Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “GaP”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Closing the Gap Between Modeling and Experiments in the Self-assembly of Biomolecules at Interfaces and in Solution

Molecular self-assembly is a powerful tool in materials design, wherein non-covalent interactions like electrostatic, hydrophobic, hydrogen bonding, and van der Waals can be exploited to produce supramolecular nanostructures that are functional and highly tunable. Biomolecules are attractive building blocks, as they are biocompatible, biodegradable and adopt a wide array of higher order structures. Moreover, naturally occurring protein systems display a manifold of structures and interactions that can be replicated in synthetic biomolecules. In this perspective, we highlight advances in multiscale simulation techniques across broad spatiotemporal scales that can aid in characterizing self-assembly of hybrid and hierarchical bionanomaterial systems, with an emphasis on physics-based simulation approaches currently employed to study biomolecules at mineral interfaces. The power of these approaches is highlighted across a few recent areas where molecular simulations have advanced our understanding of self-assembly spanning peptides to protein self-assembly. Looking forward, we discuss how in the near future emerging methods in statistical and machine learning will advance this research field in all areas from expanding the capabilities of physics-based simulation methods to enabling new analyses of high throughput experiments. These advances will pave the way for understanding the molecular recognition patterns in systems that are dictated by self-assembly - biomineralizing peptides, hierarchical peptoids, and large protein assemblies, and will aid in the development of a new synthesis science for achieving precise molecular control in materials design

Sampath, Janani↗
NASA NTRS1990

Aerodynamic pressure and heating-rate distributions in tile gaps around chine regions with pressure gradients at a Mach number of 6.6

Surface and gap pressures and heating-rate distributions were obtained for simulated Thermal Protection System (TPS) tile arrays on the curved surface test apparatus of the Langley 8-Foot High Temperature Tunnel at Mach 6.6. The results indicated that the chine gap pressures varied inversely with gap width because larger gap widths allowed greater venting from the gap to the lower model side pressures. Lower gap pressures caused greater flow ingress from the surface and increased gap heating. Generally, gap heating was greater in the longitudinal gaps than in the circumferential gaps. Gap heating decreased with increasing gap depth. Circumferential gap heating at the mid-depth was generally less than about 10 percent of the external surface value. Gap heating was most severe at local T-gap junctions and tile-to-tile forward-facing steps that caused the greatest heating from flow impingement. The use of flow stoppers at discrete locations reduced heating from flow impingement. The use of flow stoppers at discrete locations reduced heating in most gaps but increased heating in others. Limited use of flow stoppers or gap filler in longitudinal gaps could reduce gap heating in open circumferential gaps in regions of high surface pressure gradients.

Hunt, L. Roane↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗
DOE OSTI2020

Technical Gaps in Hanford High-Level Waste Solids Settling Behavior and Settling Time Evaluation for Direct Feed High-Level Waste (DFHLW) Operations

Settling of high-level waste (HLW) solids in process vessels is a key conceptual process step in providing HLW feed directly to the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) HLW Vitrification Facility. Direct Feed High-Level Waste (DFHLW) is a potential approach to initiating HLW vitrification prior to completing of the WTP Pretreatment Facility. Settling would be used with subsequent supernatant decant to concentrate HLW feed. To support planning for DFHLW, Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) requested support from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to evaluate the current data set available to predict the time needed for HLW solids to settle, to identify gaps in the understanding and predictive capability of HLW solids waste settling times, and to provide scoping estimates of the potential settling time. Eight technical gaps were identified for predicting settling times and characteristics of the formed sediment layers including: Gap 1: In-Tank Settling Rates Faster than Settling of Laboratory Samples, Gap 2: Effect of Sludge Leaching/Washing on Predicted Settling Times, Gap 3: Predicting Waste Settling from Waste Chemistry (Waste Type), Gap 4: Predicting Waste Settling from Particle Size and Density Distributions (PSDDs), Gap 5: Insufficient Laboratory and In-Tank Settling Data to Represent Hanford Waste, Gap 6: Methods for Real-Time, In-Tank Tracking of Settling, Gap 7: Prediction of Sediment Erosion Resistance as a Function of Settling Time, and Gap 8: Prediction of Sediment Solids Content as a Function of Settling Time. In addition to the data gaps, an overarching observation of the settling rate and settled layer data is the significant variation in behavior. At similar solids concentrations, settling rates can vary by as much as 3 orders of magnitude depending on the source waste tank, and significantly different settling rates are noted between laboratory and in situ tests for the same waste tank. The range of average solids concentration in existing HLW sediment, which may have been quiescent for decades, can vary from less than 7 wt% to greater than 74 wt% solids. The shear strengths (or yield stresses) measured on laboratory samples range from less than 27 Pa to greater than 6400 Pa. These variations can challenge process planning for the application of a settle/decant process for DFHLW. This report describes the significance of the gaps to the settle/decant process and presents uncertainties by way of examples. Potential technical approaches for resolving these gaps are described and the estimated difficulty in resolving these gaps is evaluated. Based on the significance of the gap and the difficulty of resolution, recommendations are made to address specific gaps. Scoping estimates of the potential settling times for DFHLW solids have been made based on the existing data set with its associated gaps. Depending on the process vessel depth and final sediment concentration, substantial fractions of the scoping estimate results for settling times for characterized HLW exceed the 2-week period that has been previously assumed for process planning. There is also significant disparity, potentially greater than a factor of 5000 difference, in the estimated settling times depending on process vessel depth and final sediment solid concentration. This variation in results underscores the significance of the identified gaps and uncertainties with respect to process planning for utilizing settle/decant operations for DFHLW.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) to defining gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities, gaps, and KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRS2015

Structural Dynamics of Tropical Moist Forest Gaps

Gap phase dynamics are the dominant mode of forest turnover in tropical forests. However, gap processes are infrequently studied at the landscape scale. Airborne lidar data offer detailed information on three-dimensional forest structure, providing a means to characterize fine-scale (1 m) processes in tropical forests over large areas. Lidar-based estimates of forest structure (top down) differ from traditional field measurements (bottom up), and necessitate clear-cut definitions unencumbered by the wisdom of a field observer. We offer a new definition of a forest gap that is driven by forest dynamics and consistent with precise ranging measurements from airborne lidar data and tall, multi-layered tropical forest structure. We used 1000 ha of multi-temporal lidar data (2008, 2012) at two sites, the Tapajos National Forest and Ducke Reserve, to study gap dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon. Here, we identified dynamic gaps as contiguous areas of significant growth, that correspond to areas greater than 10 sq m, with height less than 10 m. Applying the dynamic definition at both sites, we found over twice as much area in gap at Tapajos National Forest (4.8%) as compared to Ducke Reserve (2.0%). On average, gaps were smaller at Ducke Reserve and closed slightly more rapidly, with estimated height gains of 1.2 m y-1 versus 1.1 m y-1 at Tapajos. At the Tapajos site, height growth in gap centers was greater than the average height gain in gaps (1.3 m y-1 versus 1.1 m y-1). Rates of height growth between lidar acquisitions reflect the interplay between gap edge mortality, horizontal ingrowth and gap size at the two sites. We estimated that approximately 10% of gap area closed via horizontal ingrowth at Ducke Reserve as opposed to 6% at Tapajos National Forest. Height loss (interpreted as repeat damage and/or mortality) and horizontal ingrowth accounted for similar proportions of gap area at Ducke Reserve (13% and 10%, respectively). At Tapajos, height loss had a much stronger signal (23% versus 6%) within gaps. Both sites demonstrate limited gap contagiousness defined by an increase in the likelihood of mortality in the immediate vicinity ((is) approximately 6 m) of existing gaps.

Structural Dynamics of Tropical Moist Forest Gaps↗
DOE OSTI2022

Effect of Coaxial Electrode Geometry on the Electric Field Enhancement Factor for a High Voltage Vacuum Gap

We present an experimental analysis of the change in the electric field enhancement factor with varying gap size and penetration depth (P.D) of cathode into anode for a coaxial vacuum gap, diagnosed using Fowler–Nordheim analysis and optical imaging via scanning electron microscope (SEM) and time integrated Digital single lens reflex camera (DSLR). Data were collected on the Coaxial Gap Breakdown Machine (240 A, 25 kV, 150 ns, 0.1 Hz). Experiments using five different gap sizes at nine different P.Ds are compared over runs comprising 50 shots for each case. The results show a strong link between enhancement factor and gap size, with P.D and surface topology. For large gap sizes, 150, 330, and 700 μm, the average enhancement factor value increases with increasing P.D. For smaller gap sizes, 50 and 100 μm, the average enhancement factor decreases with P.D. SEM imaging before and after plasma formation for each gap size allows for quantifying surface finish, microprotrusion growth, average blast diameter, and an estimation of the surface area breakdowns occupy. Time integrated DSLR imaging analysis of the gap at each shot allows for a determination of the distribution of breakdowns about the circumference of the gap for each case tested. Here, the Fowler–Nordheim analysis allows for a quantitative analysis of the surface roughness of all gap sizes tested. Results show that for large gap sizes, the gap geometry and increasing area of breakdown is the main cause for increasing average enhancement factor. For small gap sizes, the dominant driving factor for small average enhancement factors—that subsequently decrease with P.D—is significant changes in surface topology due to an increased number of breakdowns.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
NASA NTRS2011

DCS: A Case Study of Identification of Knowledge and Disposition Gaps Using Principles of Continuous Risk Management

The Human Research Program (HRP) is formulated around the program architecture of Evidence-Risk-Gap-Task-Deliverable. Review of accumulated evidence forms the basis for identification of high priority risks to human health and performance in space exploration. Gaps in knowledge or disposition are identified for each risk, and a portfolio of research tasks is developed to fill them. Deliverables from the tasks inform the evidence base with the ultimate goal of defining the level of risk and reducing it to an acceptable level. A comprehensive framework for gap identification, focus, and metrics has been developed based on principles of continuous risk management and clinical care. Research towards knowledge gaps improves understanding of the likelihood, consequence or timeframe of the risk. Disposition gaps include development of standards or requirements for risk acceptance, development of countermeasures or technology to mitigate the risk, and yearly technology assessment related to watching developments related to the risk. Standard concepts from clinical care: prevention, diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, rehabilitation, and surveillance, can be used to focus gaps dealing with risk mitigation. The research plan for the new HRP Risk of Decompression Sickness (DCS) used the framework to identify one disposition gap related to establishment of a DCS standard for acceptable risk, two knowledge gaps related to DCS phenomenon and mission attributes, and three mitigation gaps focused on prediction, prevention, and new technology watch. These gaps were organized in this manner primarily based on target for closure and ease of organizing interim metrics so that gap status could be quantified. Additional considerations for the knowledge gaps were that one was highly design reference mission specific and the other gap was focused on DCS phenomenon.

Norcross, Jason↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗