SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
This viewgraph presentation describes various lightning strike and electromagnetic sensing mitigation technologies to minimize flight safety risks.
To make concentrating solar power (CSP) cost-competitive, the next generation of CSP plants will increase efficiency by operating at a higher temperature, which will require a new thermal energy storage material. One option for the thermal energy storage material is a ternary chloride salt that is stable at the temperatures required, but reacts easily with the atmosphere to form MgOHCl, a corrosive impurity. If left unchecked, this impurity will corrode the containment alloys, potentially leading to dangerous spills. We are working to design an electrochemical purification cell to remove MgOHCl from the molten chloride salt during CSP plant operation. In this paper, we use predictive modeling to assess the rate at which purification must occur. Additionally, we analyze possible process flow pathways for the molten chloride salts. Ultimately, we determine that implementation of a single reactor through which all chloride salts flow is the most efficient design to reduce impurity concentration below 0.1 mol % impurity.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Abstract Poleroviruses, enamoviruses, and luteoviruses are icosahedral, positive sense RNA viruses that cause economically important diseases in food and fiber crops. They are transmitted by phloem-feeding aphids in a circulative manner that involves the movement across and within insect tissues. The N-terminal portion of the viral readthrough domain ( N RTD) has been implicated as a key determinant of aphid transmission in each of these genera. Here, we report crystal structures of the N RTDs from the poleroviruses turnip yellow virus (TuYV) and potato leafroll virus (PLRV) at 1.53-Å and 2.22-Å resolution, respectively. These adopt a two-domain arrangement with a unique interdigitated topology and form highly conserved dimers that are stabilized by a C-terminal peptide that is critical for proper folding. We demonstrate that the PLRV N RTD can act as an inhibitor of virus transmission and identify N RTD mutant variants that are lethal to aphids. Sequence conservation argues that enamovirus and luteovirus N RTDs will follow the same structural blueprint, which affords a biological approach to block the spread of these agricultural pathogens in a generalizable manner.
Polymer toughness is typically dictated by the entanglement density. Here we demonstrate a new paradigm via polymer-grafted nanocomposites that couples segmental dynamics with the entanglement concept for enhanced toughness at high deformation rates.
High spatial and temporal resolution x-ray radiography images are required at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) for high-energy density experiments. One technique that is in development to achieve the required resolution uses Fresnel zone plate (FZP) optics to image an object that is backlit by an x-ray source. The multiple FZP diffraction orders do not focus on the same plane, which increases the background and reduces the contrast. Understanding the point spread function of the different diffraction orders will allow the prediction of the expected background using simulations. We find that the two-dimensional point spread function of the FZP can be approximated by the addition of a sharp Gaussian with a disk. This allowed for the estimation of the background in NIF experimental images of Rayleigh–Taylor spikes and their interpretation. An alternative design of FZP is discussed to allow the inclusion of a zeroth order blocker to reduce the background.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Dynamic wireless charging of electric vehicles (EV) is an emerging charging technology to enable non-contact wireless charging while the vehicle is moving. Compared to stationary wireless charging, in-motion wireless charging involves dynamic processes in which an EV is passing over the charging pads (transmitters). This in motion process makes the dynamic electromagnetic (EM) environment more complicated, and EM safety needs to be ensured under all circumstances. This is due to the fact that the entire vehicle body may be exposed to magnetic fields while the vehicle moves over the energized transmitter. This paper investigates several typical charging scenarios when EVs approach, pass over, and move away from the charging pads. Quasi-dynamic models, which are preliminarily verified by coils’ inductance measurements, are developed to analyze the dynamic process. Based on the quasi-dynamic analysis, shielding solutions are also studied to ensure EM safety for the dynamic wireless charging processes.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Introduction: As we return to the Moon, the lunar regolith (i.e. lunar dust) covering the surface will be an obstacle to nominal operations. Accounts from Apollo astronauts and analysis of hardware returned from the surface illustrate just how deleterious the dust can be [1]. During Apollo missions, the lunar dust adhered to hardware mechanically and electrostatically [2]. Surviving the Night: Mitigating the lunar dust will be critical to surviving the night. Going hand-in-hand with other extreme environment considerations, dust mitigation is critical to mission success. Dust Impacts on Other Systems: The lunar dust can have negative implications for power, thermal, mechanisms, and several other systems or sub-systems. For example, Apollo encountered marked degradation of performance in heat rejection systems for the lunar roving vehicle, science packages, and other components because of the lunar dust [1]. For power alone, dust can cause internal clogging for power connectors, heat rejection issues, excessive dust on reflective surfaces, reduced power output for solar arrays, and so on. Dust Mitigation Strategy: In addition to considering technology solutions, it is important for hardware, systems, and or components to have a dust mitigation strategy. At a high level, hardware that will encounter the lunar dust should consider these things when defining a dust mitigation strategy: • Understand Natural Environment • Understand Induced Environment • Understand Tolerance to Dust • Write Dust Requirements • Select Dust Mitigation Solutions • Test Hardware in Dusty Environment More information on each of these can be provided to hardware owners. Dust Mitigation Technology Development: NASA has a series of technologies that may be available for hardware that needs to survive the lunar night. Many of these solutions are leveraging dust mitigation technology development efforts from NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), as well as efforts from ESDMD programs, industry, and academia. Through a series of STMD programs (both internal to NASA and through partnerships), there are several technologies in development as considerations as dust mitigation solutions for hardware. Within STMD, the Game Changing Development Program (GCD) has funded several internal dust mitigation projects including low to mid TRL development, demonstrations on CLPS landers of high TRL solutions, and creating standards and best practices for dust mitigation. STMD dust mitigation efforts also include a series of partnerships for developing technologies and advancing the state of dust mitigation at NASA. This includes the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC), Small Business Innovation Research, Early Stage Innovations (ESI), Space Technology Research Grants (STRG), Announcement of Collaboration Opportunities (ACOs) and Tipping Points (TPs), and Challenges and Crowdsourcing, among others. There are also a series of dust mitigation solutions that have been widely used terrestrially, or during Apollo. In recent years, several studies have produced more data on the efficacy of these potential solutions in the lunar environment. Dust Mitigation Solutions: Dust mitigation solutions generally fall into four categories: • Dust Tolerant Mechanisms • Passive Dust Mitigation Capabilities • Active Dust Mitigation Capabilities • Dust Measurement Capabilities There are a series of solutions that may prove beneficial for hardware that needs to survive the lunar night, including new technology development as well as proven, terrestrial solutions. This presentation will discuss in more detail what some of these solutions are for payloads going to the surface. References: [1] J. R. Gaier, NASA/TM—2005-213610, The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions [2] T. J. Stubbs, et al. Impact of Dust on Lunar Exploration, 2005
Introduction: As we return to the Moon, the lunar regolith (i.e. lunar dust) covering the surface will be an obstacle to nominal operations. Accounts from Apollo astronauts and analysis of hardware returned from the surface illustrate just how deleterious the dust can be [1]. During Apollo missions, the lunar dust adhered to hardware mechanically and electrostatically [2]. Surviving the Night: Mitigating the lunar dust will be critical to surviving the night. Going hand-in-hand with other extreme environment considerations, dust mitigation is critical to mission success. Dust Impacts on Other Systems: The lunar dust can have negative implications for power, thermal, mechanisms, and several other systems or sub-systems. For example, Apollo encountered marked degradation of performance in heat rejection systems for the lunar roving vehicle, science packages, and other components because of the lunar dust [1]. For power alone, dust can cause internal clogging for power connectors, heat rejection issues, excessive dust on reflective surfaces, reduced power output for solar arrays, and so on. Dust Mitigation Strategy: In addition to considering technology solutions, it is important for hardware, systems, and or components to have a dust mitigation strategy. At a high level, hardware that will encounter the lunar dust should consider these things when defining a dust mitigation strategy: • Understand Natural Environment • Understand Induced Environment • Understand Tolerance to Dust • Write Dust Requirements • Select Dust Mitigation Solutions • Test Hardware in Dusty Environment More information on each of these can be provided to hardware owners. Dust Mitigation Technology Development: NASA has a series of technologies that may be available for hardware that needs to survive the lunar night. Many of these solutions are leveraging dust mitigation technology development efforts from NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), as well as efforts from ESDMD programs, industry, and academia. Through a series of STMD programs (both internal to NASA and through partnerships), there are several technologies in development as considerations as dust mitigation solutions for hardware. Within STMD, the Game Changing Development Program (GCD) has funded several internal dust mitigation projects including low to mid TRL development, demonstrations on CLPS landers of high TRL solutions, and creating standards and best practices for dust mitigation. STMD dust mitigation efforts also include a series of partnerships for developing technologies and advancing the state of dust mitigation at NASA. This includes the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC), Small Business Innovation Research, Early Stage Innovations (ESI), Space Technology Research Grants (STRG), Announcement of Collaboration Opportunities (ACOs) and Tipping Points (TPs), and Challenges and Crowdsourcing, among others. There are also a series of dust mitigation solutions that have been widely used terrestrially, or during Apollo. In recent years, several studies have produced more data on the efficacy of these potential solutions in the lunar environment. Dust Mitigation Solutions: Dust mitigation solutions generally fall into four categories: • Dust Tolerant Mechanisms • Passive Dust Mitigation Capabilities • Active Dust Mitigation Capabilities • Dust Measurement Capabilities There are a series of solutions that may prove beneficial for hardware that needs to survive the lunar night, including new technology development as well as proven, terrestrial solutions. This presentation will discuss in more detail what some of these solutions are for payloads going to the surface. References: [1] J. R. Gaier, NASA/TM—2005-213610, The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions [2] T. J. Stubbs, et al. Impact of Dust on Lunar Exploration, 2005
Lunar Dust Contamination: As we get closer to putting landers, rovers, payloads, and astronauts on the Moon, dust mitigation is becoming more critical than ever. To address the many challenges of dust mitigation on the surface, engineers and scientists are looking at various technologies that may have relevance for the contamination control community. This includes active, passive, architectural, and operational solutions. There have been advances in coatings for dust mitigation at NASA and through commercial partnerships (see Wiesner, Wohl, et al). There have been advancements to previous solutions as well as novel solutions to address dust mitigation on the surface and on-orbit. There have been several efforts to better understand the effectiveness of various terrestrial and dust mitigation solutions with much of this data published in recent years. In the area of dust mitigation, dust contamination or infiltration refers to the impingement or contact of planetary dust with items not normally dusty and whose operation may therefore be compromised. Recent Advancements in Dust Mitigation: Dust mitigation strategies are becoming more common for hardware heading to the Moon, with most major programs implementing lunar dust contamination requirements for human health and equipment. In the last couple of years, NASA has created more guidance to assist hardware developers with dust mitigation. This includes NASA-STD-1008 (Classifications and Requirements for Testing Systems and Hardware to be Exposed to Dust in Planetary) and NASA TP 20220018746 (Lunar Dust Mitigation Guide and Reference). Several projects are testing hardware in relevant dusty environments to understand their tolerance to lunar dust. There has been a significant increase in the amount of testing with lunar simulants, with the NASA Simulant Advisory Committee serving a resource for NASA and our partners. There are new solutions for detecting and monitoring the dust internally and externally. Learning from the contamination control community: In addition to sharing potentially relevant solutions at the workshop, the dust mitigation community is also interested in learning from the contamination control community on ways to address lunar dust. For instance, a major aspect of managing the dust is monitoring and detection. This is critical for understanding when maintenance is needed and to inform future missions. Another challenge of working with lunar dust is quantifying and characterizing the smallest of particles. There are also challenges in modeling lunar dust and its behavior. The dust mitigation community can also leverage lessons learned from the planetary protection community.
Forests-based measures such as afforestation/reforestation (A/R) and reducing deforestation (RDF) are considered promising options to mitigate climate change, yet their mitigation potentials are limited by economic and biophysical factors that are largely uncertain. The range of mitigation potential estimates from integrated assessment models raises concerns about the capacity of land systems to provide realistic, cost-effective and permanent land-based mitigation. We use the Global Change Analysis Model to quantify the economic mitigation potential of forests-based measures by simulating a climate policy including a tax on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, forestry, and other land uses. In addition, we assess how constraining unused arable land (UAL) availability, forestland expansion rates, and global bioenergy demand may influence the forests-based mitigation potential by simulating scenarios with alternative combinations of constraints. Results show that the average forests-based mitigation potential in 2020–2050 increases from 738 MtCO 2 .yr -1 through a forestland increase of 86 Mha in the fully constrained scenario to 1394 MtCO 2 .yr -1 through a forestland increase of 146 Mha when all constraints are relaxed. Regional potentials in terms of A/R and RDF differ strongly between scenarios: unconstrained forest expansion rates mostly increase A/R potentials in northern regions (e.g., +120 MtCO 2 .yr -1 in North America); while unconstrained UAL conversion and low bioenergy demand mostly increase RDF potentials in tropical regions (e.g., +76 and +68 MtCO 2 .yr -1 in Southeast Asia, respectively). This study shows that forests-based mitigation is limited by many factors that constrain the rates of land use change across regions. These factors, often overlooked in modelling exercises, should be carefully addressed for understanding the role of forests in global climate mitigation and defining pledges towards the Paris Agreement.
Error mitigation techniques are crucial to achieving near-term quantum advantage. Classical postprocessing of quantum computation outcomes is a popular approach for error mitigation, which includes methods, such as zero noise extrapolation, virtual distillation, and learning-based error mitigation. However, these techniques have limitations due to the propagation of uncertainty resulting from the finite shot number of a quantum measurement. In this work, we introduce general and unbiased methods for quantifying the uncertainty and error of error-mitigated observables based on the strategic sampling of error mitigation outcomes. We then extend our approach to demonstrate the optimization of performance and robustness of error mitigation under uncertainty. To illustrate our methods, we apply them to zero noise extrapolation and Clifford date regression in the ground state of the XY model simulated using depolarizing and International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) Toronto noise models, respectively. In particular, we optimize the choice of noise levels and the allocation of shots for zero noise extrapolation and the distribution of the training circuits for Clifford data regression. While our methods are readily applicable to any postprocessing-based error mitigation approach, in practice they must not be prohibitively expensive—even though they perform optimizations of the error mitigation hyperparameters requiring sampling of a statistical distribution of error mitigation outcomes. By leveraging surrogate-based optimization, we show that our methods can efficiently perform optimal design for a zero noise extrapolation implementation. We then further demonstrate the transferability of learned zero noise extrapolation hyperparameters to other similar circuits.
Climate change is projected to negatively impact biophysical agricultural productivity in much of the world. Actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate future climate changes, are thus of central importance for agricultural production. Climate impacts are, however, not unidirectional; some crops in some regions (primarily higher latitudes) are projected to benefit, particularly if increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is assumed to strongly increase crop productivity at large spatial and temporal scales. Climate mitigation measures that are implemented by reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations lead to reductions both in the strength of climate change and in the benefits of carbon dioxide fertilization. Consequently, analysis of the effects of climate mitigation on agricultural productivity must address not only regions for which mitigation is likely to reduce or even reverse climate damages. There are also regions that are likely to see increased crop yields due to climate change, which may lose these added potentials under mitigation action. Comparing data from the most comprehensive archive of crop yield projections publicly available, we find that climate mitigation leads to overall benefits from avoided damages at the global scale and especially in many regions that are already at risk of food insecurity today. Ignoring controversial carbon dioxide fertilization effects on crop productivity, we find that for the median projection aggressive mitigation could eliminate approximately 81% of the negative impacts of climate change on biophysical agricultural productivity globally by the end of the century. In this case, the benefits of mitigation typically extend well into temperate regions, but vary by crop and underlying climate model projections. Should large benefits to crop yields from carbon dioxide fertilization be realized, the effects of mitigation become much more mixed, though still positive globally and beneficial in many food insecure countries.
As a result of increasing windstorm losses in the United States over the past 50 years, a variety of residential wind hazard mitigation strategies have been recommended. Wind hazard mitigation undoubtedly reduces windstorm losses; however, little customized information is available to support the economic decision-making process for individual stakeholders, especially at the consumer level. Therefore, there is a need for decision support tools to calculate, evaluate, and present the economic benefits of mitigation over variable decision-making time horizons for unique building characteristics in specific geographical locations. This paper presents a cost-benefit computational decision-making recommendation framework that evaluates and presents the cost effectiveness of mitigation, customized based on location, years of interest, and building characteristics. The decision-making framework consists of two cores. The user-independent core and user-dependent core which consists of eight steps, divided into four subprocesses: (1) data acquisition, (2) data evaluation, (3) cost-benefit calculation, and (4) results comparison and decision making. To demonstrate the framework, a wood-framed single-family home in light suburban terrain in Golden Meadow, Louisiana, is used as a case study, considering retrofit mitigation with a $15,000 budget and a decision-making time horizon of 30 years. The case study provides six mitigation options, with cost ranging between approximately $2,000 and $15,000 and net benefit/cost ratios ranging from 2.4 to 13. Once fully implemented in a decision making information tool, the developed mitigation recommendation framework will provide valuable information that can be used by home designers, builders, owners, and other stakeholders to better understand the economic facets of wind hazard mitigation, providing critical information as part of the overall decision-making process.
Stabilizing climate change well below 2 °C and towards 1.5 °C requires comprehensive mitigation of all greenhouse gases (GHG), including both CO 2 and non-CO 2 GHG emissions. Here we incorporate the latest global non-CO 2 emissions and mitigation data into a state-of-the-art integrated assessment model GCAM and examine 90 mitigation scenarios pairing different levels of CO 2 and non-CO 2 GHG abatement pathways. We estimate that when non-CO 2 mitigation contributions are not fully implemented, the timing of net-zero CO 2 must occur about two decades earlier. Conversely, comprehensive GHG abatement that fully integrates non-CO 2 mitigation measures in addition to a net-zero CO 2 commitment can help achieve 1.5 °C stabilization. While decarbonization-driven fuel switching mainly reduces non-CO 2 emissions from fuel extraction and end use, targeted non-CO 2 mitigation measures can significantly reduce fluorinated gas emissions from industrial processes and cooling sectors. Our integrated modeling provides direct insights in how system-wide all GHG mitigation can affect the timing of net-zero CO 2 for 1.5 °C and 2 °C climate change scenarios.
Here, we implement a quantum error mitigation method termed self-mitigation, which is comparable to zero-noise extrapolation, at large scales to achieve quantum utility on near-term, noisy quantum computers. We investigate the effectiveness of several quantum error mitigation strategies, including self-mitigation, by simulating quantum quench dynamics for Heisenberg spin chains with system sizes up to 104 qubits using IBM quantum processors. In particular, we discuss the limitations of zero-noise extrapolation and the advantages offered by self-mitigation at large scales. The self-mitigation method demonstrates stable accuracy with large systems of 104 qubits comprising more than 3,000 CNOT gates. Also, we combine the discussed quantum error mitigation methods with practical entanglement entropy measuring methods, and it shows a good agreement with the theoretical estimation. Our study illustrates the usefulness of near-term noisy quantum hardware in examining the quantum quench dynamics of many-body systems at large scales and lays the groundwork for surpassing classical simulations with quantum methods prior to the development of fault-tolerant quantum computers.