Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “executable files”

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.

529 records · Page 30
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1997

The NASA Integrated Information Technology Architecture

This document defines an Information Technology Architecture for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), where Information Technology (IT) refers to the hardware, software, standards, protocols and processes that enable the creation, manipulation, storage, organization and sharing of information. An architecture provides an itemization and definition of these IT structures, a view of the relationship of the structures to each other and, most importantly, an accessible view of the whole. It is a fundamental assumption of this document that a useful, interoperable and affordable IT environment is key to the execution of the core NASA scientific and project competencies and business practices. This Architecture represents the highest level system design and guideline for NASA IT related activities and has been created on the authority of the NASA Chief Information Officer (CIO) and will be maintained under the auspices of that office. It addresses all aspects of general purpose, research, administrative and scientific computing and networking throughout the NASA Agency and is applicable to all NASA administrative offices, projects, field centers and remote sites. Through the establishment of five Objectives and six Principles this Architecture provides a blueprint for all NASA IT service providers: civil service, contractor and outsourcer. The most significant of the Objectives and Principles are the commitment to customer-driven IT implementations and the commitment to a simpler, cost-efficient, standards-based, modular IT infrastructure. In order to ensure that the Architecture is presented and defined in the context of the mission, project and business goals of NASA, this Architecture consists of four layers in which each subsequent layer builds on the previous layer. They are: 1) the Business Architecture: the operational functions of the business, or Enterprise, 2) the Systems Architecture: the specific Enterprise activities within the context of IT systems, 3) the Technical Architecture: a common, vendor-independent framework for design, integration and implementation of IT systems and 4) the Product Architecture: vendor=specific IT solutions. The Systems Architecture is effectively a description of the end-user "requirements". Generalized end-user requirements are discussed and subsequently organized into specific mission and project functions. The Technical Architecture depicts the framework, and relationship, of the specific IT components that enable the end-user functionality as described in the Systems Architecture. The primary components as described in the Technical Architecture are: 1) Applications: Basic Client Component, Object Creation Applications, Collaborative Applications, Object Analysis Applications, 2) Services: Messaging, Information Broker, Collaboration, Distributed Processing, and 3) Infrastructure: Network, Security, Directory, Certificate Management, Enterprise Management and File System. This Architecture also provides specific Implementation Recommendations, the most significant of which is the recognition of IT as core to NASA activities and defines a plan, which is aligned with the NASA strategic planning processes, for keeping the Architecture alive and useful.

Baldridge, Tim↗
DOE OSTI2022

Land-Based Wind Market Report: 2022 Edition

The U.S. Department of Energy's 2022 edition of its Land-Based Wind Market Report provides an overview of key trends in the U.S. wind power market, with a focus on 2021. You can find a report, data file and presentation on the Files tab, below. Additionally, several data visualizations are available on the Visualizations tab. Despite ongoing supply chain challenges, wind energy in 2021 continued to see strong growth, technology improvements, and low prices in the U.S. Key highlights include: Wind comprises a growing share of electricity supply: U.S. wind power capacity grew at a strong pace in 2021, with the 13.4 GW of new additions representing a $\$20$ billion investment and 32% of all newly added U.S. generation capacity. Wind energy output rose to account for more than 9% of the entire nation’s electricity supply. At least 247 GW of wind are seeking transmission interconnection; 77 GW of this capacity are offshore wind and 19 GW are hybrid plants that pair wind with storage or solar PV. Wind project performance has increased over the decades: The average capacity factor among recently built projects was nearly 40%, considerably higher than projects built earlier. The highest capacity factors are seen in the interior ‘wind belt’ of the country. Turbines continue to get larger: Improved plant performance has been driven by larger turbines mounted on taller towers and featuring longer blades. In 2011, no turbines employed blades that were 115 meters in diameter or larger, but in 2021, 89% of newly installed turbines featured such rotors. Proposed projects indicate that total turbine height will continue to rise. Low wind turbine pricing has pushed down installed project costs over the last decade: Wind turbine prices averaged $\$800$–$\$950$/kW in 2021, a 5% to 10% increase from the year prior but substantially lower than in 2010. The average installed cost of wind projects in 2021 was $\$1,500$/kW, down more than 40% since the peak in 2010, though relatively stable in recent years. The lowest costs were found in Texas and the (non-ISO) West. Wind energy prices are on the rise, but generally remain low, around $\$20$/MWh in the interior of the country with higher prices in the West and East. After topping out above $\$75$/MWh for power purchase agreements (PPAs) executed in 2009, the national average price of wind PPAs has dropped—though supply-chain pressures have resulted in increased prices in recent years. In the interior ‘wind belt’ of the country, recent pricing is around $\$20$/MWh. In the West and East, prices tend to average above $\$30$/MWh. These prices, which are possible in part due to federal tax support, fall below the projected future fuel costs of gas-fired generation. Wind PPA prices are often attractive compared to wind’s grid-system market value: The value of wind in wholesale power markets is affected by the location of wind plants, their hourly output profiles, and how those characteristics correlate with real-time electricity prices and capacity markets. The market value of wind increased in 2021, averaging $\$16$/MWh in MISO, $\$19$/MWh in SPP, $\$23$/MWh in NYISO, $\$31$/MWh in ERCOT, $\$33$/MWh in PJM, $\$44$/MWh in ISO-NE, and $\$48$/MWh in CAISO. The average levelized cost of wind energy was $\$32$/MWh for plants built in 2021: Levelized costs, which exclude the impacts of federal tax incentives, vary across time and geography. The national average stood at $\$32$/MWh in 2021—down substantially historically, though relatively stable in recent years. Levelized costs were lowest in ERCOT, SPP, and the (non-ISO) West. The health and climate benefits of wind in 2021 were larger than its grid-system value, and the combination of all three far exceeds the current levelized cost of wind: Wind generation reduces power-sector emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. These reductions, in turn, provide public health and climate benefits that vary regionally, but together are economically valued at an average of over $\$90$/MWh-wind for plants built in 2021.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

rHealth One Demonstration Aboard ISS: A Microfluidic Bioanalyzer Based on Sheath/Hydrodynamic Focusing Flow Cytometry

The Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) element aims to provide astronauts with the means for their own health monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment during exploration missions. As space flight ventures further from earth, the need for autonomous medical care increases under greater constraints on size, mass, and resources. One pillar for diagnosis that crew would be separated from is laboratory analysis. Even now on ISS, blood samples must be collected and returned to earth for testing. In response, ExMC is assessing how assays for hematology, bone health, radiation exposure etc. could be addressed through commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) and Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) funded bioanalyzers that are miniaturizing lab technology. Since missions will reach distances where there are no timely replacements, validation on the International Space Station (ISS) is a necessary part of that assessment. In partnership with NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Immunology Lab and the Research Operations and Integration (ROI) element, ExMC conducted a technology demonstration on ISS of the rHEALTH ONE, a flow cytometry based bioanalyzer, to assess future devices based on this design. In flow cytometry, there are predominantly three ways to focus the cells (or particles) into a single file stream: hydrodynamic focusing, microcapillary, and acoustic focusing. The rHEALTH ONE utilizes the commercial standard, sheath-based hydrodynamic focusing. rHEALTH itself represents both a company and a suite of medical tools NASA has funded through SBIR grants towards the development of a promising diagnosis instrument for exploration missions. rHEALTH ONE is the interim version of the technology, functional as a benchtop analyzer and test bed for the next generation of rHEALTH in development. Several modifications were made to the rHEALTH ONE analyzer for operation in microgravity. For function, fluid management was key. A sheath-based analyzer uses sheath fluid to flow the sample, cleaning fluid to prevent biological contamination, and a reservoir to collect the liquid waste. The rHEALTH ONE analyzer uses bottles dependent on gravity to separate the air and liquid pathways and keep the liquids contained. It uses only 1 psig of air pressure to directly push the liquid through the device, requiring little-to-no resistance at inlet and outlet. A microtubing assembly with self-sealing luer connectors was designed – featuring 0.014 mm thick durable medical balloons to hold water inside the supply bottles – to create safe containment and easy access for the crew while maintaining the analyzer’s function. For safety, copper tape was added to the interior of the plastic housing to reduce electromagnetic interference, fluid and electrical connections were secured against vibration and leaks, and gaps were further sealed to ensure containment of the optical block and lasers. Water as the sheath and cleaning fluid and TOX 0 samples were used to reduce the biohazard risk to the crew. In May 2022, European Space Agency astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti demonstrated the rHEALTH ONE aboard ISS for its sample loading, flow cytometry, and data collection capability in microgravity. The JSC Immunology Lab provided flow cytometry expertise, designed the sample test protocol, and manufactured and benchmarked the flight samples on a ‘gold-standard’ flow cytometer. The analyzer was primed with water, purged of air, and four calibration solutions of polystyrene microparticles were tested to characterize its performance. Tightly controlled procedures and excellent execution prevented air bubble interference during air/water separation, fluid transfer, sample mixing and loading. Data showed a slight increase in signal noise on 3 of 5 channels and an anomaly of fluorophores migrating in one sample (confirmed by JSC post-flight). Flight results correctly detected the change in sample, matched the analyzer’s ground performance, and were consistent with the gold-standard’s ground results. Although areas were noted for improvement, these outcomes signified complete mission success.

R. S. Miller↗
DOE OSTI2023

Second Report of the Nuclear Data Subcommittee of the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee

The central importance of the nuclear data curated by the US Nuclear Data Program (USNDP) for clean energy generation, national security, nonproliferation, medical applications, and space exploration as well as basic science was described in a prior report issued by the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee subcommittee on Nuclear Data (NSAC-ND) in September 2022. In this report, we present a set of fourteen (14) recommendations that will enhance and advance DOE-NP's stewardship of nuclear data. The first three recommendations focus on the existing core USNDP capabilities, namely: 1) Support the nuclear structure evaluation workforce to improve the currency, consistency, and accessibility of the Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENSDF); 2) Enhance nuclear reaction evaluation within the USNDP in support of the Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF) through expansion of the workforce and integration of high-performance computing, automation, and machine learning and; 3) Continue atomic mass evaluation in support AME and NUBASE databases. This is followed by eight (8) recommendations representing new cross-cutting initiatives involving both measurement and evaluation to address outstanding nuclear data needs. These new initiatives require a highly trained, diverse workforce that includes personnel with expertise from both inside and outside the nuclear physics community from which evaluators have traditionally been recruited. As such, many of these initiatives are accomplished via a Topical Nuclear Data Collaborations (TNDC). A TNDC is made up of domestic and international stakeholders, subject matter and nuclear data experts, and nuclear data evaluators and features a workforce development plan to ensure that nuclear data evaluators maintain currency in the relevant applications and are seen as equity partners in the endeavor. These include: 1) Establish a coordinated effort to improve evaluation and modeling in nuclear astrophysics for stellar dynamics, multi-messenger astronomy and nucleosynthesis; 2) Initiate a TNDC to develop and maintain nuclear structure evaluation beyond discrete states, including nuclear level densities, photon strength functions and photonuclear data for improved reaction modeling, and exploring nuclear structure at finite temperature; 3) Create a TNDC to perform correlated fission data evaluation, including cross sections, fragment yields, v(A), v(E n ) for nuclear energy, national security, nonproliferation and basic science; 4) From a panel of subject matter experts to establish and annually update a roster of key decay data to nurture its accelerated dissemination including both measurement and evaluation for targeted high-value nuclides for national security, nonproliferation and medical applications; 5) Comprehensive, consistent neutron-induced structure and reaction data for nuclear energy, national security, nonproliferation and planetary nuclear spectroscopy; 6) Charged-particle stopping powers for detector design, space effects and ion beam therapy; 7) High-energy reactions for space exploration and medical nuclide production, and; 8) The creation of an infrastructure for open data and data preservation for use by the entire nuclear physics community. All told, these initiatives require approximately $6.5M increase in NP support of the USNDP in fiscal year 2023 dollars and would require at least 3-5 years to carry out due to the length of time needed to recruit and train new nuclear data researchers. This relatively modest investment would help ensure that the fruits of the nuclear data research carried out by DOE-NP and its collaborators would be brought to bear to address some of the most important needs of our nation and the world. To ensure effective execution of this plan, we present an overview of recruitment, training, and retention goals for the USNDP, the centerpiece of which is a mutually agreed upon code of conduct. Finally, we identify the facility and instrumentation needed to perform the recommended experimental activities. This includes a short review of target fabrication capabilities, reactors, neutron beam, light- and heavy-stable ion, gamma-ray, high-energy and radioactive ion beam facilities. Lastly, a more complete appendix of experimental facilities previously compiled is included with new input provided for 6 facilities.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2019

Preparing the FUSRAP Colonie Interim Storage Site for Transfer Back to the US Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management - 19215

The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) Colonie Interim Storage Site was transferred from the US Department of Energy (US DOE) to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1997. The USACE initiated remediation efforts at the Site under FUSRAP. The Site was separated into three distinct operable units (OU) to more efficiently manage the remedial process: 1) Groundwater OU, 2) Main Site Soils OU, and 3) Vicinity Property OU. The USACE has completed remedial actions at each of these three OUs and has advanced the OU remedies at the Site to the long-term stewardship stage to be executed by the US DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM). The US DOE LM is the current real property owner of record of the Colonie Main Site. A summary of each OU and the activities needed to prepare for site transfer follows: OU 1 - USACE issued the Colonie Groundwater OU Record of Decision (ROD) (USACE 2010a) on April 9, 2010. The Groundwater ROD remedy is monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and long-term monitoring (LTM) of groundwater after source removal completion. Results of groundwater monitoring indicate reductions in concentrations of contaminants of concern (COC). Based on the marked progress to date, USACE has optimized the groundwater LTM program (USACE, 2014) by reducing the well network, sampling frequency, and analytical parameters, and by abandoning wells that are no longer needed. A Groundwater ROD Five-Year Review report was submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for review in 2018. NYSDEC agreed that MNA is still an appropriate remedial method although it is progressing at a slower rate than predicted. OU 2 - From 1999 to 2007, USACE completed the large-scale removal of soil at the Main Site, which included the adjacent Town of Colonie Vicinity Property. Radioactively contaminated soil along with accessible metals-contaminated soil and soil containing volatile organic compounds (VOC) were removed during this effort. A total of 103,402 cubic meters (m{sup 3}) of soil was excavated and disposed offsite. On March 26, 2015, USACE signed the Main Site Soils OU ROD (USACE, 2015a). The ROD remedy included provisions for Land Use Controls (LUC) consisting of institutional controls (IC) through an Environmental Easement for management of three small and discrete inaccessible locations within three of the 27 Final Status Survey units of the Main Site. The Environmental Easement provides a means of protection based on both current and future land use by placing restrictions on soil excavation and reuse. The easement and a supporting Site Management Plan (SMP) will be finalized by LM in coordination with NYSDEC. OU 3 - the Vicinity Property OU ROD was signed on 20 September 2017. This ROD declared No Action (NA) for dust and No Further Action (NFA) for soil and other media for the Vicinity Properties. Prior to the ROD, USACE performed dust sampling and other characterization activities at representative commercial and residential Vicinity Property locations. These efforts were reported in the Colonie FUSRAP Site Vicinity Property Operable Unit Remedial Investigation Summary Report (USACE, 2016). A Site Closeout Report (SCOR) was issued to NYSDEC and approved in 2018. The approval of this report starts the transfer process back to the LM. Ongoing and future transfer activities include records retention and management, preparation and filing of real estate records, physical site management (fencing, landscape maintenance, well abandonment) and coordination with state regulators and LM staff. This presentation is intended to make all stakeholders aware of the necessary steps for site transfer from the USACE back to the LM. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
NASA NTRS2013

Planetary Protection Bioburden Analysis Program

This program is a Microsoft Access program that performed statistical analysis of the colony counts from assays performed on the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) spacecraft to determine the bioburden density, 3-sigma biodensity, and the total bioburdens required for the MSL prelaunch reports. It also contains numerous tools that report the data in various ways to simplify the reports required. The program performs all the calculations directly in the MS Access program. Prior to this development, the data was exported to large Excel files that had to be cut and pasted to provide the desired results. The program contains a main menu and a number of submenus. Analyses can be performed by using either all the assays, or only the accountable assays that will be used in the final analysis. There are three options on the first menu: either calculate using (1) the old MER (Mars Exploration Rover) statistics, (2) the MSL statistics for all the assays, or This software implements penetration limit equations for common micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) shield configurations, windows, and thermal protection systems. Allowable MMOD risk is formulated in terms of the probability of penetration (PNP) of the spacecraft pressure hull. For calculating the risk, spacecraft geometry models, mission profiles, debris environment models, and penetration limit equations for installed shielding configurations are required. Risk assessment software such as NASA's BUMPERII is used to calculate mission PNP; however, they are unsuitable for use in shield design and preliminary analysis studies. The software defines a single equation for the design and performance evaluation of common MMOD shielding configurations, windows, and thermal protection systems, along with a description of their validity range and guidelines for their application. Recommendations are based on preliminary reviews of fundamental assumptions, and accuracy in predicting experimental impact test results. The software is programmed in Visual Basic for Applications for installation as a simple add-in for Microsoft Excel. The user is directed to a graphical user interface (GUI) that requires user inputs and provides solutions directly in Microsoft Excel workbooks. This work was done by Shannon Ryan of the USRA Lunar and Planetary Institute for Johnson Space Center. Further information is contained in a TSP (see page 1). MSC- 24582-1 Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) Shield Ballistic Limit Analysis Program Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas Commercially, because it is so generic, Enigma can be used for almost any project that requires engineering visualization, model building, or animation. Models in Enigma can be exported to many other formats for use in other applications as well. Educationally, Enigma is being used to allow university students to visualize robotic algorithms in a simulation mode before using them with actual hardware. This work was done by David Shores and Sharon P. Goza of Johnson Space Center; Cheyenne McKeegan, Rick Easley, Janet Way, and Shonn Everett of MEI Technologies; Mark Manning of PTI; and Mark Guerra, Ray Kraesig, and William Leu of Tietronix Software, Inc. For further information, contact the JSC Innovation Partnerships Office at (281) 483-3809. MSC-24211-1 Spitzer Telemetry Processing System NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California The Spitzer Telemetry Processing System (SirtfTlmProc) was designed to address objectives of JPL's Multi-mission Image Processing Lab (MIPL) in processing spacecraft telemetry and distributing the resulting data to the science community. To minimize costs and maximize operability, the software design focused on automated error recovery, performance, and information management. The system processes telemetry from the Spitzer spacecraft and delivers Level 0 products to the Spitzer Science Center. SirtfTlmProc is a unique system with automated error notification and recovery, with a real-time continuous service that can go quiescent after periods of inactivity. The software can process 2 GB of telemetry and deliver Level 0 science products to the end user in four hours. It provides analysis tools so the operator can manage the system and troubleshoot problems. It automates telemetry processing in order to reduce staffing costs. This work was done by Alice Stanboli, Elmain M. Martinez, and James M. McAuley of Caltech for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. For more information, contact iaoffice @jpl.nasa.gov. This software is available for commercial licensing. Please contact Dan Broderick at Daniel.F. Broderick@jpl.nasa.gov. Refer to NPO-47803. NASA Tech Briefs, September 2013 29 This rapid response computer program predicts Orbiter Wing Leading Edge (WLE) damage caused by ice or foam impact during a Space Shuttle launch (Program "IMPACT2"). The program was developed after the Columbia accident in order to assess quickly WLE damage due to ice, foam, or metal impact (if any) during a Shuttle launch. IMPACT2 simulates an impact event in a few minutes for foam impactors, and in seconds for ice and metal impactors. The damage criterion is derived from results obtained from one sophisticated commercial program, which requires hours to carry out simulations of the same impact events. The program was designed to run much faster than the commercial program with prediction of projectile threshold velocities within 10 to 15% of commercial-program values. The mathematical model involves coupling of Orbiter wing normal modes of vibration to nonlinear or linear springmass models. IMPACT2 solves nonlinear or linear impact problems using classical normal modes of vibration of a target, and nonlinear/ linear time-domain equations for the projectile. Impact loads and stresses developed in the target are computed as functions of time. This model is novel because of its speed of execution. A typical model of foam, or other projectile characterized by material nonlinearities, impacting an RCC panel is executed in minutes instead of hours needed by the commercial programs. Target damage due to impact can be assessed quickly, provided that target vibration modes and allowable stress are known. This work was done by Robert Clark, Jr., Paul Cotter, and Constantine Michalopoulos of The Boeing Company for Johnson Space Center. For further information, contact the JSC Innovation Partnerships Office at (281) 483-3809. MSC-24988-1 Wing Leading Edge RCC Rapid Response Damage Prediction Tool (IMPACT2) Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas (3) the MSL statistics for only the accountable assays. Other options on the main menu include a data editing form and utility programs that produce various reports requested by the microbiologists and the project, and tools to generate the groupings for the final analyses. The analyses can be carried out in three ways: Each assay can be treated separately, the assays can be collectively treated for the whole zone as a group, or the assays can be collected in groups designated by the JPL Planetary Protection Manager. The latter approach was used to generate the final report because assays on the same equipment or similar equipment can be assumed to have been exposed to the same environment and cleaning. Thus, the statistics are improved by having a larger population, thereby reducing the standard deviation by the square root of N. For each method mentioned above, three reports are available. The first is a detailed report including all the data. This version was very useful in verifying the calculations. The second is a brief report that is similar to the full detailed report, but does not print out the data. The third is a grand total and summary report in which each assay requires only one line. For the first and second reports, most of the calculations are performed in the report section itself. For the third, all the calculations are performed directly in the query bound to the report. All the numerical results were verified by comparing them with Excel templates, then exporting the data from the Planetary Protection Analysis program to Excel.

Beaudet, Robert A.↗