Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “technology life cycle”

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
NASA NTRS2012

System-of-Systems Technology-Portfolio-Analysis Tool

Advanced Technology Life-cycle Analysis System (ATLAS) is a system-of-systems technology-portfolio-analysis software tool. ATLAS affords capabilities to (1) compare estimates of the mass and cost of an engineering system based on competing technological concepts; (2) estimate life-cycle costs of an outer-space-exploration architecture for a specified technology portfolio; (3) collect data on state-of-the-art and forecasted technology performance, and on operations and programs; and (4) calculate an index of the relative programmatic value of a technology portfolio. ATLAS facilitates analysis by providing a library of analytical spreadsheet models for a variety of systems. A single analyst can assemble a representation of a system of systems from the models and build a technology portfolio. Each system model estimates mass, and life-cycle costs are estimated by a common set of cost models. Other components of ATLAS include graphical-user-interface (GUI) software, algorithms for calculating the aforementioned index, a technology database, a report generator, and a form generator for creating the GUI for the system models. At the time of this reporting, ATLAS is a prototype, embodied in Microsoft Excel and several thousand lines of Visual Basic for Applications that run on both Windows and Macintosh computers.

O'Neil, Daniel↗
NASA NTRS2002

Development of Advanced Life Cycle Costing Methods for Technology Benefit/Cost/Risk Assessment

The overall objective of this three-year grant is to provide NASA Langley's System Analysis Branch with improved affordability tools and methods based on probabilistic cost assessment techniques. In order to accomplish this objective, the Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory (ASDL) needs to pursue more detailed affordability, technology impact, and risk prediction methods and to demonstrate them on variety of advanced commercial transports. The affordability assessment, which is a cornerstone of ASDL methods, relies on the Aircraft Life Cycle Cost Analysis (ALCCA) program originally developed by NASA Ames Research Center and enhanced by ASDL. This grant proposed to improve ALCCA in support of the project objective by updating the research, design, test, and evaluation cost module, as well as the engine development cost module. Investigations into enhancements to ALCCA include improved engine development cost, process based costing, supportability cost, and system reliability with airline loss of revenue for system downtime. A probabilistic, stand-alone version of ALCCA/FLOPS will also be developed under this grant in order to capture the uncertainty involved in technology assessments. FLOPS (FLight Optimization System program) is an aircraft synthesis and sizing code developed by NASA Langley Research Center. This probabilistic version of the coupled program will be used within a Technology Impact Forecasting (TIF) method to determine what types of technologies would have to be infused in a system in order to meet customer requirements. A probabilistic analysis of the CER's (cost estimating relationships) within ALCCA will also be carried out under this contract in order to gain some insight as to the most influential costs and the impact that code fidelity could have on future RDS (Robust Design Simulation) studies.

Yackovetsky, Robert↗
NASA NTRS2003

Using Technology Readiness Level (TRL), Life Cycle Cost (LCC), and Other Metrics to Supplement Equivalent System Mass (ESM) in Advanced Life Support (ALS)

The ALS project plan goals are reducing cost, improving performance, and achieving flight readiness. ALS selects projects to advance the mission readiness of low cost, high performance technologies. The role of metrics is to help select good projects and report progress. The Equivalent Mass (EM) of a system is the sum of the estimated mass of the hardware, of its required materials and spares, and of the pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system needed to support the hardware in space. EM is the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support a system. EM is directly proportional to the launch cost.

Jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRS2003

Equivalent Mass versus Life Cycle Cost for Life Support Technology Selection

The decision to develop a particular life support technology or to select it for flight usually depends on the cost to develop and fly it. Other criteria - performance, safety, reliability, crew time, and risk - are considered, but cost is always an important factor. Because launch cost accounts for most of the cost of planetary missions, and because launch cost is directly proportional to the mass launched, equivalent mass has been used instead of cost to select life support technology. The equivalent mass of a life support system includes the estimated masses of the hardware and of the pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system that the hardware requires. The equivalent mass is defined as the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support the system. An extension of equivalent mass, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), has been established for use in Advanced Life Support. A crew time mass-equivalent and sometimes other non-mass factors are added to equivalent mass to create ESM. Equivalent mass is an estimate of the launch cost only. For earth orbit rather than planetary missions, the launch cost is usually exceeded by the cost of Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E). Equivalent mass is used only in life support analysis. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is much more commonly used. LCC includes DDT&E, launch, and operations costs. Since LCC includes launch cost, it is always a more accurate cost estimator than equivalent mass. The relative costs of development, launch, and operations vary depending on the mission design, destination, and duration. Since DDT&E or operations may cost more than launch, LCC may give a more accurate cost ranking than equivalent mass. To be sure of identifying the lowest cost technology for a particular mission, we should use LCC rather than equivalent mass.

Jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRS2003

Equivalent Mass versus Life Cycle Cost for Life Support Technology Selection

The decision to develop a particular life support technology or to select it for flight usually depends on the cost to develop and fly it. Other criteria such as performance, safety, reliability, crew time, and technical and schedule risk are considered, but cost is always an important factor. Because launch cost would account for much of the cost of a future planetary mission, and because launch cost is directly proportional to the mass launched, equivalent mass has been used instead of cost to select advanced life support technology. The equivalent mass of a life support system includes the estimated mass of the hardware and of the spacecraft pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system that the hardware requires. The equivalent mass of a system is defined as the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support the system. An extension of equivalent mass, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), has been established for use in the Advanced Life Support project. ESM adds a mass-equivalent of crew time and possibly other cost factors to equivalent mass. Traditional equivalent mass is strictly based on flown mass and reflects only the launch cost. ESM includes other important cost factors, but it complicates the simple flown mass definition of equivalent mass by adding a non-physical mass penalty for crew time that may exceed the actual flown mass. Equivalent mass is used only in life support analysis. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is much more commonly used. LCC includes DDT&E, launch, and operations costs. For Earth orbit rather than planetary missions, the launch cost is less than the cost of Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDTBE). LCC is a more inclusive cost estimator than equivalent mass. The relative costs of development, launch, and operations vary depending on the mission destination and duration. Since DDTBE or operations may cost more than launch, LCC gives a more accurate relative cost ranking than equivalent mass. To select the lowest cost technology for a particular application we should use LCC rather than equivalent mass.

Jones, Harry↗
DOE OSTI2022

WBS 1.2.3.405 - Life Cycle Assessment of Storage Technologies

Recent commitments by the Biden administration have established targets to achieve a net-zero energy system by 2050. Meeting these targets will spur a rapid transition to clean energy technologies and a commensurate need to develop and deploy energy storage technologies at scale. Pumped Storage Hydro (PSH) is expected to be part of this solution because its ability to provide grid flexibility and stability and enable the dispatching of disparate variable renewable energy technologies. Despite PSH being a mature technology with a history of deployment dating back several decades, there is very little information on the greenhouse gas (GHG) implications of PSH as compared to other storage technologies. The objective of this project is to perform a full lifecycle assessment (LCA) of new PSH projects in the U.S. This LCA includes all project phases (resource extraction, construction, operation, maintenance, end-of-life). The functional unit for this study is 1 kWh electricity delivered by system to grid substation connection point and the estimated lifetime for our base case is 80 years. Data used in this study are based on over 30 potential PSH projects that are in preliminary planning phases and are represent a wide range of potential closed-loop PSH systems in terms of location, technology, and capacity. The project approach, data sources, and modeling assumptions have been informed by a technical review committee of stakeholders that include experts from academia, national and international government, industry, and utilities. The GHGs and energy return on investment (EROI) from PSH will be compared to other storage technologies (e.g., stationary battery storage). Results from this project will improve the PSH community's understanding of the environmental impacts and sustainability of new PSH projects and how PSH compares to other storage technologies. The approach used in this project relies on open-source programming. The analysis framework (source code and data) and will be made publicly available at the end of the project. In addition to reporting results for the base case, we will perform rigorous sensitivity analysis to identify the major drivers, understand impacts of different configurations, and future energy markets. Results from this project will be published in a suitable journal.

ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY,HYDRO ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2003

Advanced Information Technology in Simulation Based Life Cycle Design

In this research a Collaborative Optimization (CO) approach for multidisciplinary systems design is used to develop a decision based design framework for non-deterministic optimization. To date CO strategies have been developed for use in application to deterministic systems design problems. In this research the decision based design (DBD) framework proposed by Hazelrigg is modified for use in a collaborative optimization framework. The Hazelrigg framework as originally proposed provides a single level optimization strategy that combines engineering decisions with business decisions in a single level optimization. By transforming this framework for use in collaborative optimization one can decompose the business and engineering decision making processes. In the new multilevel framework of Decision Based Collaborative Optimization (DBCO) the business decisions are made at the system level. These business decisions result in a set of engineering performance targets that disciplinary engineering design teams seek to satisfy as part of subspace optimizations. The Decision Based Collaborative Optimization framework more accurately models the existing relationship between business and engineering in multidisciplinary systems design.

Renaud, John E.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Life Cycle Analysis of Emerging Technologies

Presentation given by Sheikh Moni as a guest lecture for an advanced LCA class at Pennsylvania State University on October 18, 2022. The presentation focused on LCA of carbon conversion systems and LCA of low technology readiness level (TRL) technologies.

Moni, Sheikh↗
NASA NTRS2014

Life Cycle Analysis of Dedicated Nano-Launch Technologies

Recent technology advancements have enabled the development of small cheap satellites that can perform useful functions in the space environment. Currently, the only low cost option for getting these payloads into orbit is through ride share programs. As a result, these launch opportunities await primary payload launches and a backlog exists. An alternative option would be dedicated nano-launch systems built and operated to provide more flexible launch services, higher availability, and affordable prices. The potential customer base that would drive requirements or support a business case includes commercial, academia, civil government and defense. Further, NASA technology investments could enable these alternative game changing options.With this context, in 2013 the Game Changing Development (GCD) program funded a NASA team to investigate the feasibility of dedicated nano-satellite launch systems with a recurring cost of less than $2 million per launch for a 5 kg payload to low Earth orbit. The team products would include potential concepts, technologies and factors for enabling the ambitious cost goal, exploring the nature of the goal itself, and informing the GCD program technology investment decision making process. This paper provides an overview of the life cycle analysis effort that was conducted in 2013 by an inter-center NASA team. This effort included the development of reference nano-launch system concepts, developing analysis processes and models, establishing a basis for cost estimates (development, manufacturing and launch) suitable to the scale of the systems, and especially, understanding the relationship of potential game changing technologies to life cycle costs, as well as other factors, such as flights per year.

modeling↗
NASA NTRS2014

Life Cycle Analysis of Dedicated Nano-Launch Technologies

Recent technology advancements have enabled the development of small cheap satellites that can perform useful functions in the space environment. Currently, the only low cost option for getting these payloads into orbit is through ride share programs - small satellites awaiting the launch of a larger satellite, and then riding along on the same launcher. As a result, these small satellite customers await primary payload launches and a backlog exists. An alternative option would be dedicated nano-launch systems built and operated to provide more flexible launch services, higher availability, and affordable prices. The potential customer base that would drive requirements or support a business case includes commercial, academia, civil government and defense. Further, NASA technology investments could enable these alternative game changing options. With this context, in 2013 the Game Changing Development (GCD) program funded a NASA team to investigate the feasibility of dedicated nano-satellite launch systems with a recurring cost of less than $2 million per launch for a 5 kg payload to low Earth orbit. The team products would include potential concepts, technologies and factors for enabling the ambitious cost goal, exploring the nature of the goal itself, and informing the GCD program technology investment decision making process. This paper provides an overview of the life cycle analysis effort that was conducted in 2013 by an inter-center NASA team. This effort included the development of reference nano-launch system concepts, developing analysis processes and models, establishing a basis for cost estimates (development, manufacturing and launch) suitable to the scale of the systems, and especially, understanding the relationship of potential game changing technologies to life cycle costs, as well as other factors, such as flights per year.

nanolaunch↗
DOE OSTI2022

AssessCCUS: An Integrated Approach for Aggregating Resources to Enable Techno-Economic and Life Cycle Assessment of Carbon Management Technologies

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) - also sometimes known as carbon management - technologies are becoming an increasingly important part of the portfolio of technologies necessary to mitigate climate change and defossilize industrial production systems (Sick, 2021). These technologies capture carbon dioxide from industrial point sources or from the atmosphere directly and then either sequester it or use it as a carbon source in valuable products. Potential utilization pathways include, but are not limited to, concrete, fuels, and certain commodity chemicals, and sequestration pathways can include permanent geological storage or temporary storage in natural sinks ranging from forests to agricultural soil. Regardless of the pathway, assessment of the economic and environmental performance of the technologies is important for understanding their potential scalability and impact as well as developing plans to minimize life cycle costs and potential environmental trade-offs. A full discussion of potential trade-offs associated with CCUS is outside the scope of this article, but promoting assessment broadly helps to stimulate important conversations about the benefits and drawbacks of any particular technological choice.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

The potential of carbon markets to accelerate green infrastructure based water quality trading

Green infrastructure solutions can improve in-stream water quality in lieu of building electricity-consuming gray infrastructure. Permitted under the United States Clean Water Act, these programs allow regulated utilities to trade point-source water quality obligations with non-point source mitigation efforts in the watershed. Carbon financing can provide an incentive for water quality trading. Here we combine data on impaired waters, treatment technologies, and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in the Contiguous United States, and compare traditional treatment technologies to alternative green infrastructure. We find green infrastructure could save $\$15.6$ billion dollars, 21.2 terawatt-hours of electricity, and 29.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year while sequestering over 4.2 million tonnes CO2e per year over a 40 year time horizon. Green infrastructure solutions may have the potential to generate $\$679$ million annually in carbon credit revenue (at $\$20$ per credit), which represents a unique opportunity to help accelerate water quality trading.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
NASA NTRS2021

Technology Readiness Level as the Foundation of Human Readiness Level

Communication of the maturity of technology through the program/product life cycles helps enhance risk management from the beginning and support decision-making strategies for research, development, and allocation of resources. Currently, many organizations use the technology readiness level (TRL) as a simple metric to indicate the maturity of the technology. This article will discuss the TRL history, define the TRL levels, show how the TRL relates to the technology life cycle, and how the TRL framework contributes to the human readiness level (HRL) structure. Through the TRL advantages and disadvantages, this article will show how the TRL falls short in numerous areas of engineering, including the integration readiness of system/subsystem components and assessment of the readiness of the technology to operate within the human capabilities and limitations. Yet the article also shows how the TRL serves as the foundation for HRL.

George Salazar↗
DOE OSTI2024

NETL LCA Update US DOE Special Session, ACLCA 2024

This work was presented at the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment 2024 Conference in Snowbird, UT on September 24, 2024. The evaluation of the environmental advantages and disadvantages of energy technology and policy options requires the comparison of those options on a common basis, and as such, it needs to include not only obvious impacts like converting fuel to useful energy via combustion, but of infrastructure construction, extraction, processing and transportation of fuels, and transport of the final energy product to an end user. Further, it requires comparison across multiple categories of impacts, as single metric perspectives can miss important cross-media tradeoffs. At the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, life cycle analysis is used as a tool and framework for undertaking a broad range of these types of evaluations. This overview will describe the NETL LCA work over the past year.

Jamieson, Matthew↗
NASA NTRS2004

Low Temperature Life-cycle Testing of a Lithium-ion Battery for Low-earth-orbiting Spacecraft

A flight-qualified, lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery developed for the Mars Surveyor Program 2001 lander is undergoing life-testing at low temperature under a low-Earth-orbit (LEO) profile to assess its capability to provide long term energy storage for aerospace missions. NASA has embarked upon an ambitious course to return humans to the moon by 2015-2020 in preparation for robotic and human exploration of Mars and robotic exploration of the moons of outer planets. Li-ion batteries are excellent candidates to provide power and energy storage for multiple aspects of these missions due to their low specific energy, low energy density, and excellent low temperature performance. Laboratory testing of Li-ion technology is necessary in order to assess lifetime, characterize multi-cell battery-level performance under aerospace conditions, and to gauge safety aspects of the technology. Life-cycle testing provides an opportunity to examine battery-level performance and the dynamics of individual cells in the stack over the entire life of the battery. Data generated through this testing will be critical to establish confidence in the technology for its widespread use in manned and unmanned mission. This paper discusses the performance of the 28 volt, 25 ampere-hour battery through 6000 LEO cycles, which corresponds to one year on LEO orbit. Testing is being performed at 0 C and 40% depth-of-discharge. Individual cell behaviors and their effect on the performance of the battery are described. Capacity, impedance, energy efficiency and end-of-discharge voltage at 1000 cycle intervals are reported. Results from this life-testing will help contribute to the database on battery-level performance of aerospace Li-ion batteries and low temperature cycling under LEO conditions.

Reid, Concha↗
DOE OSTI2025

Technology Case Study: Techno-Economic and Life Cycle Analysis for Microalgae Conversion Pathways to Fuels and Products

This technology case study report details the cost and sustainability prospects for an emerging feedstock - microalgae - converted to fuels and products via a fractionation and upgrading approach termed combined algae processing (CAP). Detailed techno-economic analysis (TEA) and life cycle analysis (LCA) are conducted for the conversion of farmed algae biomass, with two primary scenarios considering the conversion of either high-compositional-quality biomass enriched in lipids (high-lipid [HL]) or lower-quality biomass enriched in protein (high-protein [HP]). Each scenario employs a different biorefinery configuration tailored towards extracting the maximum value from the given biomass composition. The HL scenario produces fuels and non-isocyanate polyurethane (NIPU) as the primary products, while the HP scenario products fuels and a residual solid coproduct which can be used as a co-feed for producing thermoplastics. The results for the HL scenario were particularly promising, with a minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) of $\$$3.68 per gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) and fuel GHG emissions translating to 54%-76% reduction compared to petroleum fuels depending on the coproduct handling method used. In contrast, the HP scenario faced more challenges in producing biofuels economically, projecting an MFSP of $\$$7.92/GGE despite significant revenues from the residual algae solids. LCA results for the HP case reflected a 24% reduction potential in biorefinery-level GHG emissions. However, these GHG reductions were primarily associated with the thermoplastic coproduct, which accounted for 93% of all biorefinery outputs by mass. Using a process-level allocation method, carbon intensity results were less promising, indicating a net increase in fuel GHG emissions versus petroleum fuels and highlighting the reliance of this scenario on the thermoplastic coproduct.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2025

2016 U.S. Petroleum Fuels Life Cycle Baseline

The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has performed a well-to-wheels life cycle assessment (LCA) of petroleum production and refining for the United States (US), both from international and domestic oil sources. This analysis largely follows the same methods and framework established by Cooney et al., which performed a greenhouse gas (GHG) LCA of crude products for the 2014 data year (Cooney et al., 2017). Results are presented for six major petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, fuel oil, coke, bunker/residual fuel oil) across each of the five Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADDs) and at the national US level. However, there are at least seven other refinery outputs (liquified petroleum gas, refinery fuel gas, hydrogen, petrochemical feedstocks, asphalt, sulfur) that are modeled but not shown in this report for brevity. Petroleum product amounts are compared against those reported by US Energy Information Administration (EIA) for each region.

02 PETROLEUM↗