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.
Presentation to NNL/INL staff on the status of the Halden BWR and implications of its shutdown for irradiation needs.
Not provided.
Not Available
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Abstract not provided
Not provided.
Over the years, significant validation work for the neutronics code MPACT has been performed against zero-power critical benchmarks and measured data from operating nuclear power plants. As a part of the Modeling and Analysis of Exelon BWRs for Eigenvalue and Thermal Limits Predictability project, new validation efforts relevant to boiling water reactor (BWR) core applications have been performed. This paper presents the results of the critical experiment portion of the BWR validation efforts for MPACT. The Kritz-4 experiments and IPEN/MB-01 BWR-relevant configurations are modeled with MPACT. The Kritz-4 BWR critical experiments were performed at both cold and hot conditions, which is a unique feature among other critical experiment facilities. The MPACT results with linear source (LS) Method of Characteristics (MOC) have very good agreement with the measured criticality. When using the 60-group BWR library with LS and P2 scattering, the maximum k{sub eff} error is 109 pcm, and the average cold-hot bias is only -0.11 pcm/K. The fission rate distributions of MPACT are also verified with Serpent calculations. For the IPEN facility, two configurations are considered: one with a large central void, and one with a cruciform control rod. The MPACT k{sub eff} errors are less than 50 pcm for all IPEN problems. (authors)
This paper considers a leader-following consensus in the presence of unknown but bounded cyber-attacks. Specifically, we consider the following cyber-attack scenarios: (i) an attacker aims to destabilize the consensus dynamics by injecting exogenous signals to both the actuators of the followers and/or the communication network, (ii) an eavesdropper adversary aims to obtain information on the physical state of the agents. To this end, a novel resilient leader-following consensus algorithm based on a competitive interaction method is proposed. In addition, it is demonstrated that by appropriately choosing the information exchanged between the agents, the proposed control framework also enables the cooperative system to either distributively identify the compromised communication links in real-time or to protect the privacy of the physical state of the agents from the eavesdropper. Here, a numerical example is provided to illustrate the proposed resilient control algorithms.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The NASA Ares Projects are developing the launch vehicles to move the United States and humanity beyond low earth orbit. Ares 1 is a crewed vehicle, and Ares V is a heavy-lift vehicle being designed to send crews and cargo to the Moon. The Ares V design is evolving and maturing toward an authority-to-proceed milestone in 2011. The Ares V vehicle will be considered a national asset, opening new worlds and creating unmatched opportunities for human exploration, science, national security, and space business.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
NASA is engaged in transforming human spaceflight. The Agency is shifting from an exploration-based program with human activities focused on low Earth orbit (LEO) and targeted robotic missions in deep space to a more sustainable and integrated pioneering approach. Through pioneering, NASA seeks to address national goals to develop the capacity for people to work, learn, operate, live, and thrive safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time. However, pioneering space involves more than the daunting technical challenges of transportation, maintaining health, and enabling crew productivity for long durations in remote, hostile, and alien environments. This shift also requires a change in operating processes for NASA. The Agency can no longer afford to engineer systems for specific missions and destinations and instead must focus on common capabilities that enable a range of destinations and missions. NASA has codified a capability driven approach, which provides flexible guidance for the development and maturation of common capabilities necessary for human pioneers beyond LEO. This approach has been included in NASA policy and is captured in the Agency's strategic goals. It is currently being implemented across NASA's centers and programs. Throughout 2014, NASA engaged in an Agency-wide process to define and refine exploration-related capabilities and associated gaps, focusing only on those that are critical for human exploration beyond LEO. NASA identified 12 common capabilities ranging from Environmental Control and Life Support Systems to Robotics, and established Agency-wide teams or working groups comprised of subject matter experts that are responsible for the maturation of these exploration capabilities. These teams, called the System Maturation Teams (SMTs) help formulate, guide and resolve performance gaps associated with the identified exploration capabilities. The SMTs are defining performance parameters and goals for each of the 12 capabilities, developing maturation plans and roadmaps for the identified performance gaps, specifying the interfaces between the various capabilities, and ensuring that the capabilities mature and integrate to enable future pioneering missions. By managing system development through the SMTs instead of traditional NASA programs and projects, the Agency is shifting from mission-driven development to a more flexible, capability-driven development. The process NASA uses to establish, integrate, prioritize, and manage the SMTs and associated capabilities is iterative. NASA relies on the Human Exploration and Operation Mission Directorate's SMT Integration Team within Advanced Exploration Systems to coordinate and facilitate the SMT process. The SMT Integration team conducts regular reviews and coordination meetings among the SMTs and has developed a number of tools to help the Agency implement capability driven processes. The SMT Integration team is uniquely positioned to help the Agency coordinate the SMTs and other processes that are making the capability-driven approach a reality. This paper will introduce the SMTs and the 12 key capabilities they represent. The role of the SMTs will be discussed with respect to Agency-wide processes to shift from mission-focused exploration to a capability-driven pioneering approach. Specific examples will be given to highlight systems development and testing within the SMTs. These examples will also show how NASA is using current investments in the International Space Station and future investments to develop and demonstrate capabilities. The paper will conclude by describing next steps and a process for soliciting feedback from the space exploration community to refine NASA's process for developing common exploration capabilities.
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.