities proposed for the overall project include 1) design of an automated, integrated, modular (AIM) monitoring station; 2) time-lapse electromagnetic (EM) field surveys; 3) drone-based surveillance studies; 4) time-lapse monitoring with seismic methods; 5) advanced wellbore-monitoring methods; 6) deployment of an AIM monitoring network; 7) EM monitoring of CO2 with real-time data processing; 8) continued seasonal drone-based surveillance studies; 9) seismic monitoring with passive and active surveys; and 10) wellbore monitoring with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) for near-surface characterization. Completion of Activities 1.0–5.0 (baseline activities) are described in this report. Upon authorization of funding by DOE, the EERC will initiate Activities 6.0– 10.0 (operational monitoring activities). Current state-of-the-art (SOA) carbon storage-monitoring techniques require countless labor hours dedicated to the acquisition of data. Once data are gathered, these SOA techniques often rely on commercial facilities to process raw data from the field. However, it is anticipated that next-generation monitoring techniques, such as those being demonstrated, will lower acquisition footprints, be less operationally intensive, and improve data acquisition efficiencies. These new techniques are more conducive to the application of machine learning, artificial intelligence, and automation, thus providing a pathway for integration into active control systems, informing site operability, and improving the integration of data for future CCS projects across the United States. Additionally, reclaimed and active mining lands are present within the project site, creating a unique opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of remote sensing and surface-based geophysics monitoring techniques at similar project sites that may include disturbed, unconsolidated, or actively excavated near-surface environments. The efforts included in the overall project will produce necessary designs, learnings, and data acquired during the baseline and operational monitoring periods that are necessary for time-lapse demonstration and validation of the described monitoring techniques. In addition, it is anticipated that the monitoring technologies included in this study will be compliant with UIC Class VI requirements to enable the potential for implementation at other CCS sites across the United States.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Test Platform

Based on the contract NT-42790 to the Department of Energy, “Plug-in Hybrid Ethanol Research Platform”, Advanced Vehicle Research Center (AVRC) Virginia has successfully developed the phase I electric drive train research platform which has been named as Laboratory Rapid Application Testbed (LabRAT). In phase II, LabRAT is to be upgraded into plug-in hybrid research platform, which will be capable of testing power systems for electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles running on conventional as well as alternative fuels. LabRAT is configured as a rolling testbed with plentiful space for installing various component configurations. Component connections are modularized for flexibility and are easily replaced for testing various mechanisms. LabRAT is designed and built as a full functional vehicle chassis with a steering system, brake system and four wheel suspension. The rear drive axle offers maximum flexibility with a quickly changeable gear ratio final drive to accommodate different motor speed requirements. The electric drive system includes an electric motor which is mechanically connected to the rear axle through an integrated speed/torque sensor. Initially, a 100 kW UQM motor and corresponding UQM motor controller is used which can be easily replaced with another motor/controller combination. A lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) battery pack is installed, which consists of 108 cells of 100 AH capacity, giving the total energy capacity of 32.5 kWh. Correspondingly, a fully functional battery management system (BMS) is installed to perform battery cell operation monitoring, cell voltage balancing, and reporting battery real time operating parameters to vehicle controller. An advanced vehicle controller ECU is installed for controlling the drive train. The vehicle controller ECU receives traction or braking torque command from driver through accelerator and brake pedal position sensors and battery operating signals from the BMS through CAN BUS, and then generates motor torque command (traction or braking) to the motor controller based on the control algorithm software embedded in the vehicle controller ECU. The vehicle controller ECU is a re-programmable electronic control unit. Any control algorithm software developed can be easily downloaded to vehicle controller ECU to test any newly developed control strategy. The flexibility of the control system significantly enhances the practical applicability of the LabRAT. A new test methodology has been developed for the LabRAT simulating any vehicles running on road with different weights from compact passenger car to light duty truck on an AC or eddy current dynamometers without much effort for modification of the system. LabRAT is equipped with a fully functional data acquisition system supplied by CyberMetrix. The measurement points along the drive train are DC electric power between battery pack and motor controller input, AC electric power between motor controller and electric motor, mechanical power between motor and rear axle. The data acquisition system is designed with more capability than current requirements in order to meet the requirements for phase II.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

Design Evolution and Verification of the A-3 Chemical Steam Generator

Following is an overview of the Chemical Steam Generator system selected to provide vacuum conditions for a new altitude test facility, the A-3 Test Stand at Stennis Space Center (SSC) in Bay St. Louis, MS. A-3 will serve as NASA s primary facility for altitude testing of the J-2X rocket engine, to be used as the primary propulsion device for the upper stages of the Ares launch vehicles. The Chemical Steam Generators (CSGs) will produce vacuum conditions in the test cell through the production and subsequent supersonic ejection of steam into a diffuser downstream of the J-2X engine nozzle exit. The Chemical Steam Generators chosen have a rich heritage of operation at rocket engine altitude test facilities since the days of the Apollo program and are still in use at NASA White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) in New Mexico. The generators at WSTF have been modified to a degree, but are still very close to the heritage design. The intent for the A-3 implementation is to maintain this heritage design as much as possible, making minimal updates only where necessary to substitute for obsolete parts and to increase reliability. Reliability improvements are especially desired because the proposed system will require 27 generators, which is nine times the largest system installed in the 1960s. Improvements were suggested by the original design firm, Reaction Motors, by NASA SSC and NASA WSTF engineers, and by the A-3 test stand design contractor, Jacobs Technology, Inc. (JTI). This paper describes the range of improvements made to the design to date, starting with the heritage generator and the minor modifications made over time at WSTF, to the modernized configuration which will be used at A-3. The paper will discuss NASA s investment in modifications to SSC s E-2 test facility fire a full-scale Chemical Steam Generator in advance of the larger steam system installation at A-3. Risk mitigation testing will be performed in early 2009 at this test facility to verify that the CSGs operate as expected. The generator which will undergo this testing is of the most recent A-3 configuration, and will be instrumented far in excess of what is normally required for operation. The extra data will allow for easier troubleshooting and more complete knowledge of expected generator performance. In addition, the early testing will give SSC personnel experience in operating the CSG systems, which will expedite the process of installation and activation at A-3. Each Chemical Steam Generator is supported by a complement of valves, instruments, and flow control devices, with the entire assembly called a "module." The generators will be installed in groups of three, historically called "units". A module is so called because of its modular ability to be replaced or serviced without disturbing the other two modules installed on the same unit. A module is pictured in Figure 1, shown with its generator secured by white bands in its shipping (vs. installed) configuration. The heritage system at WSTF is composed of a single unit (three generator modules), pictured in Figure 2 as it was installed in 1965. In contrast, A-3 will have nine units operating in parallel to achieve vacuum conditions appropriate for testing the J-2X engine. Each of the combustors operates in two modes and achieves the so-called "full-steam" mode after all three of its stages ignite. Ignition of the first stage is achieved by exciting a spark plug; the second stage and main stage are lit by the flame front of the previous stage. The main stage burns approximately 97% of the total propellant flow and uses the heat energy to vaporize water into superheated steam. While the main stage remains unlit, the combustor is in so-called "idle" mode. In the WSTF system, this idle mode is not optimized for water usage, and does not need to be, as the water is pumped from a large reservoir. The water supply at A-3 will be contained in tanks with finite volume, so water optimization is preferred for the modnized configuration. Multiple solutions for this issue have been proposed, with the leading concept being a change to the operational definition of "idle mode," with the generator running in a lower heat flux condition.

Kirchner, Casey K.↗

A complex ligase ribozyme evolved in vitro from a group I ribozyme domain

Like most proteins, complex RNA molecules often are modular objects made up of distinct structural and functional domains. The component domains of a protein can associate in alternative combinations to form molecules with different functions. These observations raise the possibility that complex RNAs also can be assembled from preexisting structural and functional domains. To test this hypothesis, an in vitro evolution procedure was used to isolate a previously undescribed class of complex ligase ribozymes, starting from a pool of 10(16) different RNA molecules that contained a constant region derived from a large structural domain that occurs within self-splicing group I ribozymes. Attached to this constant region were three hypervariable regions, totaling 85 nucleotides, that gave rise to the catalytic motif within the evolved catalysts. The ligase ribozymes catalyze formation of a 3',5'-phosphodiester linkage between adjacent template-bound oligonucleotides, one bearing a 3' hydroxyl and the other a 5' triphosphate. Ligation occurs in the context of a Watson-Crick duplex, with a catalytic rate of 0.26 min(-1) under optimal conditions. The constant region is essential for catalytic activity and appears to retain the tertiary structure of the group I ribozyme. This work demonstrates that complex RNA molecules, like their protein counterparts, can share common structural domains while exhibiting distinct catalytic functions.

NASA Discipline Exobiology↗

Restoration Hydro: A Watershed Approach to Standard Modular New Hydropower

The objectives of FOA DE- FOA-0001836- “Standard Modular Hydropower” included designing a standardized, modular, and environmentally compatible hydropower schematic for implementation in greenfield sites that generate up to 10 MW of capacity. Utilizing funds competitively awarded under DOE’s Water Power Technologies Office, the Natel Energy team developed a concept for modular new stream reach (NSR) hydropower that incorporates multi species upstream and downstream fish passage, improved river channel connectivity, and recreational modules. The in-stream design of the collective modules minimized site specific design and maximized the opportunities for modularity. Financial data was also presented using actual costs from regional suppliers, with figures provided in 2022 dollars. While the project team did not address potential permitting process improvements, the site selection criteria did consider established barriers to hydropower development such as tribal and preserved lands, interconnection proximity, and endangered species to exclude or deprioritize. The project’s design schematic met the objectives of the FOA, and presented a unique solution that targets alluvial pockets as natural features for sustainable development. Natel’s concept also incorporated the company's fish-safe Restoration Hydro Turbine for safe downstream passage, while featuring a rock arch that integrates fish passage, water, recreation, and grade control modules (including sediment). Alignment with the Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) “Innovative Design Concepts for Standard Modular Hydropower and Pumped-Storage Hydropower” Program: According to the Hydropower Vision (DOE, 2016), approximately 16 GW of hydropower growth is possible with the development of technology solutions that balance efficiency, economics, and environmental sustainability. The desired outcome of the SMH program is transformational innovation specifically in the site identification, conceptual, and detailed design phases of technology development lifecycles (DOE, 2018). In developing the SMH design schematic, the team aimed to address the opportunities outlined in the Vision through an inverted design philosophy; rather than singularly prioritizing efficiency and power production, the team focused on integrating hydropower with restoration of degraded streams to optimal ecosystem function and provision of exceptional recreation value as design criteria. To achieve this, Restoration Hydro incorporates the principles of nature-based engineering (WWAP, 2018) and biomimicry (Biomimicry NL.) to strategically deploy complementary combinations of permanent, semi-permanent, and ephemeral low-head structures - such as natural and engineered log jams - that harness geomorphological and hydrological processes at the landscape-scale. Primary applications of Restoration Hydro include: 1) restoration of degraded watersheds’ natural ecological function and enhancement of hydrological connectivity; and 2) creation of associated co-benefits to hydro production, including increased groundwater recharge, improved sediment transport and management, improved water security and water quality. Restoration Hydro projects build upon proven watershed restoration engineering techniques by integrating hydropower turbines into low-head structures using innovative and evolving civil works concepts that facilitate fish and sediment passage, and in some cases create additional revenue-generating recreational opportunities. Powering low-head structures creates a directly monetizable layer of economic value in the form of flexible, reliable, renewable energy on top of the already high-value water, environmental and recreational benefits of watershed and river restoration. The approach aims to create a virtuous, self-reinforcing cycle whereby Restoration Hydro projects support the scaling of ecosystem restoration activities, creating a water-energy-carbon multiplier effect that, through the principles of adaptive change management: 1) improves the resilience of landscapes and downstream population centers for changing hydrological cycles; 2) creates a reliable energy resource that facilitates the integration of intermittent renewable power sources into grids; and 3) supports climate change mitigation through grid decarbonization and enhanced ecosystem carbon capture and retention.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Launch Pad in a Box

NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is developing a new deployable launch system capability to support a small class of launch vehicles for NASA and commercial space companies to test and launch their vehicles. The deployable launch pad concept was first demonstrated on a smaller scale at KSC in 2012 in support of NASA Johnson Space Center's Morpheus Lander Project. The main objective of the Morpheus Project was to test a prototype planetary lander as a vertical takeoff and landing test-bed for advanced spacecraft technologies using a hazard field that KSC had constructed at the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF). A steel pad for launch or landing was constructed using a modular design that allowed it to be reconfigurable and expandable. A steel flame trench was designed as an optional module that could be easily inserted in place of any modular steel plate component. The concept of a transportable modular launch and landing pad may also be applicable to planetary surfaces where the effects of rocket exhaust plume on surface regolith is problematic for hardware on the surface that may either be damaged by direct impact of high speed dust particles, or impaired by the accumulation of dust (e.g., solar array panels and thermal radiators). During the Morpheus free flight campaign in 2013-14, KSC performed two studies related to rocket plume effects. One study compared four different thermal ablatives that were applied to the interior of a steel flame trench that KSC had designed and built. The second study monitored the erosion of a concrete landing pad following each landing of the Morpheus vehicle on the same pad located in the hazard field. All surfaces of a portable flame trench that could be directly exposed to hot gas during launch of the Morpheus vehicle were coated with four types of ablatives. All ablative products had been tested by NASA KSC and/or the manufacturer. The ablative thicknesses were measured periodically following the twelve Morpheus free flight tests. The thermal energy from the Morpheus rocket exhaust plume was only found to be sufficient to cause appreciable ablation of one of the four ablatives that were tested. The rocket exhaust plume did cause spalling of concrete during each descent and landing on a landing pad in the hazard field. The Extended Abstract ASE Earth and Space Conference April, 2016 - Orlando, FL concrete surface was laser scanned following each Morpheus landing, and the total volume of spalled concrete that eroded between the first and final landings of the Morpheus Project's test campaign was estimated. This paper will also describe a new deployable launch system (DLS) capability that is being developed at KSC and was publicly announced in May 2015 (KSC Partnerships, 2015). The DLS is a set of multi-user Ground Support Equipment that will be used to test and launch small class launch vehicles. The system is comprised of four main elements: the Launch Stand, the Flame Deflector, the Pad Apron and the KAMAG transporter. The system elements are designed to be deployed at launch or test sites within the KSC/CCAFS boundaries. The DLS is intended to be used together with the Fluid and Electrical System of the Universal Propellant Servicing Systems and Mobile Power Data and Communications Unit.

Ablatives Testing↗

Launch Pad in a Box

NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is developing a new deployable launch system capability to support a small class of launch vehicles for NASA and commercial space companies to test and launch their vehicles. The deployable launch pad concept was first demonstrated on a smaller scale at KSC in 2012 in support of NASA Johnson Space Center's Morpheus Lander Project. The main objective of the Morpheus Project was to test a prototype planetary lander as a vertical takeoff and landing test-bed for advanced spacecraft technologies using a hazard field that KSC had constructed at the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF). A steel pad for launch or landing was constructed using a modular design that allowed it to be reconfigurable and expandable. A steel flame trench was designed as an optional module that could be easily inserted in place of any modular steel plate component. The concept of a transportable modular launch and landing pad may also be applicable to planetary surfaces where the effects of rocket exhaust plume on surface regolith is problematic for hardware on the surface that may either be damaged by direct impact of high speed dust particles, or impaired by the accumulation of dust (e.g., solar array panels and thermal radiators). During the Morpheus free flight campaign in 2013-14, KSC performed two studies related to rocket plume effects. One study compared four different thermal ablatives that were applied to the interior of a steel flame trench that KSC had designed and built. The second study monitored the erosion of a concrete landing pad following each landing of the Morpheus vehicle on the same pad located in the hazard field. All surfaces of a portable flame trench that could be directly exposed to hot gas during launch of the Morpheus vehicle were coated with four types of ablatives. All ablative products had been tested by NASA KSC and/or the manufacturer. The ablative thicknesses were measured periodically following the twelve Morpheus free flight tests. The thermal energy from the Morpheus rocket exhaust plume was only found to be sufficient to cause appreciable ablation of one of the four ablatives that were tested. The rocket exhaust plume did cause spalling of concrete during each descent and landing on a landing pad in the hazard field. The Extended Abstract ASE Earth and Space Conference April, 2016 - Orlando, FL concrete surface was laser scanned following each Morpheus landing, and the total volume of spalled concrete that eroded between the first and final landings of the Morpheus Project's test campaign was estimated. This paper will also describe a new deployable launch system (DLS) capability that is being developed at KSC and was publicly announced in May 2015 (KSC Partnerships, 2015). The DLS is a set of multi-user Ground Support Equipment that will be used to test and launch small class launch vehicles. The system is comprised of four main elements: the Launch Stand, the Flame Deflector, the Pad Apron and the KAMAG transporter. The system elements are designed to be deployed at launch or test sites within the KSC/CCAFS boundaries. The DLS is intended to be used together with the Fluid and Electrical System of the Universal Propellant Servicing Systems and Mobile Power Data and Communications Unit

Mobile Launch Pad Development↗