Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Roadmap”

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 865 records · Page 48
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Traffic Aware Strategic Aircrew Requests

In 2016, a five-step roadmap was developed for the Traffic Aware Strategic Aircrew Requests (TASAR) project to achieve the full benefits of Airborne Trajectory Management (ABTM), a key enabler of the Digital Flight Vision. This presentation gives an overview of the TASAR roadmap for the ATD TIM in September 2021.

TASAR↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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 multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures 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) has used to define 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 with ~76 gaps and supported with 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.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Crew Health & Performance Capability Development for Exploration: 2021 to 2022 Overview

Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. In many cases, research is required to characterize those risks and help identify risk mitigation strategies. Where new capabilities are necessary to maintain crew health and performance (CHP) during exploration missions, a multi-step process is followed: 1) a Capability Gap is defined; 2) a plan or “roadmap” to develop that capability is established based on agency priorities and anticipated mission development timelines; and 3) work defined on the roadmap is then initiated as resources allow, with the objective that the capability will be available in time to support the future mission. Over the past year, significant progress has occurred in CHP technology development, ground testbed development, ground-based testing, and in preparations for ISS technology demonstrations. This paper provides a development update in the following capability areas: crew health countermeasures, EVA physiology and performance, food and nutrition, exploration medical capabilities, and radiation. Project overviews will include descriptions of CHP development activities over the past year, the human system risks and capability gaps being targeted, as well as planned follow-on activities and anticipated program infusion points.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Planetary Protection Program Overview and Update

NASA has an integrated planetary protection strategy that leverages COSPAR Policy guide-lines, workshops, scientific consensus, partnerships and international working groups to develop policy and implementation guidelines. The Oÿce of Safety and Mission Assurance, which in-cludes NASA’s Oÿce of Planetary Protection, depends on these activities to support NASA’s missions in the assurance of crew safety and mission success while protecting the public and planetary environment from harmful contamination. This report will detail the overall planetary protection policy development perspective to sup-port NASA’s upcoming mission opportunities for exploration to include crewed Mars and sam-ple return missions. NASA continues to evolve its strategies, policies, and standards. NASA’s support in the COSPAR workshop series on Refining Planetary Protection Requirements for Crewed Missions to Mars have resulted in a NASA interim directive and paved the way for the development of NASA planetary protection roadmaps. These Agency level roadmaps address technology development and testing required to fill knowledge gaps for developing responsive policy guidelines and quantitative technical standards. In addition to workshops and tech-nology management strategies, NASA is also leveraging the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee of Planetary Protection to serve as a source of advice on planetary protection measures. Finally, the report will include how the Oÿce of Safety and Mission Assurance is incorporating planetary protection into existing and new multi-agency partnerships.

Frank Groen↗
NASA NTRS2022

Low-Speed Performance Enhancement Using Localized Active Flow Control: Localized Active Flow Control Simulations on a Reference Aircraft (2/4)

A study of the potential implementations of localized active flow control (AFC) technology onto future airplanes is presented. This collaborative investigation addresses key objectives of the NASA Advanced Air Transport Technology (AATT) Project, in terms of reduction in fuel consumption and lower emission. It specifically targets the goals set forth in a roadmap developed by the NASA/Boeing team. The roadmap is a result of a series of meetings held between the two parties over the years and it represents a shared vision for practical implementations, leading up to flight demonstrations of localized flow control. If successful, localized flow control may lead to important ramifications for next generation airplanes from both the economic and environmental perspectives. Under this contract localized AFC has been used to improve aerodynamic performance during high-lift operations using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). Specifically, AFC has been applied at the aileron and at various location in the wing leading edge (LE) regions. The applications target reduced drag and enhanced lift over the range of practical angles of attack, including stall. These benefits translate to airplane performance improvements, such as longer range or larger payload. The CFD results are used to quantify potential aerodynamic benefits, as well as the input required for actuation. This helps identify the most promising candidates, which potentially provide material net airplane level enhancements using onboard fluidic sources. The airplane configuration selected for the CFD study is a representative of a future short/medium-range twin-engine airplane dubbed the Reference Aircraft. A slew of AFC applications has been explored and their aerodynamic performance enhancements were benchmarked against the baseline Reference Aircraft. Promising AFC candidates have been deemed practical and potentially suitable for both the aileron and the wing LE implementations. The findings on the Reference Aircraft are used to guide the development of the AFC-enhanced aileron for the CRM-HL. The wind-tunnel model of the CRM-HL will be used by NASA to validate the AFC concepts, complementing the CFD-based analysis and the integration study (final report document #3).

CFD↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Applications of Advanced Perception and Distributed Sensing Technology towards Autonomous Advanced Air Mobility Applications

Emerging concepts for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) envisions responsive air transportation capabilities that can safely move people and cargo between places - including local, regional, intraregional, and urban - previously not served or underserved by aviation. Expanding traditional aviation services to these environments, particularly when autonomous operations are involved, face a number of challenges that will require advances beyond the state-of-the-art techniques for airborne sensing and perception, which goes beyond the limits of scalability and applicability of the current air transportation system infrastructure. Additionally, the emerging field of distributed sensing and ‘smart spaces’– where sensing, processing, communication, and actuation are embedded in the environment in which agents are acting and can be exploited by the agents through real-time wireless communication – may provide realistic near-time solutions to limitations imposed by traditional aviation techniques. This paper outlines the needs, challenges, and opportunities for advanced perception and distributed sensing techniques to meet the emerging needs for advanced AAM operations in the national airspace. A general roadmap for research, development, and maturation of perception and distributed sensing (P&DS) technologies is proposed to guide future development through verification, validation, certification into airborne systems. Through this analysis of challenges and the proposed roadmap for technology maturation, we hope to accelerate transition of advanced research techniques from other disciplines into this domain.

Autonomy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Decompression Sickness Risk Mitigation Protocols for Planetary Spaceflight Missions

BACKGROUND: Apollo missions used a 100% O2 cabin atmosphere which effectively eliminated the risk of decompression sickness (DCS) during extravehicular activity (EVA) on the moon. NASA’s future missions to the moon and Mars are expected to use nitrox gas mixtures of up to 34% O2, 66% N2, which will reduce flammability risk compared with Apollo, but will necessitate Oxygen prebreathe prior to EVA to reduce DCS risk to acceptable levels. Prebreathe protocols used on the space shuttle and International Space Station are validated for microgravity EVAs, but the significantly increased risk of DCS during equivalent ambulatory EVAs make these protocols inapplicable to planetary EVA. An “exploration atmosphere” of 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, 66% N2 has been recommended by NASA as a compromise that balances prebreathe duration, hypoxia, and flammability risk, assuming a 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi) spacesuit. However, this atmosphere may not be used for vehicles that do not support frequent EVA, and with commercial providers and international providers expected to provide landers, pressurized rovers, habitats, and spacesuits, different combinations of vehicle and spacesuit atmospheres are possible and will each require validated prebreathe protocols. OVERVIEW: Key components of a multi-year strategic roadmap include: 1) Establish hypobaric chamber facility capable of supporting 8-person EVA prebreathe validation tests at saturation atmospheres up to 36% O2; 2) validate an EVA physical workload simulation for use during prebreathe validation testing; 3) validate the recommended “exploration atmosphere” prebreathe protocol; 4) validate prebreathe protocols for additional atmospheric combinations that bound the most likely potential operating ranges of future vehicles and spacesuits; and 5) update DCS risk estimation models based on results of prebreathe validation studies. DISCUSSION: Details and data from completion of the first two steps of the strategic roadmap will be presented; the third step is currently underway, with pilot results provided in a companion presentation. Steps four and five will require a multi-year series of chamber tests; collaborations are being pursued.

Andrew F. J. Abercromby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Digital Assistance for System Requirement Discovery and Analysis using Machine Learning Natural Language Processing Algorithm

NASA’s Air Traffic Management-Exploration (ATM-X) Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Airspace Subproject is conducting research that evolves UAM airspace towards a highly automated and operationally flexible system of the future (see https://www.nasa.gov/uam-overview/ for more information). The complexity of UAM airspace, and its evolution through a series of transformative epochs, requires a planning tool to effectively organize, integrate, and communicate the research that will guide the evolution of UAM operations in the National Airspace System (NAS). The planning tool, called the UAM airspace research roadmap (or just roadmap), is being developed as a new system engineering methodology leveraging model based system engineering (MBSE) and machine learning natural language processing (ML NLP, or just NLP) capabilities. This presentation gives an overview of the NLP application within this system engineering methodology and will describe how it is being used to meet the ATM-X UAM Airspace Subproject’s overarching research goals.

ATM↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Safety, Reliability, and Mission Assurance Digital Future

The evolution from “document-centric” to “data-centric” and “model-centric” information leveraging structured data and model-based approaches is at the heart of digital engineering transformational efforts underway across industry and government. It is these approaches that pave the way for data lakes, Authoritative Sources of Truth (ASOTs), and systems- of-systems interoperability and the corresponding transformational benefits thereof. Such benefits include increased data availability, data access equity, data traceability, real-time analytics, batch analytics, and (most importantly) acceleration of the time-to-value and time-to-insights associated with engineering products and analyses. The longer-term benefits of reusability, customization and traceability are even more promising. For Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA), and Mission Success (SMS) activities; realization of such benefits is essential to provide engineers and analysts alike vital information when needed to support critical decision making throughout the entire life cycle. The SMA community often operate in parallel with engineering activities, for which information exchange with relevant context is paramount. Far too often, such information lags key decision points and/or is absent of the robust, integrated, knowledge needed, given inherent barriers associated with traditional document-centric means to data sharing, analysis, and reporting. This paper provides an overview of how NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) is evolving its policies, standards, guidance, and training to transform to eliminate such barriers, thus realizing the benefits emerging in this new digital era. A roadmap for achieving this digital future is presented along with key building blocks involving use and implementation of concepts such as: Objectives-Hierarchies, Objective-Driven Requirements, Accepted Standards, Safety and Assurance Cases, data digitization (i.e., ontologies, structured data, and model-centric data), FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, & Reusable) and/or FAIRUST (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable, Understandable, Secure, and Trusted) principles [1]. This paper also describes how OSMA, leveraging the Agency’s overall commitment to Digital Transformation (DT), is using the power of Policy, “Digital” Domain representation, Product Evolution, and Community Outreach and Engagement as part of a strategic vision and roadmap to evolve and transform its SMA organizations to become better able to serve its stakeholders and customers. Future publications will elaborate on these building blocks and deeper concepts.

Authoritative Source of Truth (ASOT),↗
NASA NTRS2023

Ocean Carbon From Space: Current Status and Priorities for the Next Decade

The ocean plays a central role in modulating the Earth’s carbon cycle. Monitoring how the ocean carbon cycle is changing is fundamental to managing climate change. Satellite remote sensing is currently our best tool for viewing the ocean surface globally and systematically, at high spatial and temporal resolutions, and the past few decades have seen an exponential growth in studies utilising satellite data for ocean carbon research. Satellite-based observations must be combined with in-situ observations and models, to obtain a comprehensive view of ocean carbon pools and fluxes. To help prioritise future research in this area, a workshop was organised that assembled leading experts working on the topic, from around the world, including remote-sensing scientists, field scientists and modellers, with the goal to articulate a collective view of the current status of ocean carbon research, identify gaps in knowledge, and formulate a scientific roadmap for the next decade, with an emphasis on evaluating where satellite remote sensing may contribute. A total of 449 scientists and stakeholders participated (with balanced gender representation), from North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. Sessions targeted both inorganic and organic pools of carbon in the ocean, in both dissolved and particulate form, as well as major fluxes of carbon between reservoirs (e.g., primary production) and at interfaces (e.g., air-sea and land–ocean). Extreme events, blue carbon and carbon budgeting were also key topics discussed. Emerging priorities identified include: expanding the networks and quality of in-situ observations; improved satellite retrievals; improved uncertainty quantification; improved understanding of vertical distributions; integration with models; improved techniques to bridge spatial and temporal scales of the different data sources; and improved fundamental understanding of the ocean carbon cycle, and of the interactions among pools of carbon and light. We also report on priorities for the specific pools and fluxes studied, and highlight issues and concerns that arose during discussions, such as the need to consider the environmental impact of satellites or space activities; the role satellites can play in monitoring ocean carbon dioxide removal approaches; economic valuation of the satellite based information; to consider how satellites can contribute to monitoring cycles of other important climatically-relevant compounds and elements; to promote diversity and inclusivity in ocean carbon research; to bring together communities working on different aspects of planetary carbon; maximising use of international bodies; to follow an open science approach; to explore new and innovative ways to remotely monitor ocean carbon; and to harness quantum computing. Overall, this paper provides a comprehensive scientific roadmap for the next decade on how satellite remote sensing could help monitor the ocean carbon cycle, and its links to the other domains, such as terrestrial and atmosphere.

oceanography↗
NASA NTRS2023

Computer Human Interface Challenges in Space Exploration

NASA’s plans to return humans to the Lunar surface require overcoming a variety of challenging technical and operational obstacles. In 2022, NASA formed the Extravehicular Activity (EVA) and Human Surface Mobility (HSM) Program (EHP) at the Johnson Space Center with responsibilities including development of space suits and surface mobility systems for Lunar missions. This program includes a Technology Development and Partnerships office chartered to identify high priority gaps in capabilities for Lunar surface mobility and to coordinate resources to close those gaps. This presentation details the EHP technology roadmap for “Informatics and Decision Support,” a subset of spacecraft avionics focused on effective and autonomous crew interaction with spaceflight systems. The gaps, grouped into displays, audio systems, and information technology infrastructure, are largely driven by the unique interaction requirements for human spacecraft and the severe radiation environments beyond low earth orbit. The roadmap identifies ongoing activities and paths to technology infusion into Lunar spacecraft. NASA is seeking input on the content and ideas for alternative paths to gap closure. Closing these gaps is important to successful human operations on the Lunar surface and vital to NASA’s long-term goal of human missions to Mars.

Spacecraft Displays↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Requirement Discovery Using Embedded Knowledge Graph with ChatGPT

- NASA’s Air Traffic Management-Exploration (ATM-X) Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Airspace Subproject is conducting research that evolves UAM airspace towards a highly automated and operationally flexible system of the future. - (see https://www.nasa.gov/uam-overview/ for more information) - The complexity of UAM airspace, and its evolution through a series of transformative epochs, requires a planning tool to effectively organize, integrate, and communicate the research that will guide the evolution of UAM operations in the National Airspace System (NAS). - The planning tool, called the UAM airspace research roadmap (or just roadmap), is being developed as a new system engineering methodology leveraging model based system engineering (MBSE) and artificial intelligence capabilities. This presentation gives an overview of the Knowledge Graph and ChatGPT applications within this system engineering methodology and will describe how it is being used to meet the ATM-X UAM Airspace Subproject’s overarching research goals.

systems engineering↗
NASA NTRS2023

m:N Working Group Annual Status Report

This document serves as an annual report of m:N Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) subgroup activities, addressed challenges, and roadmaps for the future. The subgroups consist of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS), Large UAS, High Altitude Platform Systems (HAPS), and Urban Air Mobility (UAM). Also included in this report are participant lists for each subgroup (Appendix B) and future roadmap and outreach plans.The subgroups meet in a virtual format multiple times throughout the year. Twice a year, participants from all the subgroups come together as part of the m:N working group to brief each other in person on progress, challenges, and path forward ideas for successful incorporation of UAS into the airspace. Recent m:N in person meetings include: - November 29-30, 2022 at the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, CA - May 9 & 11, 2023 at AUVSI’s Xponential conference in Denver, CO - The next in person working group meeting is planned for November 28-30, 2023 at NASA Langley in Hampton, Virginia The m:N UAS working group is run by Jay Shively (Adaptive Aerospace) and Andy Thurling (Thurling Aero Consulting) and is comprised of members from government, industry, and academia in an effort to identify and reduce barriers to m:N operations. This effort also includes identifying requirements, use cases, and metrics to support organizations and groups including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA’s) SC-228 Detect and Avoid committee.

multi-vehicle↗
DOE OSTI2017

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 2016 Annual Financial Report

FY2016 was a year of significant change and progress at Berkeley Lab. In March, Laboratory Director Michael Witherell assumed his new role when former Lab Director Paul Alivisatos became Vice Chancellor for Research at UC Berkeley. Dr. Witherell has solidified the Lab’s strategy, with a focus on long term science and technology priorities. Large-scale science efforts continued to expand at the Lab, including the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument now heading towards construction, and the LUX-ZEPLIN dark matter detector to be built underground in South Dakota. Another proposed project, the Advanced Light Source-Upgrade, was given preliminary approval and will be the Lab’s largest scientific investment in years. Construction of the Integrative Genomics Building began, and will bring together researchers from the Lab’s Joint Genome Institute, now based in Walnut Creek, and the Systems Biology Knowledgebase (K-Base) under one roof. Investment in the Lab’s infrastructure also continues, informed by the Lab’s Infrastructure Strategic Plan. Another important focus is on developing the next generation of scientists with the talent and diversity needed to sustain Berkeley Lab’s scientific leadership and mission contributions to DOE and the Nation. Berkeley Lab received $897.5M in new FY2016 funding, a 12.5% increase over FY2015, for both programmatic and infrastructure activities. While the Laboratory experienced a substantial increase in funding, it was accompanied by only a modest increase in spending, as areas of growth were partially offset by the completion of several major efforts in FY2015. FY2016 costs were $826.9M, an increase of 1.9% over FY2015. Similar to the prior year, the indirect-funded Operations units worked with generally flat budgets to yield more funding for strategic needs. A key challenge for Berkeley Lab continues to be achieving the best balance to fund essential investments, deliver highly effective operational mission support and remain cost-competitive. Through a comprehensive approach to prioritize competing needs, the Lab ended the year in a favorable financial position. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) played a key role in providing analysis and decision support to Executive Leadership, enabling the Lab to enhance its financial management strategies. In FY2016, the OCFO updated its analytic approaches and models to enhance long term financial projections under various funding and investment scenarios, and to assess total cost of ownership for major proposed investments. These improvements provided the new Lab Director and Senior Leadership with more comprehensive information and analytic support for planning and prioritization efforts. Within the OCFO, we focused on core operations and key initiatives defined in our OCFO Strategic Roadmap. The Lab’s Financial System transitioned from stabilization to optimization, with a focus on expanding the financial reporting capabilities considerably. We completed implementation of the eCommerce platform, achieving a notable outcome for the Lab in close partnership with DOE’s Office of Science. In other accomplishments, we launched a financial literacy program to enable Lab managers and staff to understand and execute their financial management and stewardship responsibilities more effectively; made substantial progress in enhancing our Field Finance model that provides financial support to client divisions and areas; developed a business process governance model to define OCFO business processes, clarify roles, and strengthen service delivery; and implemented a Partners in Leadership training program to build leadership capacity among our staff. We completed a ‘refresh’ of our Strategic Roadmap, which now defines our priorities for FY2017-FY2019. As a part of this effort, we made a subtle but important change to the OCFO mission statement to call out the Lab’s research and stewardship mission to sustain the Lab’s science and technology capabilities now and into the future. Berkeley Lab’s FY2016 progress on all fronts - scientific, operations, and financial management – position the Lab to continue bringing science solutions to the world as we charge into the 21st Century.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2015

High Energy Physics Forum for Computational Excellence: Working Group Reports (I. Applications Software II. Software Libraries and Tools III. Systems)

Computing plays an essential role in all aspects of high energy physics. As computational technology evolves rapidly in new directions, and data throughput and volume continue to follow a steep trend-line, it is important for the HEP community to develop an effective response to a series of expected challenges. In order to help shape the desired response, the HEP Forum for Computational Excellence (HEP-FCE) initiated a roadmap planning activity with two key overlapping drivers -- 1) software effectiveness, and 2) infrastructure and expertise advancement. The HEP-FCE formed three working groups, 1) Applications Software, 2) Software Libraries and Tools, and 3) Systems (including systems software), to provide an overview of the current status of HEP computing and to present findings and opportunities for the desired HEP computational roadmap. The final versions of the reports are combined in this document, and are presented along with introductory material.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2018

Making Progress toward Net Zero Sites in the Army Reserve through Analysis of Multiple Scenarios

The U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) prioritized achieving net zero as part of its Sustainability Program in 2013, and developed a pilot that investigated net zero energy, water, and waste at 10 sites. Pilot sites were selected based on mission requirements for energy and water resilience and the likelihood of achieving the technical and economic thresholds for net zero. USAR owns and operates hundreds of sites that typically consist of between 2 and 10 buildings. The pilot sites were intentionally dispersed across the U.S. and its territories to provide a range of geographic characteristics where the net zero potential could be analyzed and solutions could be developed. For the Army, changes to operations must support the mission and enhance readiness, which includes increasing efficiency and resiliency. To facilitate alignment of project prioritization with different goals and site-specific needs, a net zero roadmap outlined three scenarios for project implementation: (1) cost-effective measures, (2) net zero measures, and (3) recommended measures. Each scenario included the same measures for some sites, while others had three different outcomes. USAR has used these roadmaps to plan and execute projects and move toward net zero at multiple sites since 2014, with the primary focus on the cost-effective and recommended scenarios. As conditions and costs change, additional measures required to achieve net zero are considered. This paper describes the methodology deployed for analyzing net zero for the USAR and discusses the benefits of working toward net zero under three distinct scenarios.

Net Zero↗
DOE OSTI2019

An Overview of the U.S. Department of Energy's GeoVision Report: Preprint

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) engaged in a multiyear research collaboration among national laboratories, industry experts, and academia to identify a vision for growth of the domestic geothermal industry across a range of geothermal energy types. The effort, called the GeoVision analysis, assessed opportunities to expand geothermal energy deployment by improving technologies, reducing costs, and mitigating barriers. The analysis also evaluated the economic and environmental impacts of such deployment - including industry growth, consumer energy prices, water use, and air emissions - and investigated opportunities for desalination, mineral recovery, and hybridization with other energy technologies for greater efficiencies and lower costs. The GeoVision analysis used a suite of modeling tools and scenarios to evaluate the performance of geothermal technologies relative to other energy technologies. The assessment included evaluating the potential role of existing and future geothermal deployment in both the electric sector and the heating and cooling sector. In the electric sector, the GeoVision analysis considered electricity generation from existing conventional (hydrothermal) geothermal resources as well as unconventional geothermal resources, such as enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). In the heating and cooling sector, the analysis modeled geothermal heat pumps (GHPs, also called ground source heat pumps) and district-heating systems using both conventional and EGS resources. The analysis culminated in a summary report, GeoVision: Harnessing the Heat Beneath Our Feet (DOE 2019), as well as eight supporting task force reports (Lowry et al. 2017, Doughty et al. 2018, Wendt et al. 2018, Augustine et al. 2019, Liu et al. 2019, McCabe et al. 2019, Millstein et al. 2019, Young et al. 2019). Among other results, key findings of the analysis indicate that optimized permitting could potentially double geothermal capacity by 2050; technology improvements could increase geothermal power generation nearly 26-fold from today; and increased geothermal deployment can provide economic and environmental benefits to the United States. The analysis also concludes that GHPs can provide heating and cooling solutions to the equivalent of 28 million households and geothermal district-heating systems could experience exponential growth - from 21 installations today to 17,500 nationwide. In addition to summarizing analytical results about geothermal energy opportunities, the report includes a Roadmap of actionable items on which the stakeholder community can engage to achieve the outcomes of the analysis. The GeoVision Roadmap is a comprehensive call to action to encourage and guide stakeholders toward the shared goal of realizing the deployment levels and resulting benefits identified in the GeoVision analysis.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗