Engineering PapersSearch

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “procurement options”

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.

50 records · Page 3

Evaluation of DNA Extraction Efficiency in Diverse Algae Strains Using Commercial Kits and Lysis Approaches

Efficient DNA extraction is essential for accurately monitoring microalgae communities in large-scale cultivation systems such as raceway ponds and wastewater ponds. Traditional phenol chloroform extracts are a staple in microbiology but are obsolete for routine sampling due to its high toxicity reagents and time intensive setups. Commercial DNA extraction kits are more favorable for the microbes found in these ponds, but lack specific kits made for these communities. Little is known about which kits perform the best, leading researchers to use a variety of different kits with inconsistent results. This project compared one precipitation based commercial kit (Lucigen Masterpure) and five wash based kits (Monarch, Zymo Quick-DNA, and three Qiagen DNeasy kits) using four brackish algae strains to determine which methods yield the greatest quantity and quality of genomic DNA. Extractions were evaluated using the manufacturers protocol, and additional pretreatment options were administered before a single kit to compare its potential in being added routinely before extractions. Pretreatment options included both cryogenic freeze-thawing and heat incubation using enzymes. DNA was quantified using Qubit fluorometry and NanoDrop purity ratios. Overall, the Qiagen PowerWater kit provided the highest DNA yield and purity, but at a significantly higher cost then the precipitation-based kit (MasterPure). It was also noted that while the precipitation-based kit was significantly cheaper, provided similar results, it took significantly more time to complete a single run. Cryogenic pretreatment (6x cycles) increased average DNA yields by up to 80%, whereas enzymatic pretreatment most improved purity ratios without substantially improving quantity. The results suggest that it may be more cost and time efficient to use Qiagen kits with the addition of lysis pretreatments to procure better results. Future works includes developing a better system to efficiently collect multi variable data, and to upscale to artificial polycultures using similar methodologies alongside sequencing to confirm kit results.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

Liquid Methane Conditioning Capabilities Developed at the NASA Glenn Research Center's Small Multi- Purpose Research Facility (SMiRF) for Accelerated Lunar Surface Storage Thermal Testing

Glenn Research Center s Creek Road Cryogenic Complex, Small Multi-Purpose Research Facility (SMiRF) recently completed validation / checkout testing of a new liquid methane delivery system and liquid methane (LCH4) conditioning system. Facility checkout validation was conducted in preparation for a series of passive thermal control technology tests planned at SMiRF in FY10 using a flight-like propellant tank at simulated thermal environments from 140 to 350K. These tests will validate models and provide high quality data to support consideration of LCH4/LO2 propellant combination option for a lunar or planetary ascent stage.An infrastructure has been put in place which will support testing of large amounts of liquid methane at SMiRF. Extensive modifications were made to the test facility s existing liquid hydrogen system for compatibility with liquid methane. Also, a new liquid methane fluid conditioning system will enable liquid methane to be quickly densified (sub-cooled below normal boiling point) and to be quickly reheated to saturation conditions between 92 and 140 K. Fluid temperatures can be quickly adjusted to compress the overall test duration. A detailed trade study was conducted to determine an appropriate technique to liquid conditioning with regard to the SMiRF facility s existing infrastructure. In addition, a completely new roadable dewar has been procured for transportation and temporary storage of liquid methane. A new spherical, flight-representative tank has also been fabricated for integration into the vacuum chamber at SMiRF. The addition of this system to SMiRF marks the first time a large-scale liquid methane propellant test capability has been realized at Glenn.This work supports the Cryogenic Fluid Management Project being conducted under the auspices of the Exploration Technology Development Program, providing focused cryogenic fluid management technology efforts to support NASA s future robotic or human exploration missions.

Bamberger, Helmut H.

A review of United States energy-only generator interconnection service policy and considerations for reform

Grid interconnection has emerged as a significant obstacle to the development of new electricity resources. There is growing interest in energy-only interconnection, which is an interconnection service option meant to allow the interconnection of new generators without ensuring their energy deliverability during all hours through the transmission system to customers. This approach potentially avoids upfront congestion-related transmission upgrades but could increase curtailment risk. Interest in energy-only interconnection is shaped by incomplete understanding of how interconnection policy functions in different jurisdictions, a knowledge gap that makes it difficult to determine how energy-only interconnection might be better used or re-designed. In this paper, we provide a regulatory review of energy-only interconnection in U.S. interconnection policy and practice, identifying jurisdictions in which rules are close to -or farther from-the theoretical concept of energy-only interconnection service. We find substantial jurisdictional differences in how energy-only interconnection is implemented, driven by differences in resource adequacy frameworks, real-time transmission operations, and state-level procurement practices. U.S. regulators have preferred local jurisdictional flexibility over federal prescription of interconnection study methods and procedures, which also contributes to differences among regions. Such findings raise fundamental questions about whether competition policies in electricity markets should extend beyond spot energy markets and into more prescriptive guidelines around interconnection rules and market entry. This paper sheds light on tensions that energy-only interconnection raises in allowing generators to access the transmission system on an as available basis and discusses how controlling thresholds for congestion-related network upgrades may be a barrier to electricity market entry.

Gorman, Will

Microbial Monitoring of Pathogens by Comparing Multiple Real-Time PCR Platforms for Potential Space Applications

The International Space Station (ISS) is a closed environment wi~h rotations of crew and equipment each introducing their own microbial flora making it necessary to monitor the air, surfaces, and water for microbial contamination. Current microbial monitoring includes labor and time intensive methods to enumerate total bacterial and fungal cells with limited characterization during in-flight testing. Although this culture-based method has been sufficient for monitoring the ISS, future long duration missions will need to perform more comprehensive characterization in-flight, since sample return and ground characterization may not be available. A workshop was held in 2011 at the Johnson Space Center to discuss alternative methodologies and technologies suitable for microbial monitoring for these longterm exploration missions where molecular-based methodologies, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), were recommended. In response, a multi-center (Marshall Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Kennedy Space Center) collaborative research effort was initiated to explore novel commercial-off-the-shelf hardware options for spaceflight environmental monitoring. The goal was to evaluate quantitative/semi-quantitative PCR approaches to space applications for low cost in-flight rapid identification of microorganisms affecting crew safety. The initial phase of this project identified commercially available platforms that could be minimally modified to perform nominally in microgravity followed by proof-of-concept testing on the highest qualifying candidates with a universally available test organism, Salmonella enterica. The platforms evaluated during proof-of-concept testing included the iCubate 2.0(TradeMark) (iCubate, Huntsville, AL), RAZOR EX (BioFire Diagnostics; Salt Lake City, Utah) and SmartCycler(TradeMark) (Cepheid; Sunnyvale, CA). The analysis identified two potential technologies (iCubate 2.0 and RAZOR EX) that were able to perform sample-to-answer testing with cell sample concentrations between SO to 400 cells. In addition, the commercial systems were evaluated for initial flight safety and readiness, sample concentration needs were reviewed, and a competitive procurement of commercially available platforms was initiated.

Birmele, Michele

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost

NASA Software Engineering Benchmarking Study

To identify best practices for the improvement of software engineering on projects, NASA's Offices of Chief Engineer (OCE) and Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) formed a team led by Heather Rarick and Sally Godfrey to conduct this benchmarking study. The primary goals of the study are to identify best practices that: Improve the management and technical development of software intensive systems; Have a track record of successful deployment by aerospace industries, universities [including research and development (R&D) laboratories], and defense services, as well as NASA's own component Centers; and Identify candidate solutions for NASA's software issues. Beginning in the late fall of 2010, focus topics were chosen and interview questions were developed, based on the NASA top software challenges. Between February 2011 and November 2011, the Benchmark Team interviewed a total of 18 organizations, consisting of five NASA Centers, five industry organizations, four defense services organizations, and four university or university R and D laboratory organizations. A software assurance representative also participated in each of the interviews to focus on assurance and software safety best practices. Interviewees provided a wealth of information on each topic area that included: software policy, software acquisition, software assurance, testing, training, maintaining rigor in small projects, metrics, and use of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, as well as a number of special topics that came up in the discussions. NASA's software engineering practices compared favorably with the external organizations in most benchmark areas, but in every topic, there were ways in which NASA could improve its practices. Compared to defense services organizations and some of the industry organizations, one of NASA's notable weaknesses involved communication with contractors regarding its policies and requirements for acquired software. One of NASA's strengths was its software assurance practices, which seemed to rate well in comparison to the other organizational groups and also seemed to include a larger scope of activities. An unexpected benefit of the software benchmarking study was the identification of many opportunities for collaboration in areas including metrics, training, sharing of CMMI experiences and resources such as instructors and CMMI Lead Appraisers, and even sharing of assets such as documented processes. A further unexpected benefit of the study was the feedback on NASA practices that was received from some of the organizations interviewed. From that feedback, other potential areas where NASA could improve were highlighted, such as accuracy of software cost estimation and budgetary practices. The detailed report contains discussion of the practices noted in each of the topic areas, as well as a summary of observations and recommendations from each of the topic areas. The resulting 24 recommendations from the topic areas were then consolidated to eliminate duplication and culled into a set of 14 suggested actionable recommendations. This final set of actionable recommendations, listed below, are items that can be implemented to improve NASA's software engineering practices and to help address many of the items that were listed in the NASA top software engineering issues. 1. Develop and implement standard contract language for software procurements. 2. Advance accurate and trusted software cost estimates for both procured and in-house software and improve the capture of actual cost data to facilitate further improvements. 3. Establish a consistent set of objectives and expectations, specifically types of metrics at the Agency level, so key trends and models can be identified and used to continuously improve software processes and each software development effort. 4. Maintain the CMMI Maturity Level requirement for critical NASA projects and use CMMI to measure organizations developing software for NASA. 5.onsolidate, collect and, if needed, develop common processes principles and other assets across the Agency in order to provide more consistency in software development and acquisition practices and to reduce the overall cost of maintaining or increasing current NASA CMMI maturity levels. 6. Provide additional support for small projects that includes: (a) guidance for appropriate tailoring of requirements for small projects, (b) availability of suitable tools, including support tool set-up and training, and (c) training for small project personnel, assurance personnel and technical authorities on the acceptable options for tailoring requirements and performing assurance on small projects. 7. Develop software training classes for the more experienced software engineers using on-line training, videos, or small separate modules of training that can be accommodated as needed throughout a project. 8. Create guidelines to structure non-classroom training opportunities such as mentoring, peer reviews, lessons learned sessions, and on-the-job training. 9. Develop a set of predictive software defect data and a process for assessing software testing metric data against it. 10. Assess Agency-wide licenses for commonly used software tools. 11. Fill the knowledge gap in common software engineering practices for new hires and co-ops.12. Work through the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) program with universities in strengthening education in the use of common software engineering practices and standards. 13. Follow up this benchmark study with a deeper look into what both internal and external organizations perceive as the scope of software assurance, the value they expect to obtain from it, and the shortcomings they experience in the current practice. 14. Continue interactions with external software engineering environment through collaborations, knowledge sharing, and benchmarking.

Rarick, Heather L.

Near-Net Forging Technology Demonstration Program

Significant advantages in specific mechanical properties, when compared to conventional aluminum (Al) alloys, make aluminum-lithium (Al-Li) alloys attractive candidate materials for use in cryogenic propellant tanks and dry bay structures. However, the cost of Al-Li alloys is typically five times that of 2219 aluminum. If conventional fabrication processes are employed to fabricate launch vehicle structure, the material costs will restrict their utilization. In order to fully exploit the potential cost and performance benefits of Al-Li alloys, it is necessary that near-net manufacturing methods be developed to off-set or reduce raw material costs. Near-net forging is an advanced manufacturing method that uses elevated temperature metal movement (forging) to fabricate a single piece, near-net shape, structure. This process is termed 'near-net' because only a minimal amount of post-forge machining is required. The near-net forging process was developed to reduce the material scrap rate (buy-to-fly ratio) and fabrication costs associated with conventional manufacturing methods. The goal for the near-net forging process, when mature, is to achieve an overall cost reduction of approximately 50 percent compared with conventional manufacturing options for producing structures fabricated from Al-Li alloys. This NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) sponsored program has been a part of a unique government / industry partnership, coordinated to develop and demonstrate near-net forging technology. The objective of this program was to demonstrate scale-up of the near-net forging process. This objective was successfully achieved by fabricating four integrally stiffened, 170- inch diameter by 20-inch tall, Al-Li alloy 2195, Y-ring adapters. Initially, two 2195 Al-Li ingots were converted and back extruded to produce four cylindrical blockers. Conventional ring rolling of the blockers was performed to produce ring preforms, which were then contour ring rolled to produce 'contour preforms'. All of the contour preforms on this first-of-a-kind effort were imperfect, and the ingot used to fabricate two of the preforms was of an earlier vintage. As lessons were learned throughout the program, the tooling and procedures evolved, and hence the preform quality. Two of the best contour preforms were near- net forged to produce a process pathfinder Y-ring adapter and a 'mechanical properties pathfinder' Y-ring adapter. At this point, Lockheed Martin Astronautics elected to procure additional 2195 aluminum-lithium ingot of the latest vintage, produce two additional preforms, and substitute them for older vintage material non-perfectly filled preforms already produced on this contract. The existing preforms could have been used to fulfill the requirements of the contract.

Hall, I. Keith

Access to Space for NASA Small Sats: Current and Future Needs

Small spacecraft technology advancements have fundamentally shifted how NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) executes science investigations. To support this approach, the SMD Rideshare Office (SRO) was established in 2020 to lead the definition and implementation of a directorate-wide rideshare strategy. Serving as the central point of contact for coordinating compatible NASA payloads with launch opportunities, the SRO maximizes science, exploration, and technology return on investment by enabling rideshare or other access to space opportunities for small spacecraft on SMD primary mission launches, VADR commercial launch procurements, and other government agency launch opportunities. As NASA seeks to reduce costs and increase the rate of discovery, small satellites and multi manifest access to space have become integral to achieving the agency’s strategic vision. While NASA has created the above-mentioned mechanisms to expand access to space and achieve lower launch costs for its small satellites, many factors have limited full exploit of the opportunity these mechanisms can bring. NASA continues to evolve its mission cultures and technical requirements to adapt and take advantage of burgeoning commercial launch and rideshare advancements. To do so NASA requires collaboration with small satellite manufacturers, principal investigators, and commercial industry partners. Current needs include technical development and design of structurally robust spacecraft buses capable of withstanding varied launch loads, which will increase rideshare interchangeability and versatility. Further, instrument and spacecraft designs must also evolve to handle diverse launch environments and loads factors, while reducing reliance on complex purge and cleanliness constraints, sensitivities to silicones and hydrocarbons, and magnetic requirements. Continued maturation of small and medium launch providers in the near-term is also essential to drive down costs through competition. The current mission selection cadence often complicates the ability to synchronize multiple missions on a single launch. Future needs can include affordable space maneuverability options such as enhanced spacecraft propulsion systems and unique orbital maneuvering capabilities for our individual smallsats or constellations. These emerging capabilities offer a path to unique science orbits for NASA small satellites, but only under the condition that their cost remains affordable and competitive to accommodate inherently smaller mission budgets. Additionally, the projected surge of multiple SMD small satellites launching simultaneously and to unique deep space science orbits necessitates evaluation of expanding deep space communications capabilities. This presentation provides a comprehensive overview of NASA SMD’s access to space landscape and offers further unique insights and discussion, backed by NASA rideshare experiences and lessons learned, on the current and future developments required to unleash the full potential of rideshare opportunities.

Rideshare

Access to Space for NASA SmallSats: Current and Future Needs

Small spacecraft technology advancements have fundamentally shifted how NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) executes science investigations. To support this approach, the SMD Rideshare Office (SRO) was established in 2020 to lead the definition and implementation of a directorate-wide rideshare strategy. Serving as the central point of contact for coordinating compatible NASA payloads with launch opportunities, the SRO maximizes science, exploration, and technology return on investment by enabling rideshare or other access to space opportunities for small spacecraft on SMD primary mission launches, VADR commercial launch procurements, and other government agency launch opportunities. As NASA seeks to reduce costs and increase the rate of discovery, small satellites and multi manifest access to space have become integral to achieving the agency’s strategic vision. While NASA has created the above-mentioned mechanisms to expand access to space and achieve lower launch costs for its small satellites, many factors have limited full exploit of the opportunity these mechanisms can bring. NASA continues to evolve its mission cultures and technical requirements to adapt and take advantage of burgeoning commercial launch and rideshare advancements. To do so NASA requires collaboration with small satellite manufacturers, principal investigators, and commercial industry partners. Current needs include technical development and design of structurally robust spacecraft buses capable of withstanding varied launch loads, which will increase rideshare interchangeability and versatility. Further, instrument and spacecraft designs must also evolve to handle diverse launch environments and loads factors, while reducing reliance on complex purge and cleanliness constraints, sensitivities to silicones and hydrocarbons, and magnetic requirements. Continued maturation of small and medium launch providers in the near-term is also essential to drive down costs through competition. The current mission selection cadence often complicates the ability to synchronize multiple missions on a single launch. Future needs can include affordable space maneuverability options such as enhanced spacecraft propulsion systems and unique orbital maneuvering capabilities for our individual smallsats or constellations. These emerging capabilities offer a path to unique science orbits for NASA small satellites, but only under the condition that their cost remains affordable and competitive to accommodate inherently smaller mission budgets. Additionally, the projected surge of multiple SMD small satellites launching simultaneously and to unique deep space science orbits necessitates evaluation of expanding deep space communications capabilities. This presentation provides a comprehensive overview of NASA SMD’s access to space landscape and offers further unique insights and discussion, backed by NASA rideshare experiences and lessons learned, on the current and future developments required to unleash the full potential of rideshare opportunities.

Rideshare

Characterization of Machine Variability and Progressive Heat Treatment in Selective Laser Melting of Inconel 718

The absence of an economy of scale in spaceflight hardware makes additive manufacturing an immensely attractive option for propulsion components. As additive manufacturing techniques are increasingly adopted by government and industry to produce propulsion hardware in human‐rated systems, significant development efforts are needed to establish these methods as reliable alternatives to conventional subtractive manufacturing. One of the critical challenges facing powder bed fusion techniques in this application is variability between machines used to perform builds. Even with implementation of robust process controls, it is possible for two machines operating at identical parameters with equivalent base materials to produce specimens with slightly different material properties. The machine variability study presented here evaluates 60 specimens of identical geometry built using the same parameters. 30 samples were produced on machine 1 (M1) and the other 30 samples were built on machine 2 (M2). Each of the 30‐sample sets were further subdivided into three subsets (with 10 specimens in each subset) to assess the effect of progressive heat treatment on machine variability. The three categories for post‐processing were: stress relief, stress relief followed by hot isostatic press (HIP), and stress relief followed by HIP followed by heat treatment per AMS 5664. Each specimen (a round, smooth tensile) was mechanically tested per ASTM E8. Two formal statistical techniques, hypothesis testing for equivalency of means and one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA), were applied to characterize the impact of machine variability and heat treatment on six material properties: tensile stress, yield stress, modulus of elasticity, fracture elongation, and reduction of area. This work represents the type of development effort that is critical as NASA, academia, and the industrial base work collaboratively to establish a path to certification for additively manufactured parts. For future flight programs, NASA and its commercial partners will procure parts from vendors who will use a diverse range of machines to produce parts and, as such, it is essential that the AM community develop a sound understanding of the degree to which machine variability impacts material properties.

Prater, Tracie

Characterization of Machine Variability and Progressive Heat Treatment in Selective Laser Melting of Inconel 718

The absence of an economy of scale in spaceflight hardware makes additive manufacturing an immensely attractive option for propulsion components. As additive manufacturing techniques are increasingly adopted by government and industry to produce propulsion hardware in human-rated systems, significant development efforts are needed to establish these methods as reliable alternatives to conventional subtractive manufacturing. One of the critical challenges facing powder bed fusion techniques in this application is variability between machines used to perform builds. Even with implementation of robust process controls, it is possible for two machines operating at identical parameters with equivalent base materials to produce specimens with slightly different material properties. The machine variability study presented here evaluates 60 specimens of identical geometry built using the same parameters. 30 samples were produced on machine 1 (M1) and the other 30 samples were built on machine 2 (M2). Each of the 30-sample sets were further subdivided into three subsets (with 10 specimens in each subset) to assess the effect of progressive heat treatment on machine variability. The three categories for post-processing were: stress relief, stress relief followed by hot isostatic press (HIP), and stress relief followed by HIP followed by heat treatment per AMS 5664. Each specimen (a round, smooth tensile) was mechanically tested per ASTM E8. Two formal statistical techniques, hypothesis testing for equivalency of means and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), were applied to characterize the impact of machine variability and heat treatment on six material properties: tensile stress, yield stress, modulus of elasticity, fracture elongation, and reduction of area. This work represents the type of development effort that is critical as NASA, academia, and the industrial base work collaboratively to establish a path to certification for additively manufactured parts. For future flight programs, NASA and its commercial partners will procure parts from vendors who will use a diverse range of machines to produce parts and, as such, it is essential that the AM community develop a sound understanding of the degree to which machine variability impacts material properties.

Prater, T.

Developing Methods for Exercise System Kinematics Tracking

BACKGROUND How to quantify the load and forces produced by exercise equipment and their Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (VIS) platforms in-flight is an active area of investigation. Kinematic tracking paired with system modeling can provide insights as well as verification and validation of simulations used for system design and development. Traditional motion capture methods can require significant cost in equipment procurement and crew-time, but newer lessons learned can be leveraged [1]. The VIS systems of current and future exercise hardware on the International Space Station (ISS) such as the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation System (CEVIS) and the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device (E4D) are not currently outfitted with IMUs or similar measurement devices. Video-based methods would enable use of multi-purpose, crew-familiar flight equipment. An initial exploration of video-based solutions was performed utilizing 2-camera video from crew cycling on Teal-CEVIS on the ISS. METHODS AND RESULTS Our group has scoped a variety of video-based object tracking methods. To date, we have primarily investigated computer vision toolkits such as openCV. Techniques explored include key-point detection, background subtraction, region-of interest tracking, color-based tracking, tag masking and tracking, and corner detection. Although object-tracking and 6D pose estimation is a rich field, space applications are a unique problem that are challenging for existing software and toolkits. The majority of the existing object-tracking applications involve vehicles/pedestrians and household objects with simple backgrounds. We have identified the following features which pose particular challenges for on-station exercise equipment tracking: Busy and visually cluttered background Low-textured tracking object with relatively small motions Occlusions and motion by human subject and loose, floating objects Limited number of video cameras with no fixed global references Limited ability to add tags, markers, or visual references to the tracking object Lack of training data for Machine Learning (ML) algorithms CONCLUSION We will summarize the efficacy of techniques tested for a ground mock-trial and the on-station exercise trial. It is likely that human-in-loop feedback or a conglomerate of methods is required. ML-based methods, like those implemented for human body tracking [2], may still be a viable option, but more training data and validation is needed.

L B Nilsson

Developing Methods for Exercise System Kinematic Tracking

BACKGROUND How to quantify the load and forces produced by exercise equipment and their Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (VIS) platforms in-flight is an active area of investigation. Kinematic tracking paired with system modeling can provide insights as well as verification and validation of simulations used for system design and development. Traditional motion capture methods can require significant cost in equipment procurement and crew-time, but newer lessons learned can be leveraged [1]. The VIS systems of current and future exercise hardware on the International Space Station (ISS) such as the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation System (CEVIS) and the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device (E4D) are not currently outfitted with IMUs or similar measurement devices. Video-based methods would enable use of multi-purpose, crew-familiar flight equipment. An initial exploration of video-based solutions was performed utilizing 2-camera video from crew cycling on Teal-CEVIS on the ISS. METHODS AND RESULTS Our group has scoped a variety of video-based object tracking methods. To date, we have primarily investigated computer vision toolkits such as open CV. Techniques explored include key-point detection, background subtraction, region-of interest tracking, color-based tracking, tag masking and tracking, and corner detection. Although object-tracking and 6D pose estimation is a rich field, space applications are a unique problem that are challenging for existing software and toolkits. The majority of the existing object-tracking applications involve vehicles/pedestrians and household objects with simple backgrounds. We have identified the following features which pose particular challenges for on-station exercise equipment tracking: 1. Busy and visually cluttered background 2. Low-textured tracking object with relatively small motions 3. Occlusions and motion by human subject and loose, floating objects 4. Limited number of video cameras with no fixed global references 5. Limited ability to add tags, markers, or visual references to the tracking object 6. Lack of training data for Machine Learning (ML) algorithms CONCLUSION We will summarize the efficacy of techniques tested for a ground mock-trial and the on-station exercise trial. It is likely that human-in-loop feedback or a conglomerate of methods is required. ML-based methods, like those implemented for human body tracking [2], may still be a viable option, but more training data and validation is needed.

L Nilsson

SPC-71260 Rev 0 MARVEL Heat Extraction Subsystem Secondary Coolant Equipment (SCE) Design/Build

A. The Microreactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation (MARVEL) reactor will offer experimental capabilities that are not currently available at DOE’s national laboratories. Idaho National Laboratory (INL), operated for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA) (Contractor hereafter) is procuring services for the design, analysis, fabrication, testing and delivery of a Secondary Coolant Equipment system (SCE). This specification contains the requirements for design, analysis, fabrication, testing and delivery of the SCE as described herein. The MARVEL reactor is a microreactor which uses eutectic sodium-potassium alloy (NaK) as a primary coolant. The primary coolant is circulated through four primary loops by natural convection of the coolant. In each loop is a closed well which will accommodate an intermediate heat exchanger (IHX) for extracting heat from the loop. These wells will be referred to in this specification as the “IHX wells.” It is intended for the IHX containment to also be filled with NaK. The MARVEL design team has determined that a Heat Extraction System (HES) using pumped NaK will be used to extract heat from the IHXs and deliver it to a downstream system for power generation or alternate process heat users. This Heat Extraction System will enable MARVEL operations including the ability to test, demonstrate, and address issues related to installation, startup, and operations. In addition, it will allow down-stream utilization of process heat for various uses. The objective of this specification is to develop the final design for the HES Secondary Coolant Equipment system (SCE) that will be used as the core of the HES. This system provides control of the NaK circulation between the MARVEL reactor and the subsequent process heat utilization systems. It does not include design of the Intermediate Heat Exchangers and piping inside the T-REXc pit in which the reactor is located. B. The MARVEL microreactor will be installed in the Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT) building in the Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) Micro-Reactor Experiment Cell (T-REXc) C. An INL Subcontractor has developed a conceptual design for this system per SPC-71145, referred to in that specification as the Process Heat Extraction System. SPC-71260 is based on the pumped NaK loop concept developed under SPC-71145. D. The SCE system design and (as option scope) fabrication shall be provided by the awardee of the subcontract (Subcontractor hereafter) pertaining to this Specification. Prior to shipment, the SCE will be fabricated, assembled, and tested at the Subcontractor’s facility. After successful completion of acceptance testing, the SCE and associated equipment will be shipped to the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) at the INL (Contractor’s Facility hereafter) to be installed by others in TREAT/T-REXc.

21 - SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLAN