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.
Lateral range requirements used in selecting spacecraft landing recovery sites for return from low circular orbits
Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) production from cellulosic paper fractions of municipal solid waste (MSW) destined for landfills has strong potential to advance environmental, social, and economic sustainability across the aviation and waste sectors. This study proposes an artificial intelligence-enabled material recovery facility (AI-MRF) design to efficiently characterize, separate, process, and convert recovered paper waste from MSW into intermediate chemicals and SAF. The AI-MRF, designed to process 233,091 metric tons of MSW annually, integrates smart manufacturing technologies including AI, visual and hyperspectral imaging, multi-sensor data, and traditional sorting systems. Well-characterized and sorted cellulosic paper waste was utilized for chemical and fuel production scenarios, while clean plastics, metals, and glass were considered for recycling. Conversion of paper waste into intermediate sugars achieved a net present value (NPV) of up to $\$67$ million. For sugar-to-SAF production scenarios, the minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) was calculated at $\$6.11$ per gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) when excluding recyclable revenue, and $\$4.03$ per GGE when halving recyclable revenue. The MFSP was further reduced to $\$1.96$ per GGE when accounting for SAF sales and recyclables. Nationally, this approach could yield about 2 billion GGE of hydrocarbon fuel annually from available MSW in the United States.
Among the challenges of designing and constructing Space Station Freedom is the development of the water system. A review of past efforts in reclaiming waste water in enclosed environments reveals that there are many gaps in the biomedical understanding of this process. Some of the key uncertainties of human interaction with a closed water system include determining potential contaminants and establishing safe levels of multiple compounds in the enclosed system of Space Station. Another uncertainty is the microbial constituency of such a system and what impact it could have on crew health and performance. The use of iodine as the passive biocide may have both an indirect and direct impact on the crew. In this paper the initial results of the Water Recovery Test are reviewed from a biomedical perspective, revealing areas where more information is needed to develop the ECLSS water system. By including the approach of 'man as a subsystem', consideration is given to how man interacts with the total water system. Taking this systems approach to providing the crew with a safe source of water gives useful insight into the most efficient design and utilization of closed system testbeds.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Just after 12:30 PM on August 1, 2023, the RHIC superconducting magnet quench system triggered and consequently the energy dump resistors were switched into the blue ring quad and dipole circuits and the interaction region DX dipole heaters were switched on. This was a spurious trip (there was no actual quench) and was not unusual as the outdoor summer temperature often caused the quench detectors to cause such trips. The collider control room notified the on-duty cryogenics technical staff of the quench trip. A short time later building 1004B cryogenic low-helium and valve box insulation vacuum failure alarms were observed. The cryogenics technical staff observed the cryo-relief line from the blue ring valve box was exhausting helium outside the building.
Computer program technique for determination of opportunities for recall of spacecraft to multiple landing sites from circular or elliptical orbits
Rare earth elements (REE) are a group of 17 elements typically classified as light and heavy rare earth elements, which play a crucial role in developing the latest technologies for energy, defense, and medical sectors. Even though REEs have been found in more than 200 minerals, only bastnaesite, monazite and xenotime are commercially exploited for REE extraction. However, the recent exponential increase in REE demand has spurred countries such as the United States into research for the extraction of REEs from secondary sources such as coal, acid mine drainage, and coal ash. Several coal sources (e.g., Fire Clay seam coal) across the United States have been identified to contain elevated concentrations of rare earth elements (>600 ppm), and various researchers have investigated the feasibility of both physical and hydrometallurgical extraction techniques for rare earth concentration and subsequent extraction. However, both physical and direct leaching were concluded to be inefficient for RE beneficiation and extraction due to low recoveries. Alternatively, thermal treatment provides promising means for RE recovery from bituminous coal sources. The positive impact of thermal treatment/calcination was established to be due to the decarbonization and dehydroxylation of the clays, which released entrapped rare earth elements within the dominant minerals and converted them into an acid-soluble form. Nonetheless, the improvement in recovery was limited to the light REEs (LREEs) with an insignificant increase in the heavy REEs (HREE). It was demonstrated that the light and heavy REEs in the material were associated with difficult-to-leach minerals such as monazite, xenotime, and zircon, which were not decomposed by simple calcination due to their high thermal stability. Hence, roasting in the presence of chemicals was necessary to ensure the decomposition of those REE-containing minerals. As such, this study was focused on the acid baking treatment of bituminous coals with an aim to enhance REE recovery, especially HREEs. Based on the presence of REE minerals like monazite and xenotime, three pre-leach treatment methods, i.e., 1) roasting, 2) direct acid baking, and 3) acid baking after roasting were investigated. Roasting tests at 600 ⁰C revealed that the recovery of light REEs (LREEs) was enhanced while the recovery of HREEs remained relatively unaffected. LREE and HREE recovery values of 38.3% and 21.3%, respectively, were achieved using a 50 g/L sulfuric acid solution at 5% solid concentration and a solution temperature of 75 ⁰C for 2 hours. Comparatively, direct acid baking at 250 °C provided substantial increased LREE and HREE recovery values to approximately 49.4% and 53.0%, respectively, using an equivalent acid dosage. Recoveries were maximized to 77.0% and 79.6% for LREE and HREE, respectively, by roasting followed by acid baking. Similar results were obtained from the treatment of a second bituminous coal source. Due to strong correlations between REE and Al recovery values, tests were performed on kaolinite and illite, which were prominent clay minerals within the source coals. These experiments revealed that the REE recovery improvements were likely a result of dehydroxylation of clays and subsequent release and decomposition of REE-bearing minerals such as monazite, xenotime and zircon. Subsequently, a parametric study was conducted to identify the impact of acid baking parameters on rare earth element recovery. The factors investigated using a three-level statistical experimental program were acid baking time, acid solution concentration, baking temperature, and acid solution-to-solids ratio which were found to significantly impact REE and contaminant element (Al, Fe, and Ca) recovery. An increase in baking temperature up to around 250 ⁰C improved the light and heavy REE recovery values by more than 50 absolute percentage points relative to performances achieved when direct leaching. As aforementioned, acid baking was needed to both decompose the clay minerals and liberate the REE minerals, which allowed access for the acid to solubilize the REEs. Acid concentration of the solution used for acid baking was studied as a means of minimizing the amount of acid needed to achieve a target REE recovery. However, thermo-gravimetric and differential scanning calorimetry analysis (TGA-DSC) of sulfuric acid under oxidizing atmosphere revealed that the addition of water decreased the evaporation temperature, which explains the lower REE recovery values obtained when using acid concentrations less than 100%. Using pure sulfuric acid at an acid-to-solid ratio of 0.8:1 resulted in recovery values of around 70% for both LREEs and HREEs. The decomposition reaction time was relatively quick with 65% of the TREEs recovered within the first 10 minutes. Following the identification of optimum operating conditions through the parametric study, a systematic leaching study was carried out to examine the impact of leaching parameters, such as solid-to-liquid (S/L) ratio, temperature, and time, on REE recovery using acid baking conditions of 1:1 acid to solids ratio at 250 °C for 30 minutes. The solid-to-liquid ratio was varied from 1-20% by weight at 25 °C, 50 °C, and 75 °C solution temperatures. The results indicated that reaction time and solution temperature considerably impacted the recovery of heavy and light REEs. Interestingly, LREE recovery reduced from 68% at 5% S/L to 58% at 20%S/L, whereas HREE recovery of 78% remained unaffected. The decrease in the LREE recovery was determined to be due to La and Ce precipitation, likely through isomorphic substitution with calcium in gypsum. The kinetic data indicated that 67% LREE and 77% HREE recovery could be obtained within the first 15 minutes of the reaction, suggesting fast reaction kinetics. Furthermore, raising the solution temperature from 25 °C to 75 °C increased the LREE and HREE recovery from 60% and 32% to 67% and 79%, respectively. The kinetic modeling results demonstrated that the rate-limiting step in the LREE dissolution was diffusion and chemical reaction, whereas the HREE extraction was controlled by only chemical reaction. The leaching study concluded that using 20% S/L at 75 °C for 15 minutes maximized LREE and HREE recovery. The lab-scale precipitation study showed that Fe and Al in solution could be removed at pH 4.5 followed by REE precipitation at pH 6.0 using 6 mol/L NaOH. Finally, the bench-scale data was used to develop a process flowsheet for REE recovery from low-grade bituminous coal sources using acid baking. Finally, based on the proposed flowsheet, a concentrated RE-cake obtained through selective precipitation at pH 6.5 was re-leached using HCl at pH 1.5. The resultant leachate was used to identify the impact of various operating parameters on REE recovery and purity with an aim to maximize REE precipitation efficiency while minimizing the oxalic acid dosage. The operating parameters for this investigation were oxalic acid dosage, iron (III) contamination, solution pH and temperature. The resultant model suggested that oxalic acid dosage and reaction pH are the most significant factors for the REE precipitation efficiency, followed by the interaction of oxalic dosage and Fe concentration. Test results indicated that increasing the oxalic acid concentration from 0g/L to 80g/L improved the REE precipitation efficiency from approximately 4.2% to 95.0%. Furthermore, raising the solution pH from 0.5 to 2.5 considerably enhanced the precipitation efficiency from 0.0% to 98.9%. A solution temperature elevation decreased REE recovery, which indicated an exothermic reaction between REEs and oxalate anions. Finally, a high level of Fe contamination adversely impacted REE precipitation efficiency. The speciation analysis revealed that the dominant iron species in the solution system were Fe-(C₂O₄)₃³⁻, Fe-(C₂O₄)²⁻, and Fe-(C₂O₄)⁺, which consumed the majority of the oxalate anions
A recovery action is defined as the action that prevents deviant conditions from producing unwanted effects. It generally indicates a kind of countermeasure performed in response to a failure of human action. The recovery actions especially play an important role in complex systems like nuclear power plants (NPPs), which consist of highly sophisticated controllers to ensure that desired performance and safety must be achieved and maintained. This is because a combination of human error and its recovery failure may be able to cause a catastrophic effect on a system. Analyzing recovery actions has been a critical part of HRA, which is a technique to evaluate human errors and provide human error probabilities (HEPs) for application in probabilistic safety assessment (PSA). If recovery actions are not adequately analyzed and applied to PSA models, the PSA results may be under-estimated or be not able to reasonably account for the failure of human actions in the context of PSA. For this reason, some regulatory documents such as ASME/ANS RA-Sb-2013 by the American Society for Mechanical Engineers and the American Nuclear Society and NUREG-1792 by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have emphasized the importance of recovery analysis within the HRA. A couple of existing HRA methods, such as the Technique for Human Error-Rate Prediction (THERP), the Cause-Based Decision Tree (CBDT), and the Korean Standard HRA (K-HRA), have respectively suggested their own approaches to the HRA recovery analysis. However, there are a couple of limitations to treating recovery actions using only the current HRA methods available. The biggest limitation is that the existing recovery analysis does not explicitly consider a variety of recovery action types and recovery sequences as they occur in actual NPPs. To handle the limitations of existing recovery analysis, this study proposes a simulation-based recovery analysis method using the Event Modeling Risk Assessment Using Linked Diagram (EMRALD) software. The EMRALD software is a dynamic simulation tool for PSA. It supports realistic and dynamic modeling of human actions as they would be performed at NPPs. It is also favorable to simultaneously model the specific moment at which an action is performed, the time it takes to perform the action, and the failure probability of that action. In this paper, a detailed methodology for modeling recovery actions in the simulation platform is proposed with a couple of examples. Then, outputs from the simulation are discussed as reviewing if this novel approach can complement the challenges of existing recovery analyses.
As pressures from invasive species, climate change, and anthropogenic impacts increase across the landscape in the western U.S., managing wildland fire recovery to promote healthy sagebrush steppe becomes an increasingly important stewardship responsibility. The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has developed and implemented wildland fire recovery plans to hasten desirable vegetation re-establishment on several individual fires, but lacks an overarching wildland fire recovery strategy, or framework. The intent of this document is to develop the technical approach and scientific basis for wildland fire recovery at the INL Site and to evaluate the tools available to support it in a comprehensive and broadly applicable format. This wildland fire recovery framework will outline the process of assessing the potential impacts of wildland fire on natural resources, present a range of post-fire recovery options, outline an approach for post-fire monitoring, and provide a template for post-fire recovery plans designed to addresses the specific conditions of each wildland fire. There are numerous benefits to developing a wildland fire recovery framework for the INL Site. The first is streamlining the development of post-fire recovery plans for individual fires. A second benefit is more closely aligning INL’s post-fire planning processes with those of other federal agencies. The development of an INL Site fire recovery framework will also allow resource professionals to consider a broader set of recovery tools than they have before because all proposed tools included in the framework were vetted through the process of scoping and stakeholder review. Finally, this framework is a publicly available document that can be used as a basis for communicating and discussing post-fire natural resource recovery objectives with agency collaborators, conservation partners, and other stakeholders. Through the proactive land stewardship principles outlined in this framework, current INL sustainability initiatives can be enhanced, and future INL mission flexibility will be maintained.
This documentation focuses on a single end-use savings shape measure—Add Exhaust Air Heat/Energy Recovery. This measure adds exhaust air energy recovery or heat recovery to existing air handling units (AHU) with outdoor air. Systems that already have energy/heat recovery are not modified. Furthermore, food service building types are also not modified by this measure due to the added complication of integrating cooking hood exhaust that could cause heat exchanger fouling from kitchen exhaust. In total, this measure is applicable airloops serving ~70% of the floor area in ComStock. In practice, energy/heat recovery systems are retrofitted to existing air delivery systems either as separate systems that provide outdoor air to the AHUs or are directly integrated to an AHU; the modeling approach used in this study is agnostic of the energy recovery type and simply accounts recovery effectiveness, added static pressure, and other controls which are described further in this document. Energy recovery with sensible and latent exchange gets added in humid climate zones, while heat recovery with sensible-only exchange gets added in drier climate zones. Energy recovery is modeled as a fixed membrane plate counterflow heat exchanger, while heat recovery is modeled as a sensible-only fixed aluminum plate counterflow heat exchanger. Both systems include a bypass (for temperature control and economizer lockout) and electric resistance preheat coil for frost prevention.
An investigation has been conducted in the Langley 20-foot free-spinning tunnel on a l/19-scale model of the North American T-28C airplane to determine the spin and recovery characteristics. The T-28C airplane is similar to the T-28B airplane except for slight modifications for the arresting hook. The lower rear section of the fuselage was cut out and, consequently, the lower part of the rudder was removed to make a smooth fairing with the fuselage. The T-28B airplane had good recovery characteristics; but these modifications, along with the addition of gun packages on the wings, led to poor and unsatisfactory spin-recovery characteristics during demonstration spins of the T-28C airplane. Model test results indicated that without the gun packages installed, satisfactory recoveries could be obtained if the elevators were held full back while the rudder was fully reversed and the ailerons were held neutral. However, with the addition of gun packages to the wings and the corresponding change in loading, recoveries were considered unsatisfactory. Recoveries attempted by using a larger chord or larger span rudder were improved very slightly, but were still considered marginal or unsatisfactory. Strakes placed on the nose of the model were effective in slowing the spin rotation slightly and, in most instances, decreased the turns for recovery slightly. Recovery characteristics were slightly marginal for the full fuel loading when strakes and the extended-chord rudder were installed; but with the wing fuel partly used, recovery characteristics were again considered unsatisfactory or, at least, definitely on the marginal side. The optimum control technique for recovery is movement of the rudder to full against the spin with the stick held full back (elevators full up) and the ailerons held neutral, followed by forward movement of the stick only after the spin rotation ceases. Inverted-spin test results indicate that the airplane will spin steep and fast and that recovery by full rudder reversal will be satisfactory if the ailerons are held neutral.
As recent history has tragically demonstrated, a successful space mission is not complete until the crew has safely returned to earth and has been successfully recovered. It is noted that a safe return to earth does not guarantee a successful recovery. The focus of this presentation will be a discussion of the ground operation assets involved in a successful recovery. The author's experience in land and water-based recovery of crewed vehicles and flight hardware at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Edwards Air Force Base, international landing sites, and the Atlantic Ocean provides for some unique insight into this topic. He has participated in many aspects of Space Shuttle landing and recovery operations including activation of Transatlantic Abort Landing (TAL) sites and Emergency Landing Sites (ELS) as an Operations Test Director, execution of post landing convoy operations as an Orbiter Move Director, Operations Test Director, and Landing and Recovery Director, and recovery of solid rocket boosters, frustum and their parachutes 140 miles offshore in a wide range of sea states as a Retrieval Diver/Engineer. The recovery operations for the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were similar from a landing and recovery perspective in th t they all were capsules with limited "flying" capability and had a planned End of Mission (EOM) in an ocean with a descent slowed by parachutes. The general process was to deploy swim teams via helicopters to prepare the capsule for recovery and assist with crew extraction when required. The capsule was then hoisted onto the deck of a naval vessel. This approach required the extensive use and deployment of military assets to support the primary landing zone as well as alternate and contingency locations. The Russian Soyuz capsule also has limited "flying" capability; however, the planned EOM is terrestrial. In addition to use of parachutes to slow the reentry descent, soft-landing rockets on the bottom of the vehicle are employed to cushion the landing. The recovery forces are deployed via helicopters and the capsule is transported by a specialized all-terrain vehicle. The Space Shuttle Orbiter landing and recovery process is considerably different. The added lift capability and maneuverability allow the Orbiter to land at an exact location/runway for a nominal EOM. This allows for a timely response of recovery/contingency rescue forces, centralized staging of personnel and equipment, and assured access by ground vehicles. The well defined landing zone also provides for far more options when selecting landing sites for EOM and emergency returns and the relatively large cross-range capability increases the number of landing opportunities at the preferred sites.
The oxygen (O2) recovery system for the International Space Station (ISS) can recover approximately 50 percent of O2 from metabolic carbon dioxide (CO2). Increasing the O2 recovery rate and closing the open loop for future long duration crewed missions in space beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is essential. There are several developmental efforts underway to increase the recovery rate. However, most of these technologies result in a complex, heavy, and power consuming system. The desired exploration O2 recovery system would be reliable and efficient with maximum O2 recovery. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is currently investigating an electrolytic O2 recovery approach that will increase the O2 recovery to greater than 70 percent as well as lowering the complexity, mass, and power consumption than most other technologies currently under development. The electrolytic O2 recovery system consists of a Microfluidic Electrochemical Reactor (MFECR) that is based on the electrochemical reduction of CO2 to O2 and ethylene (C2H4) using water (H2O) as precursor and operates at standard condition with a theoretical recovery rate of 73 percent. In 2016, NASA’s Game Changing Development Program awarded the University of Texas Arlington (UTA) a grant to initiate the development of the MFECR. Since 2019, MSFC and UTA have been collaborating with the current goals of increasing the O2 recovery efficiency, advancing the technology readiness to a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 4, and maturing the system to process CO2 of one crew-member. Based on the results from UTA’s initial efforts, the following were identified as key areas of improvement in order to maximize O2 recovery for the system: further development of the anode material and cathode catalyst, model-based cell design optimization, and the addition of a separation system and fuel cell. This paper will present the current developmental efforts of the electrolytic system including MFECR design and overall system enhancements as well as results from single cell stack testing.
Recovery human action is defined as the action that prevents deviant conditions from producing unwanted effects. Analyzing recovery actions has been a critical part in human reliability analysis (HRA). However, there are a couple of limitations to treat recovery actions only depending on the current HRA methods. Representatively, the existing recovery analysis does not specifically consider recovery actions as are occurred in actual nuclear power plants (NPPs). The overall goal of this study aims to develop a novel recovery analysis method to account for human action recoveries in context of scenarios as well as complement the limitations of existing recovery analysis. In this paper, the recovery analysis in current HRA methods and their challenges are introduced. A strategy to achieve the goal is introduced with a modified recovery definition. Then, how we have researched the approach will be introduced in the paper.