Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Technology”

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 523 records · Page 29

Analyzing the co-evolution of green technology diffusion and consumers’ pro-environmental attitudes: An agent-based model

Massive diffusion of green technologies is significant for building a cleaner world. However, the process of technology diffusion is usually slow and complex. An in-depth understanding of the mechanism regarding green technology diffusion is an essential precondition for effectively stimulating this process. Green technology diffusion heavily involves both social and technological changes. Although existing studies have provided rich knowledge about identifying critical drivers and barriers affecting green technology diffusion, research that considers consumers’ pro-environmental attitudes and green technology diffusion as an evolving system is still sparse. Aiming at exploring the co-evolution of consumers’ pro-environmental attitudes and green technology diffusion, this paper builds an agent-based model that integrates the relative agreement model with technology diffusion theories to conduct a sequence of controlled numerical experiments, which progressively unveil how attitudinal and technological factors impact green technology diffusion. The main findings include that (1) improving consumers’ pro-environmental attitudes is prominently beneficial to green technology diffusion and maturation; (2) technology maturity has very limited impact on consumers’ first-time purchases but significantly affects consumers’ satisfaction, which would further impact consumers’ repeat purchases; (3) consumers that do not support green technologies frequently emerge during the evolution of attitudes (despite the high technology maturity), which corresponds to the emergence of the anti-environmental groups observed in the real world; (4) active interactions between non-adopters enable their attitudes to converge, which results in the polarization of consumers’ attitudes.

ABM↗

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↗

Life-Cycle and Techno-Economic Assessment of Early-Stage Carbon Capture and Utilization Technologies—A Discussion of Current Challenges and Best Practices

The mitigation of climate change requires research, development, and deployment of new technologies that are not only economically viable but also environmentally benign. Systematic and continuous technology assessment from early technology maturity onwards allows assessment practitioners to identify economic and environmental characteristics. With this information, decision-makers can focus time and resources on the most promising technologies. A broad toolset for technology assessment exists—stretching from the well-established life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to more loosely defined techno-economic analysis (TEA) methods and the increasingly popular principles of technology maturity assessment such as the concept of technology readiness levels (TRL). However, current technology assessment practice faces various challenges at early stages, resulting in a potential mismatch of study results and stakeholders' needs and an escalation of assessment effort. In this practice review, we outline current challenges in the interplay of LCA, TEA, and TRL and present best practices for assessing early-stage climate change mitigation technologies in the field of carbon capture and utilization (CCU). The findings help practitioners systematically identify the TRL of a technology and adapt technology assessment methodologies accordingly. We highlight the methodological challenges for practitioners when adapting the goal and scope, identifying benchmark technologies, creating a comprehensive inventory, comparing early stage to commercial stage, ensuring clarity of recommendations for decision-making under high uncertainty, and streamlining conventional LCA and TEA assessment approaches and provide actionable recommendations. Overall, this work contributes to identifying promising technologies faster and more systematically, accelerating the development of new technologies for climate change mitigation and beyond.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Energy Consumption and Cost Reduction of Future Light-Duty Vehicles through Advanced Vehicle Technologies: A Modeling Simulation Study Through 2050

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (HFTO) aim to develop sustainable, affordable and efficient technologies for transportation of goods and people. Translating investments in advanced transportation component technologies and powertrains to estimate vehicle-level fuel savings potential is critical for understanding DOE’s impact. In this work, we simulated technologies funded by VTO and HFTO for light duty vehicles. The simulations were performed across: Multiple powertrain configurations (i.e., conventional, power-split, extended-range electric vehicle, battery electric drive, and fuel-cell vehicles), Vehicle classes (i.e., compact car, midsize car, small sport utility vehicle [SUV], midsize SUV, and pickup trucks); and Fuels (i.e., gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, and battery electricity). These various technologies are assessed for six different timeframes: laboratory years 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2045. A delay of 5 years is assumed between laboratory year and model year (year technology is introduced into production). Finally, uncertainties are included for both technology performance and cost aspects by considering two cases: Low case, aligned with DOE technology manager estimates of expected original equipment manufacturer (OEM) improvements based on regulations, business as usual; and High case, aligned with aggressive technology advancements based on R&D targets developed through support by VTO & HFTO. These scenarios are not intended as predictions of future performances. The energy and cost impact of different technologies were estimated using Autonomie (www.autonomie.net), Argonne vehicle system simulation tool. Autonomie is a state-of-the-art vehicle system simulation tool used to assess the energy consumption, performance and cost of multiple advanced vehicle technologies across classes (from light to heavy duty), powertrains (from conventional to HEVs, FCEVs, PHEVs and BEVs), components and control strategies. Autonomie is packaged with a complete set of vehicle models for a wide range of vehicle classes, powertrain configurations and component technologies, including vehicle level and component level controls. These controls were developed and calibrated using dynamometer test data. Autonomie has been used to support a wide range of studies including analyzing various component technologies, sizing powertrains components for different vehicle requirements, comparing the benefits of powertrain configurations, optimizing both heuristic and route based vehicle energy control and predicting transportation energy use when paired with a traffic modeling tool such as POLARIS. This report documents the assumptions and estimates the vehicle-level energy consumption benefits and associated technology costs for the various types of light duty vehicles. All details of vehicle assumptions and simulation results are available in the spreadsheets accompanying this report.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

Innovative Technologies for Global Space Exploration

Under the direction of NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD), Directorate Integration Office (DIO), The Tauri Group with NASA's Technology Assessment and Integration Team (TAIT) completed several studies and white papers that identify novel technologies for human exploration. These studies provide technical inputs to space exploration roadmaps, identify potential organizations for exploration partnerships, and detail crosscutting technologies that may meet some of NASA's critical needs. These studies are supported by a relational database of more than 400 externally funded technologies relevant to current exploration challenges. The identified technologies can be integrated into existing and developing roadmaps to leverage external resources, thereby reducing the cost of space exploration. This approach to identifying potential spin-in technologies and partnerships could apply to other national space programs, as well as international and multi-government activities. This paper highlights innovative technologies and potential partnerships from economic sectors that historically are less connected to space exploration. It includes breakthrough concepts that could have a significant impact on space exploration and discusses the role of breakthrough concepts in technology planning. Technologies and partnerships are from NASA's Technology Horizons and Technology Frontiers game-changing and breakthrough technology reports as well as the External Government Technology Dataset, briefly described in the paper. The paper highlights example novel technologies that could be spun-in from government and commercial sources, including virtual worlds, synthetic biology, and human augmentation. It will consider how these technologies can impact space exploration and will discuss ongoing activities for planning and preparing them.

Hay, Jason↗

Decision Gate Process for Assessment of a Technology Development Portfolio

The NASA Dust Management Project (DMP) was established to provide technologies (to TRL 6 development level) required to address adverse effects of lunar dust to humans and to exploration systems and equipment, which will reduce life cycle cost and risk, and will increase the probability of sustainable and successful lunar missions. The technology portfolio of DMP consisted of different categories of technologies whose final product is either a technology solution in itself, or one that contributes toward a dust mitigation strategy for a particular application. A Decision Gate Process (DGP) was developed to assess and validate the achievement and priority of the dust mitigation technologies as the technologies progress through the development cycle. The DGP was part of continuous technology assessment and was a critical element of DMP risk management. At the core of the process were technology-specific criteria developed to measure the success of each DMP technology in attaining the technology readiness levels assigned to each decision gate. The DGP accounts for both categories of technologies and qualifies the technology progression from technology development tasks to application areas. The process provided opportunities to validate performance, as well as to identify non-performance in time to adjust resources and direction. This paper describes the overall philosophy of the DGP and the methodology for implementation for DMP, and describes the method for defining the technology evaluation criteria. The process is illustrated by example of an application to a specific DMP technology.

Kohli, Rajiv↗

Bridging the Technology Readiness "Valley of Death" Utilizing Nanosats

Incorporating new technology is a hallmark of space missions. Missions demand ever-improving tools and techniques to allow them to meet the mission science requirements. In Earth Science, these technologies are normally expressed in new instrument capabilities that can enable new measurement concepts, extended capabilities of existing measurement techniques, or totally new detection capabilities, and also, information systems technologies that can enhance data analysis or enable new data analyses to advance modeling and prediction capabilities. Incorporating new technologies has never been easy. There is a large development step beyond demonstration in a laboratory or on an airborne platform to the eventual space environment that is sometimes referred to as the "technology valley of death." Studies have shown that non-validated technology is a primary cause of NASA and DoD mission delays and cost overruns. With the demise of the New Millennium Program within NASA, opportunities for demonstrating technologies in space have been rare. Many technologies are suitable for a flight project after only ground testing. However, some require validation in a relevant or a space flight environment, which cannot be fully tested on the ground or in airborne systems. NASA's Earth Science Technology Program has initiated a nimble program to provide a fairly rapid turn-around of space validated technologies, and thereby reducing future mission risk in incorporating new technologies. The program, called In-Space Validation of Earth Science Technology (InVEST), now has five tasks in development. Each are 3U CubeSats and they are targeted for launch opportunities in the 2016 time period. Prior to formalizing an InVEST program, the technology program office was asked to demonstrate how the program would work and what sort of technologies could benefit from space validation. Three projects were developed and launched, and have demonstrated the technologies that they set out to validate. This paper will provide a brief status of the pre-InVEST CubeSats, and discuss the development and status of the InVEST program. Figure

Earth Science↗

NASA Strategy for Technology Development

At the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), foresight is a coordinated, iterative, and continual process for making informed decisions. NASA faces diverse and relatively unique challenges and opportunities as the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration. To address these challenges and leverage opportunities, NASA uses foresight to strategically plan technology development across four mission directorates: Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, Space Technology Mission Directorate, Science Mission Directorate, and Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. The mission directorates leverage a broad community of experts and partners to incorporate technology foresight into mission and program planning. Through this process NASA realizes tangible benefits to the agency’s science, technology, and exploration programs. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) serves as a trusted authority to inform technology strategy and advocacy at the agency, enabling future missions and advancing U.S. economic competitiveness. Specifically, OCT coordinates and uses inputs from abroad community of experts, both internal and external to NASA, to inform decision making for technology plans, investments, and partnerships. OCT develops the NASA Technology Taxonomy to standardize communication across the agency’s diverse technology portfolio and the related Strategic Technology Investment Plan that integrates priorities and informs technology investment. Through these efforts, OCT has refined elements of foresight-informed strategic planning that may be applicable to other technology-driven industries where foresight is essential for resilience. This chapter describes the processes of foresight for technology development at NASA and provides insight into the value the agency derives from these processes. The chapter further describes the role of OCT as an independent advisory office that supports NASA’s efforts to capitalize on foresight and strategic technology planning. We present these examples with consideration for how organizations in defense, security, and other technology-driven industries can operationalize foresight in their own strategic technology development.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA's Small Spacecraft and Distributed Systems: Development and Demonstration of Technologies Enabling Swarms and New Spacecraft Platforms with AI and Edge Computing

NASA’s Small Spacecraft & Distributed Systems (SSDS) within the Research and Technology Mission Directorate (RTMD) expands U.S. capability to execute unique missions through targeted investment, rapid development, and flight demonstration of small spacecraft technologies applicable to exploration, science and the commercial space sector. SSDS strategically invests in technology development and on-orbit demonstrations executed across NASA, other government agencies, industry, and academia. The program’s University SmallSat Technology Partnerships initiative awards academic researchers with the opportunity to collaborate with NASA to mature innovative technology. Capabilities aligned with RTMD’s technology shortfalls and interests - power, processing, propulsion, sensors, communications, autonomous navigation, architectures, and advanced applications like artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and edge computing - are prioritized in SSDS investments. These investments enable distributed, autonomous, and cooperative small spacecraft systems that support swarm missions extending beyond low Earth orbit into cislunar and deep space. This paper highlights representative SSDS flight demonstrations that mature these capabilities to enable a future operational infrastructure needed to support sustained exploration of the Moon and beyond. SSDS’s investment strategy emphasizes rapid development and on-orbit demonstration to validate spacecraft technologies required for swarms and distributed mission architectures. The Starling swarm technology demonstration mission exemplifies this approach by advancing distributed spacecraft autonomy, cooperative operations, and space situational awareness. Extended flight testing and ongoing studies of next generation swarm configurations and on-orbit space traffic monitoring and management continue to inform future swarm designs. DiskSat’s four-spacecraft demonstration mission represents SSDS’s strategic vision to expand the design space for future small spacecraft through its commitment to advance novel platform concepts that can impact how science is performed on orbit. Continuing to invest in future platforms, the notional PY12 concept is a 12-spacecraft swarm hosting neuromorphic processors and is envisioned as an on-orbit testbed for AI, edge computing, and positioning, navigation and timing technologies. SSDS also invests in single-spacecraft technology demonstrations that underpin the success of future swarm missions and accelerate the availability of validated technologies across the small spacecraft ecosystem. Examples of such demonstrations include Pathfinder Technology Demonstrator-3 (PTD-3), which performed high-rate optical communications; PTD-R, which demonstrated a camera capable of simultaneous ultraviolet and short-wave infrared optical sensing; and CAPSTONE, the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology and Operations Navigation Experiment, which validated autonomous navigation in cislunar space. Collectively, SSDS-funded demonstrations advance capabilities across swarms and illustrate a coordinated investment strategy to mature high-impact technologies required for autonomous, distributed, and cooperative small spacecraft systems for low Earth orbit, cislunar, and deep space applications. Technology demonstrations strengthen SSDS partnerships with industry, academia, and other government agencies, and promote small spacecraft community adoption of capabilities required to close technical gaps for swarm missions.

Jan Stupl↗

NASA's Small Spacecraft and Distributed Systems: Development and Demonstration of Technologies Enabling Swarms and New Spacecraft Platforms with AI and Edge Computing

NASA’s Small Spacecraft & Distributed Systems (SSDS) within the Research and Technology Mission Directorate (RTMD) expands U.S. capability to execute unique missions through targeted investment, rapid development, and flight demonstration of small spacecraft technologies applicable to exploration, science and the commercial space sector. SSDS strategically invests in technology development and on-orbit demonstrations executed across NASA, other government agencies, industry, and academia. The program’s University SmallSat Technology Partnerships initiative awards academic researchers with the opportunity to collaborate with NASA to mature innovative technology. Capabilities aligned with RTMD’s technology shortfalls and interests - power, processing, propulsion, sensors, communications, autonomous navigation, architectures, and advanced applications like artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and edge computing - are prioritized in SSDS investments. These investments enable distributed, autonomous, and cooperative small spacecraft systems that support swarm missions extending beyond low Earth orbit into cislunar and deep space. This paper highlights representative SSDS flight demonstrations that mature these capabilities to enable a future operational infrastructure needed to support sustained exploration of the Moon and beyond. SSDS’s investment strategy emphasizes rapid development and on-orbit demonstration to validate spacecraft technologies required for swarms and distributed mission architectures. The Starling swarm technology demonstration mission exemplifies this approach by advancing distributed spacecraft autonomy, cooperative operations, and space situational awareness. Extended flight testing and ongoing studies of next generation swarm configurations and on-orbit space traffic monitoring and management continue to inform future swarm designs. DiskSat’s four-spacecraft demonstration mission represents SSDS’s strategic vision to expand the design space for future small spacecraft through its commitment to advance novel platform concepts that can impact how science is performed on orbit. Continuing to invest in future platforms, the notional PY12 concept is a 12-spacecraft swarm hosting neuromorphic processors and is envisioned as an on-orbit testbed for AI, edge computing, and positioning, navigation and timing technologies. SSDS also invests in single-spacecraft technology demonstrations that underpin the success of future swarm missions and accelerate the availability of validated technologies across the small spacecraft ecosystem. Examples of such demonstrations include Pathfinder Technology Demonstrator-3 (PTD-3), which performed high-rate optical communications; PTD-R, which demonstrated a camera capable of simultaneous ultraviolet and short-wave infrared optical sensing; and CAPSTONE, the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology and Operations Navigation Experiment, which validated autonomous navigation in cislunar space. Collectively, SSDS-funded demonstrations advance capabilities across swarms and illustrate a coordinated investment strategy to mature high-impact technologies required for autonomous, distributed, and cooperative small spacecraft systems for low Earth orbit, cislunar, and deep space applications. Technology demonstrations strengthen SSDS partnerships with industry, academia, and other government agencies, and promote small spacecraft community adoption of capabilities required to close technical gaps for swarm missions.

Jan Stupl↗

NASA/Goddard Thermal Technology Overview 2014

This presentation summarizes the current plans and efforts at NASA Goddard to develop new thermal control technology for anticipated future missions. It will also address some of the programmatic developments currently underway at NASA, especially with respect to the Technology Development Program at NASA. While funding for basic technology development is still scarce, significant efforts are being made in direct support of flight programs. New technology development continues to be driven by the needs of future missions, and applications of these technologies to current Goddard programs will be addressed. Many of these technologies also have broad applicability to DOD, DOE, and commercial programs. Partnerships have been developed with the Air Force, Navy, and various universities to promote technology development. In addition, technology development activities supported by internal research and development (IRAD) program, the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program, and the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), are reviewed in this presentation. Specific technologies addressed include; two-phase systems applications and issues on NASA missions, latest developments of electro-hydrodynamically pumped systems, development of high electrical conductivity coatings, and various other research activities. New Technology program underway at NASA, although funding is limited center dot NASA/GSFC's primary mission of science satellite development is healthy and vibrant, although new missions are scarce - now have people on overhead working new missions and proposals center dot Future mission applications promise to be thermally challenging center dot Direct technology funding is still very restricted - Projects are the best source for direct application of technology - SBIR thermal subtopic resurrected in FY 14 - Limited Technology development underway via IRAD, NESC, other sources - Administrator pushing to revive technology and educational programs at NASA - new HQ directorate established

Cooling↗

Space technology research plans

Development of new technologies is the primary purpose of the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST). OAST's mission includes the following two goals: (1) to conduct research to provide fundamental understanding, develop advanced technology and promote technology transfer to assure U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and to enhance and/or enable future civil space missions: and (2) to provide unique facilities and technical expertise to support national aerospace needs. OAST includes both NASA Headquarters operations as well as programmatic and institutional management of the Ames Research Center, the Langley Research Center and the Lewis Research Center. In addition. a considerable portion of OAST's Space R&T Program is conducted through the flight and science program field centers of NASA. Within OAST, the Space Technology Directorate is responsible for the planning and implementation of the NASA Space Research and Technology Program. The Space Technology Directorate's mission is 'to assure that OAST shall provide technology for future civil space missions and provide a base of research and technology capabilities to serve all national space goals.' Accomplishing this mission entails the following objectives: y Identify, develop, validate and transfer technology to: (1) increase mission safety and reliability; (2) reduce flight program development and operations costs; (3) enhance mission performance; and (4) enable new missions. Provide the capability to: (1) advance technology in critical disciplines; and (2) respond to unanticipated mission needs. In-space experiments are an integral part of OAST's program and provides for experimental studies, development and support for in-space flight research and validation of advanced space technologies. Conducting technology experiments in space is a valuable and cost effective way to introduce advanced technologies into flight programs. These flight experiments support both the R&T base and the focussed programs within OAST.

Hook, W. Ray↗

Applying Technology Ranking and Systems Engineering in Advanced Life Support

According to the Advanced Life Support (ALS) Program Plan, the Systems Modeling and Analysis Project (SMAP) has two important tasks: 1) prioritizing investments in ALS Research and Technology Development (R&TD), and 2) guiding the evolution of ALS systems. Investments could be prioritized simply by independently ranking different technologies, but we should also consider a technology's impact on system design. Guiding future ALS systems will require SMAP to consider many aspects of systems engineering. R&TD investments can be prioritized using familiar methods for ranking technology. The first step is gathering data on technology performance, safety, readiness level, and cost. Then the technologies are ranked using metrics or by decision analysis using net present economic value. The R&TD portfolio can be optimized to provide the maximum expected payoff in the face of uncertain future events. But more is needed. The optimum ALS system can not be designed simply by selecting the best technology for each predefined subsystem. Incorporating a new technology, such as food plants, can change the specifications of other subsystems, such as air regeneration. Systems must be designed top-down starting from system objectives, not bottom-up from selected technologies. The familiar top-down systems engineering process includes defining mission objectives, mission design, system specification, technology analysis, preliminary design, and detail design. Technology selection is only one part of systems analysis and engineering, and it is strongly related to the subsystem definitions. ALS systems should be designed using top-down systems engineering. R&TD technology selection should consider how the technology affects ALS system design. Technology ranking is useful but it is only a small part of systems engineering.

Jones, Harry↗

Electric Power System Technology Options for Lunar Surface Missions

In 2004, the President announced a 'Vision for Space Exploration' that is bold and forward-thinking, yet practical and responsible. The vision explores answers to longstanding questions of importance to science and society and will develop revolutionary technologies and capabilities for the future, while maintaining good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. One crucial technology area enabling all space exploration is electric power systems. In this paper, the author evaluates surface power technology options in order to identify leading candidate technologies that will accomplish lunar design reference mission three (LDRM-3). LDRM-3 mission consists of multiple, 90-day missions to the lunar South Pole with 4-person crews starting in the year 2020. Top-level power requirements included a nominal 50 kW continuous habitat power over a 5-year lifetime with back-up or redundant emergency power provisions and a nominal 2-kW, 2-person unpressurized rover. To help direct NASA's technology investment strategy, this lunar surface power technology evaluation assessed many figures of merit including: current technology readiness levels (TRLs), potential to advance to TRL 6 by 2014, effectiveness of the technology to meet the mission requirements in the specified time, mass, stowed volume, deployed area, complexity, required special ground facilities, safety, reliability/redundancy, strength of industrial base, applicability to other LDRM-3 elements, extensibility to Mars missions, costs, and risks. For the 50-kW habitat module, dozens of nuclear, radioisotope and solar power technologies were down-selected to a nuclear fission heat source with Brayton, Stirling or thermoelectric power conversion options. Preferred energy storage technologies included lithium-ion battery and Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Regenerative Fuel Cells (RFC). Several AC and DC power management and distribution architectures and component technologies were defined consistent with the preferred habitat power generation technology option and the overall lunar surface mission. For rover power, more than 20 technology options were down-selected to radioisotope Stirling, liquid lithium-ion battery, PEM RFC, or primary fuel cell options. The author discusses various conclusions that can be drawn from the findings of this surface power technologies evaluation.

Kerslake, Thomas W.↗

Emerging Propulsion Technologies

The Emerging Propulsion Technologies (EPT) investment area is the newest area within the In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) Project and strives to bridge technologies in the lower Technology Readiness Level (TRL) range (2 to 3) to the mid TRL range (4 to 6). A prioritization process, the Integrated In-Space Transportation Planning (IISTP), was developed and applied in FY01 to establish initial program priorities. The EPT investment area emerged for technologies that scored well in the IISTP but had a low technical maturity level. One particular technology, the Momentum-eXchange Electrodynamic-Reboost (MXER) tether, scored extraordinarily high and had broad applicability in the IISTP. However, its technical maturity was too low for ranking alongside technologies like the ion engine or aerocapture. Thus MXER tethers assumed top priority at EPT startup in FY03 with an aggressive schedule and adequate budget. It was originally envisioned that future technologies would enter the ISP portfolio through EPT, and EPT developed an EPT/ISP Entrance Process for future candidate ISP technologies. EPT has funded the following secondary, candidate ISP technologies at a low level: ultra-lightweight solar sails, general space/near-earth tether development, electrodynamic tether development, advanced electric propulsion, and in-space mechanism development. However, the scope of the ISPT program has focused over time to more closely match SMD needs and technology advancement successes. As a result, the funding for MXER and other EPT technologies is not currently available. Consequently, the MXER tether tasks and other EPT tasks were expected to phased out by November 2006. Presentation slides are presented which provide activity overviews for the aerocapture technology and emerging propulsion technology projects.

Keys, Andrew S.↗

Strategy for Developing Technologies for Megawatt-class Nuclear Electric Propulsion Systems

In late fiscal year 2020, the Space Nuclear Propulsion (SNP) project began the process of formulating an investment strategy to support development of the technologies required for a high-power (megawatt-class) nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) system capable of performing human-scale missions. This activity was initiated concurrent with several high-level studies and assessments were either under way or had just concluded. Studies of human-scale Mars missions have been performed several times over the past two decades. One of the most recent studies examined opposition-class human Mars missions to occur in the late 2030s timeframe [1,2]. The mission architecture assumed a hybrid NEP/chem-propelled vehicle that used a high specific impulse (Isp) NEP-system and a liquid oxygen (LOx)-liquid methane high thrust chemical stage (two 110 kN (25 klbf) thrust, 365 s Isp engines) for maneuvers performed to enter and exit gravity wells. Trajectory analyses performed in this study showed that such a mission could be performed with 2-4 MWe directed into the electric propulsion system (operating for 20,000+ hours), with the large range representing different opposition-class Mars mission opportunities and permutations on the trajectory design, concept of operations, and technology choices. In 2020, the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) performed a study to evaluate the maturity of the different technologies required for nuclear propulsion systems [3]. The executive summary of this report provided the following top-level conclusions: • “The majority of critical technologies for… NEP/Chem… systems are relatively immature” • “TRLs [technology readiness levels] in the literature are often overestimated” • “The majority of critical technologies… for NEP/Chem… systems are at a relatively high level of advancement degree of difficulty (AD2 > 4) for maturation, requiring a dual development approach” • “The proper assessment of baseline TRL and AD2 values and the estimation of requirements and resources required for advancement have been consistent issues for NEP,” • “Non-advocate reviews should occur at the start of a technology program and at all key milestones.” In 2021, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) issued a separate report [4] identifying the “primary technical and programmatic challenges, merits, and risks for maturing space nuclear propulsion technologies of interest to a future human Mars exploration mission.” That work contained several important findings, including: • “Developing a MWe-class NEP system for the baseline mission would require increasing power by orders of magnitude relative to NEP system flight- or ground-based technology demonstrations completed to date.” • “Subscale in-space flight testing of NEP systems cannot address many of the risks and potential failure modes associated with the baseline mission NEP system. With sufficient M&S [modeling & simulation] and ground testing, including modular subsystem tests at full scale and power, flight qualification requirements can be met by the cargo missions that will precede the first crewed mission to Mars. Fully integrated ground testing may not be required.” • “As a result of low and intermittent investment over the past several decades, it is unclear if even an aggressive program would be able to develop an NEP system capable of executing the baseline mission in 2039.” These efforts motivated the SNP project to investigate the technologies available for a megawatt-class high power nuclear electric propulsion system. That system is illustrated schematically in Figure 1 and is comprised of five separate top-level critical technology elements (CTEs). 1. Nuclear Reactor – Thermal power source for the system, utilizing high-assay low enriched uranium (HALEU) as the nuclear fuel. Reactor radiation shielding is also included in this CTE. 2. Power Conversion – Operates as a thermodynamic cycle, accepting nuclear reactor thermal power as an input and converting it to mechanical power. 3. Power Management and Distribution (PMAD) – Accepts as an input mechanical power from the power conversion system, which is used to generate electrical power. The PMAD system also distributes the generated electrical power to all other parts of the spacecraft, including the high-power EP system. The PMAD system may also perform duties such as isolation, fault detection, and power transformation/rectification for different spacecraft systems, including the thrusters. 4. Electric Propulsion (EP) – Accepts as an input electrical power, which is used to accelerate a propellant to high speeds to produce thrust. This system includes the power processing unit (PPU), which converts the power it receives to the correct current and voltage required by the thrusters, and the propellant storage and feed systems, which contain and meter the flow of propellant to the thrusters. 5. Thermal Management (Radiators/Heat Rejection) – The cold side of the thermodynamic power conversion cycle, accepts thermal power from the power conversion system and radiatively rejects that heat to space. In this paper, we describe the SNP project formulation and investment strategy that aims to accomplish the research and development required to advance the technology readiness for each CTE. The strategy relies heavily upon experimental testing supported by modeling and simulation to yield realistic assessments of the technologies, which in turn will be used to inform future NEP system-level design decisions and any potential technology downselects.

Kurt A Polzin↗

Conventional and Next Generation Treatment Technologies for PFAS - 20067

In 2016, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established a Health Advisory Limit (HAL) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) (individually and the summation) of 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L) based on developing toxicological information. These two compounds are among several thousand per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Due to a multitude of commercially beneficial physical and chemical properties, the availability of PFAS-relevant and practical water treatment technologies is limited. The use of conventional adsorbents, such as activated carbon (AC) and anion exchange (AIX) resins, have become a 'de facto' interim measure to immediately address drinking water above this criterion. However, these adsorbents can have marginal long-term efficiency and are relatively unproven against the diversity of polyfluorinated compounds. Additionally, geochemical and/or co-contaminant competition can significantly impede adsorption based PFAS removal. These challenges may be addressed using engineered filtration, such as reverse osmosis or nanofiltration (RO/NF); however, for larger flow systems RO/NF may have unacceptable reject ratios as high as 35% and the capital cost may preclude these technologies. Extending these technologies to natural waters, which have various degrees of geochemical and co-contaminant competition, often requires a treatment train, combining conventional adsorbents or engineered filtration with pretreatment and more innovative and emerging remediation solutions for PFAS. Conventional and Next Generation water treatment technologies for PFAS generally employ one of three mechanisms (adsorption, separation, or destruction). These mechanisms include many types of technologies for both municipal drinking water and extracted natural water applications. The previously mentioned AC, AIX, and RO/NF are commercially available technologies that are actively being deployed for PFAS treatment. Research and development around these technologies is focused on optimization, and ultimate destruction of PFAS is achieved through incineration. Next Generation water treatment technologies include PFAS-specific flocculants, foam fractionation, novel AIX resins, new engineered adsorptive media, electrochemical treatment, sonolysis, and photolysis, radiation, and plasma (forms of advanced reductive processes [ARP]). Research and development around these technologies is focused on proof of concept and assimilation to real world applications. As the PFAS-relevant destructive technologies (such as incineration, electrochemical treatment, sonolysis, and ARP) are energy intensive, the state of the practice for PFAS water treatment is to focus adsorption/separation based technologies on reducing and concentrating the volume of water requiring destructive treatment. This enables more flexibility with respect to circulation frequency, residence time, and more control over energy usage. Water treatment for PFAS presently requires multiple technologies (i.e. a treatment train) to protect human health in a cost-conscious manner. An investment in research and development to explore new technologies is part of a key initiative for efficient protection of human health. This presentation attempts to review PFAS-relevant water treatment technologies and provide perspective as to their status with respect to applicability and commercial relevance. (authors)

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗

Quantifying Value and Representing Competitiveness of Electricity System Technologies in Economic Models

Evaluating competition between electricity technologies is challenging because it depends on both their costs and their values. While technology costs can typically be estimated from projections of the cost components - capital, fuel, and O&M - estimating a technology's value is more complex due to its dependence on its contributions to multiple different grid services, each with prices that can vary substantially over space and time. In this work, using an electricity model of the contiguous United States, we develop relationships between relative value and share of total generation for major electricity generation technologies which, when paired with projections of technology costs, can be used to estimate technology competitiveness. We identify significant differences in the relationship between relative value and generation share for variable renewable energy (VRE) and non-VRE sources, but we demonstrate that all technologies require consideration of their dynamic values (in addition to cost) when evaluating competitiveness. In addition, we demonstrate that relative value of a technology is substantially impacted by not only its own generation share but also other aspects of the system state, in particular the mix of other technologies present in the system. Finally, we use the developed relative value relationships in combination with projections of future technology costs in a coarse resolution model that competes technologies based on a comprehensive competitiveness metric: profitability-adjusted LCOE (PLCOE). We show that this simple representation of technology competition approximately recovers the generation mix from a detailed model, which is not possible using LCOE alone. Such an approach can be used to improve the representation of technology competition in coarse-resolution models such as integrated assessment models, for which simplified metrics are often needed.

electricity model↗