Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Operations coordination plan”

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.

978 records · Page 55

Proceedings of the 2021 Airborne Wind Energy Workshop

On March 2-3, 2021, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) conducted a virtual workshop to evaluate the status, potential development, and technical viability of AWE systems as a source of energy in the United States. Stakeholder input provided at the workshop will contribute to the report to Congress. This report summarizes key workshop findings, current technology research and development activities in the United States, and opportunities and potential modes of collaboration and coordination for future technology research and development activities. The workshop focused on U.S. stakeholders in AWE, with approximately 100 experts and industry stakeholders from AWE technology developers, operators, engineering firms, consultants, government, national laboratories, and university researchers. The workshop began with an explanation from DOE's Wind Energy Technologies Office (WETO) Technology Manager, Ben Hallissy, of the context and purpose of the workshop, including a request from Congress that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) deliver a "report on the potential for, and technical viability of, airborne wind energy systems to provide a significant source of energy in the United States, including a summary of research, development, demonstration, and commercialization needs, including an estimate of Federal funding requirements, to further examine and validate the technical and economic viability of airborne wind energy concepts over the 10-year period." The workshop began with brief introductions from attendees who explained their interest in AWE. Nicolas El Hayek of Planair summarized the proceedings from the AWE workshop held in September 2020 by the International Energy Agency (IEA) Wind Task 11. This was followed by a presentation by Roland Schmehl of TU-Delft summarizing European AWE R&D efforts. Chris Vermillion of North Carolina State University and Jason Jonkman of NREL presented an overview of U.S. R&D efforts. Then five panelists discussed AWE markets, sizes of AWE systems, challenges, and opportunities. Panelists included: Cristina Archer, professor at the College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment and associate director at the Center for Research in Wind (CReW) at the University of Delaware; Stephan Brabeck, chief technology officer at SkySails; Thierry Delahave, innovation and technology development lead at Saipem; Rob Creighton, founder and chief executive officer at WindLift; and David Schaefer, founder and chief executive officer at eWind Solutions. The second day of the workshop began with a brief overview of five key topics that are crucial to enabling AWE in the United States. These topics range from estimates of the U.S. wind resource, technical generation potential, economic analysis, environmental challenges, status of current technology and R&D activities, and needed activities to enable commercialization of AWE. This set the stage for a robust discussion in breakout groups where individuals could offer their opinions on the potential opportunities for AWE in the United States. The following topics were discussed in the breakout groups: resource potential and energy output, technical potential, social and environmental impacts, and permitting, techno-economic analysis and markets, technology assessment and upscaling and demonstration and commercialization needs. The second day concluded with reports by the NREL research team, communicating the key themes and outcomes from each of the breakout group discussions.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

Field Test: Results of Tandem Walk Performance Following Long-Duration Spaceflight

BACKGROUND: Coordinated locomotion has proven to be challenging for many astronauts following long duration spaceflight. As NASA's vision for spaceflight points toward interplanetary travel, we must prepare for unassisted landings, where crewmembers may need to perform mission critical tasks within minutes of landing. Thus, it is vital to develop a knowledge base from which operational guidelines can be written that define when astronauts can be expected to safely perform certain tasks. Data obtained during the Field Test experiment (FT) will add important insight to this knowledge base. Specifically, we aim to develop a recovery timeline of functional sensorimotor performance during the first 24 hours and several days after landing. METHODS: FT is an ongoing study of 30 long-duration ISS crewmembers. Thus far, 9 have completed the full FT (5 U.S. Orbital Segment [USOS] astronauts and 4 Russian cosmonauts) and 4 more consented and launching within the next year. This is in addition to the eighteen crewmembers that participated in the pilot FT (11 USOS and 7 Russian crewmembers). The FT is conducted three times preflight and three times during the first 24 hours after landing. All crewmembers were tested in Kazakhstan in either the medical tent at the Soyuz landing site (~one hour post-landing), or at the airport (~four hours post-landing). The USOS crewmembers were also tested at the refueling stop (~12 hours post-landing) and at the NASA Johnson Space Center (~24 hours post-landing) and a final session 7 days post-landing. Crewmembers are instrumented with 9 inertial measurement unit sensors that measure acceleration and angular displacement (APDM's Emerald Sensors) and foot pressure-sensing insoles that measure force, acceleration, and center of pressure (Moticon GmbH, Munich, Germany) along with heart rate and blood pressure recording instrumentation. The FT consists of 12 tasks, but here we will focus on the most challenging task, the Tandem Walk, which was also performed as part of pilot FT. To perform the Tandem Walk, subjects begin with their feet together, their arms crossed at their chest and eyes closed. When ready, they brought one foot forward and touched the heel of their foot to their toe, repeating with the other foot, and continuing for about 10 steps. Three trials were collected with the eyes closed and a fourth trial was collected with eyes open. There are four metrics which are used to determine the performance level of the Tandem Walk. The first is percent correct steps. For a step to be counted as correct, the foot could not touch the ground while bringing it forward (no side stepping), eyes must stay closed during the eyes closed trials, the heel and toe should be touching, or almost touching (no large gaps) and there shouldn't be more than a three second pause between steps. Three judges score each step and the median of the three scores is kept. The second metric is the average step speed, or the number of steps/time to complete them. Thirdly, the root mean squared (RMS) error in the resultant trunk acceleration is used to determine the amount of upper body instability observed during the task. Finally, the RMS error of the mediolateral center of pressure as measured by the Moticon insoles is used to determine the mediolateral instability at the foot level. These four parameters are combined into a new overall Tandem Walk Parameter. RESULTS: Preliminary results show that crewmembers perform the Tandem Walk significantly worse the first 24 hours after landing as compared to their baseline performance. We find that each of the four performance metrics is significantly worse immediately after landing. We will present the results of tandem walk performance during the FT thus far. We will also combine these with the 18 crewmembers that participated in the pilot FT, concentrating on the level of performance and recovery rate. CONCLUSION: The Tandem Walk data collected as part of the FT experiment will provide invaluable information on the performance capabilities of astronauts during the first 24 hours after returning from long-duration spaceflight that can be used in planning future Mars, or other deep-space missions with unassisted landings. FT will determine the average sensorimotor recovery timeline and inform return-to-duty guidelines for unassisted landings.

Rosenberg, M. J. F.↗

Basic Energy Sciences Roundtable: Foundational Science to Accelerate Nuclear Energy Innovation

Energy security, availability, and reliability are among the greatest challenges facing the nation and the planet. An abundant potential source of energy resides in the fundamental atomic building blocks of the universe in the form of nuclear fission and fusion reactions. In fact, energy from nuclear fission currently provides the majority of the world’s zero-carbon electricity, and future fusion energy systems offer great promise; carbon-free nuclear energy technologies can be key to the world’s decarbonized energy future. Although contemporary fission systems use well-established technologies to supply safe and efficient baseload power, they could be more fuel efficient and less costly. Moving beyond massive light-water fission reactors to a variety of advanced nuclear systems—which will vary in size and operate in extremes of temperature, corrosivity, and other parameters—will place stringent conditions on materials and chemical systems. New demands will be placed on the coolants and solvents, the materials, and the monitoring tools used in these reactors. Fusion-based nuclear energy will require superior materials to withstand extremely high temperatures, plasma exposure, radiation damage, and implanted gases. The advantages associated with these new fission and fusion technologies will be realized only through continued advancements in the fundamental science underpinning our knowledge of the physics and chemistry of nuclear systems gained via improved experimental and computational methods. In July 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences—in coordination with the Offices of Nuclear Energy, Fusion Energy Sciences, and Advanced Scientific Computing Research—held a virtual roundtable titled “Foundational Science to Accelerate Nuclear Energy Innovation” to discuss the scientific and technical barriers for advanced nuclear energy systems. Five priority research opportunities were identified to address these scientific and technical challenges and to accelerate progress toward the realization of next-generation fusion and fission energy systems. The foundational science gaps inhibiting the advancement of nuclear energy technologies are identified and tackled in five priority research opportunities. These opportunities pave the way to accelerate the development and ultimately the adoption of new nuclear energy systems. They include the fundamental aspects of ion-electron interactions; novel properties of next-generation coolants and solvents; interfacial dynamics, not only in solids, but in other aspects of nuclear reactors; novel operando and in situ monitoring and sensing; and artificial intelligence to accelerate condensed phases discovery. Building on the foundation established by previous Basic Energy Sciences workshops, these opportunities encompass recent advances in fundamental knowledge and focus on the experimental and computational methods needed to resolve major technical challenges for nuclear energy technologies. Through developing fundamental scientific insight as well as pushing the frontiers of modeling complex systems and probing the operation of materials and chemical systems in extreme environments, research motivated by the priorities identified here will further develop the promise, potential, and utilization of nuclear energy for a clean energy future.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

A Notional Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ArLSEP) based on the Gandalf Staff Platform

Introduction: The Artemis program is planning to deliver crew and cargo to the lunar surface, but there is no current package for supporting lunar in-struments and experiments similar to the Apollo Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ALSEP). This abstract provides a possible concept for such a package using the Gandalf Staff Platform as a common core. Gandalf Staff: The Gandalf Staff is an early prototype system developed over FY’21/FY’22 using NASA Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Center Information Fund (CIF) grants to de-sign, build and test “proof-of-concept” components. These components include a 24v battery powered monopole that powers a suite of subsystems, including a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for crew, surface voice and data communications, Lunar Search and Rescue (LunaSAR) navigation and communications, LiDAR, field site external lighting, 360-degree camera, and a geothermal instrument for measuring sub-surface temperature gradient. The staff can be carried independently by an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) astronaut, or can be mounted into a tripod for “hands free” support at a surface site being investigated. The staff can be attached to an external solar array and power storage system for long-duration operations. [1,2] ALSEP: An ASLEP flew on each mission Apollo 12 to Apollo 17. For Apollo 11, a simplified packaged called the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Pack-age (EASEP) was flown. Each package included a “Central Station” that provided the power and communications connected to a variety of instruments and sensors. The power was provided by a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) fueled by Plutoni-um-238 generating 70 watts of power (initially, decayed over time) [3]. The communications system provide for direct to Earth data transfer from the lunar surface. Each pack-age was stowed externally in the Lunar Module (LM) Scientific Equipment (SEQ) bay with a mass up to 163 kg (Apollo 17). The crew unloaded the ALSEP from the LM and deployed the instruments on the lunar surface. Although designed to operate for only 1 year, many sites operated for up to 8 years successfully [4]. The Active Seismic Experiment (ASE) included 3 geophones for detecting seismic waves created by mortars and thumpers deployed by the crew. Other active experiments measured the lunar atmosphere, the heat flow in the subsurface, the lunar gravity and potential gravity waves, the lunar magnetic field, the solar wind and plasma interactions in cislunar space. Passive experiments included collectors for dust and cosmic rays, and retroreflectors for precise measurements of distance using a laser from Earth. The ALSEP program continues to generate insights into lunar formation and evolution. ArLSEP Concepts: The lunar surface science package for the Artemis program will hopefully exceed the capability of the ALSEP. There are multiple issues for discussion leading to the design of a new ArLSEP, needing requirements definition from the science community, NASA mission architecture, and NASA budget planners. 1. Delivery Mechanism Two possible projects currently provide capability to deliver scientific cargo to the lunar surface: 1) the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) [5] and the Human Landing System (HLS) [6, 7]. Each project is controlled by a different organization within NASA and budgeted with different criteria although both support lunar exploration. The HLS system delivers crew (and potentially cargo) to human landing sites. If an ArLSEP is “predeployed” to such a site, the design must include power (either from the vehicle or independently) to keep the electronics functioning until deployed by the crew. If an ArLSEP is delivered on a vehicle after the crew is present on the lunar surface, safety protocols require adequate distance from the humans for impact from descent propelled sur-face regolith ejecta. This distance can not exceed the capability of the crew to walk (if no rover) to the vehicle for ArLSEP deployment. 2. Overall Guidelines The general design of ArLSEP will likely follow the ALSEP with a common system for communications and power; however, significant architecture differences between Apollo and Artemis exist. Power: The RTG will not be available for early Artemis missions nor likely follow-on Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) missions [8]. Thus, ArLSEP power must be supplied by solar arrays with sufficient battery capability to “keep alive” necessary electronics during any lunar surface eclipse period. Communication: The Artemis program is developing a series of communications satellites for lunar orbit to provide surface transmission of data and voice to Earth. Called “LunaNET”, this network is component useful for ArLSEP since south polar locations may not always have direct “line-of-sight” to Earth [9]. 3. Concept of Operations (ConOps) The general ConOps for ArLSEP is to deliver the package to lunar surface before the crew arrives, and then have the crew deploy the package after some period of time. This requires coordinated design (for power systems) and launch window (for schedule) on both the cargo and crew missions. Once the ArLSEP is deployed, it will operate autonomously for a number of years. It should be designed to be EVA compatible for crew maintenance and upgrade. 4. Notional Design (for discussion purpose only) The landing site near the South Pole is expected to have no eclipse cycle exceeding 5 days, so the “keep alive” power is 144 hours (6 days to include margin). A 12v ArLSEP will use rechargeable LiFePO4 cells, which are common in the Electric Vehicle (EV) industry. With a current of 5 amps and a 125 watt system, the mass is about 90kg. The comm. system and structure adds another 10kg, thus the “Central Station” is approximately 100kg. The solar power is collected on four arrays (each 2m above the surface), and the entire ArLSEP is designed to stow in a 2m x 1m x 1m volume. The experiment and instrument design will vary for each installation and add mass to the total (although they are expected to fit within the 2m3 volume). Seismic wave generation will likely not be provided with mortars, thus an electric “thumper” will be required. Active instruments such as imaging systems and sensing instruments will benefit from the additional power and communication capability provided by ArLSEP. Passive systems such as retroreflectors, witness plates, and cosmic dust collectors can be added to either the landing vehicle and/or the ArLSEP. With repeated HLS missions to the same human site, the ArLSEP can be expanded and easily maintained for long duration science collection on the lunar surface.

ALSEP↗

Commercial Building Technology Demonstration (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The background for this project was a unique and innovative concept that had been proposed and demonstrated by enVerid Systems, reducing the energy consumption in HVAC systems in commercial and public buildings by up to 50% at peak loads. The concept involves selective scrubbing of gas contaminants from indoor air as a practical substitute for outside air ventilation, the latter being the conventional practice today. This scrubbing enables recycling of most of the indoor air and significantly decreasing the amount of outside air, resulting in a reduced HVAC load and commensurate energy savings for the facility. Key to our approach is low cost scrubbing of all gas contaminants from indoor air using novel, efficient and regenerable sorbent materials. The total solution, labeled HLR (HVAC Load Reduction) is implemented by means of compact modules that can be retrofitted onto virtually any building, and utilizes novel sorbents that have been developed and brought to scale production by enVerid. Although the technology had been deployed and demonstrated, the US commercial building and HVAC markets, famously conservative with respect to innovation and new technologies, had yet to embrace the idea or the product. The overarching goal of the project was to help overcome market hesitancy and enable widespread adoption, by creating a critical mass of success stories across different regions and building types, all under oversight and verification of the DOE and NREL, to ensure credibility and accuracy. The project, overall, was a resounding success. Several installations were deployed and tested comprehensively for the impact on both energy consumption and indoor air quality, and results were not only excellent, but quantitatively in line with expectations. A total number of eight (8) installations were attempted, with 2 aborted due to building issues. Of the six successful installations, however, complete M&V was performed by NREL on 2 (Miami and NYC) and partial analysis on a third site (ArcBest), and these three, along with their results, were therefore presented from a financial and reporting standpoint. Although the number of case studies fell short of the original target of 10, we nevertheless had excellent demonstrations in vastly different climate zones: Southeast, Northeast and Midwest, and in very different building types. This included a modern high-rise office building in New York City and a University Campus health center in Miami, and a mid-rise high-density office in Arkansas. The cooling load reduction was shown to be significant, averaging 37% during the final cooling season in the Miami site. In the NYC site, the cooling energy savings were generally less, at around 12%, as expected. While this is a lower number for average/total savings, two comments are important to note: (i) the outside airflow (OA) reduction was not consistent during the data collection period, at least in part understating the attainable savings through incorrect measurement of the “high energy” reference state; and (ii) the peak impact in NYC is almost certainly as high as Miami, with critical ramifications for peak load reduction and equipment downsizing ability. Importantly, the measured energy savings in all locations were related to the outdoor climate conditions and the actual achievable reduction in outside air, very much in line with models and calculations; this leaves us with increased confidence in our understanding of the interaction between the technology and the building, and our ability to project the impact of this innovation in the future, through broad adoption. Simply put: the energy savings and load reduction impact of the HLR solution has been confirmed quantitatively. The results also confirmed the air quality objective. This may be even more significant, in that air quality is more complex and harder to measure and quantify, and the performance of the HLR as an air scrubber is the linchpin of the entire solution. In all sites, indoor air quality met or exceeded the required parameters, in terms of achieving the target (low) levels of indoor pollutants. Furthermore, the concentrations of outdoor sourced pollutants were markedly lower, as expected, mostly due to the reduction in outside air intake although in part also due to the scrubbing. The success was not immediate nor easy, and early challenges with the systems, especially (but not only) around controls and communication, caused delays in commissioning and undermined some of our M&V schedules. The good news is no fundamental issues were encountered and the number of such glitches was declining quickly by the end of the project. Other challenges had to do with coordinating the control of the building OA dampers, which the HLR needs to have in order to deliver the load reduction, but which the facility manager controls regularly and independently. This is not necessarily a problem for normal HLR operation but interferes with accurate M&V, where switching OA settings back and forth on a precise timetable is essential for clean data. The project provided valuable experience in retrofitting buildings that had been originally designed to operate with less recirculation and more outside air, and some key learnings related to the cyclical regeneration of the sorbents in the operational environment of the building. Some of these learnings gave already been incorporated into ongoing improvements in the design of the HLR module as well as the software that is used to control its operation. The cost and time of retrofit installations is much better understood; so is the test and balance procedure of the building that determines the available range of outside air reduction, which in turn determines the amount of load reduced. We had also implemented at least one annual cycle of sorbent cartridge replacement in the field, after which we tested the used sorbent to assess the rate of degradation of sorbent potency – an important factor affecting the long-term economics of HLR deployments. A notable shortfall of the project, other than the fact that the number of sites was below target, was that we had not (yet) completed testing to measure and verify (M&V) the winter energy savings. This is primarily due to late start on the NYC sites (Miami does not portend any heating savings associated with reduced outside air), combined with the issues of OA damper control. It is by no means suggested that such savings cannot be captured, only that the M&V with respect to winter in NYC has been incomplete. The value of this project and its interest to the general public are hard to overstate. The case studies created from Miami and especially from NYC have, without a doubt, opened up the interest of the broad HVAC industry to HLR in the past year. Major manufacturer reps have signed up to represent and promote the product, and dozens of top tier engineering consultants have introduced HLR as a base of design in upcoming construction and renovation projects – precisely the overarching goal of this project. These would not have happened without the highly visible installation in NYC and its ultimately satisfied customer. Furthermore, the DOE itself issued a report in late 2017 analyzing hundreds of candidate technologies for reducing energy consumption in HVAC; remarkably, the budding HLR solution ranked among the top 3(!); no doubt, its status as a viable and significant contender on this list is informed by the success of these demonstrations. And furthermore, in the wake of these demos, several major energy utilities, led by ConEdison in NYC, have endorsed the HLR solution and now routinely provide substantial cash rebates for customers choosing to incorporate the HLR in their buildings and reap the benefit of the reduced peak load as well as reduced cumulative energy demand. Last but not least, in January of 2019, as this report was being written, the HLR module won the AHR Expo Innovation Award for Green Buildings and, remarkably, the prestigious and only Product of the Year 2019, being selected by an independent professional panel of judges from AHR and ASHRAE. Given the confirmation of the enormous energy saving potential of HLR in widescale deployment, as well as ancillary but significant benefits in terms of equipment downsizing and indoor air quality, the benefit of this effort to the public speaks for itself. Accelerating adoption of HLR, without dependence on subsidies and driven by the private sector, is well under way. There is still much work to be done in terms of educating the HVAC and construction ecosystems and improving the product’s robustness and simplicity, to further facilitate the adoption of this technology and the capture of its potential value. But the American public will greatly benefit both directly and indirectly in the immediate future and beyond.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Overview of NASA ISRU Plans, Priorites, and Activities

Introduction:The National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA) of the United States ofAmerica (US) has initiated the Artemis Moon to Marsprogram to send astronauts (the first woman andperson of color) back to the lunar surface, create asustainable human lunar exploration program, andlead the first human exploration mission to the Marssurface in the 2030’s [1]. A major objective of thisprogram is to characterize the resources that exist onthe Moon and Mars, and learn how to utilize them forsustained and affordable exploration. Commonlyknown as In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), thesearch for, acquisition, and processing of resources inspace has the potential to greatly reduce thedependency on transporting mission consumables andinfrastructure from Earth, thereby reducing missioncosts, risks, and dependency on Earth.ISRU is Enabling: Through the extraction andprocessing of resources into mission commoditiessuch as rocket propellants, life support consumables,and fuel cell reactants, ISRU enhances and evolvesthe cis-lunar, lander, and surface transportationsystems required for human exploration; expandingand enhancing HOW humans can explore and returnfrom the Moon. Through the extraction andprocessing of resources into metals, silicon, and othermanufacturing and construction feedstock, ISRUenhances and allows for the expansion of criticalinfrastructure using in situ manufacturing andconstruction capabilities that influence WHAT humanscan do on the Moon and in cis-lunar space. Becauseof this, ISRU supports and enables commercialinvolvement beyond NASA and governmentalagencies by both lowering the cost of sustainedtransportation to/from/on the Moon as well assupporting the market required for needing thesetransportation systems. Strategic Framework:To achieve this vision,NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate(STMD) ensures the coordinated development ofISRU and other critical space and surfaceinfrastructure elements such as propulsion, power,manufacturing, construction, and robotics through theStrategic Technology Architecture Roundtable(STAR) process. Through STAR, an integratedframework and process has been created allowing forcapabilities and technologies to be linked andassessed, gaps to be identified, specifications andmetrics to be established, and provide a means toprioritize and implement technology development andmissions. A critical part of the STAR effort has beenthe establishment of the Strategic Framework thatorganizes all work under four major Thrusts (Go,Land, Live, and Explore) and identifies the drivingOutcomes for each of these Thrusts. From the Thrustsand Outcomes, all work can be categorized and linkedbetween Capability Areas, and Technology Gaps canbe identified and addressed (Figure 1.)Figure 1. Strategic Framework and STAR FrameworkISRU Envisioned Future: To drive thedevelopment of technologies and capabilities, theSTAR process starts with establishing a ‘grand vision’of where each Outcome and Capability is aiming tobe considered complete. For ISRU, the EnvisionedFuture is “Scalable ISRU production/utilizationcapabilities including sustainable commodities on thelunar and Mars Surface”. This involves starting with10’s of metric tons of products, but evolves into 100’sto 1000’s of metric tons of water, oxygen, propellants,construction and manufacturing feedstock, andcommodities for habitat and food production andoperations. For ISRU, the ‘Prospect to Product’philosophy starts with Destination Reconnaissance &Resource Assessment, followed by ResourceAcquisition, Isolation, and Preparation, leading intoResource Processing (which is further subdivided intomission consumables and feedstocks for constructionand manufacturing). The ISRU Envisioned Futurealso considers what resources are available andattempts to address what and when these resourceswill be evaluated and harnessed, as well asconsidering which products/commodities can beobtained for early use and which ones require moretime and/or users of refined products.It Takes an Architecture: ISRU does not existon its own. By definition, it requires customers/users SHORT TITLE HERE: A. B. Author and C. D. Authorto use the products/commodities produced by ISRUsystems. Also, for an ISRU capability to exist, itmust obtain products and services from other systemsand infrastructure. An important aspect of the STARprocess and the ISRU Envisioned Futures Prioritiesstrategy is to identify and link all of these systems andcapabilities to achieve the desired end state (Figure2).Figure 2. ISRU as Part of a Larger ArchitectureISRU Capability Drivers: The guidingprinciples for NASA’s Space TechnologyDevelopment for Artemis are to develop criticaltechnologies and capabilities that enable (i) asustainable Lunar surface presence, (ii) the future goalof sending humans to Mars, and (iii) promotingcritical technologies to enable future science andcommercial missions. It is a major goal of theArtemis campaign to establish some sort of base campat the lunar South Pole by approximately the end ofthe decade. The ISRU Envisioned Futures Prioritiesstrategy is aligned with the Artemis campaign todevelop and demonstrate ISRU capabilities in thistimeframe that could lead to sustained surfaceoperations, infrastructure growth, and commercialoperations in the next decade (Figure 3).Figure 3. ISRU Dual Path to Full Implementation and CommercializationState of the Art and Gaps: To achieve theenvisioned future, an extensive effort was performedto understand the State of the Art (SOA) for ISRUgoing back decades, and to assess the SOA against thenear and long-term goals and objectives of the ISRUStrategic Outcome objectives. While the releasedISRU Envisioned Futures Priorities only includes atop-level definition of both the SOA and Gaps, furtherinformation on these for ISRU can be found in theISRU Gap Assessment Study performed for theInternational Space Exploration Coordination Group(ISECG) [2]. To provide further guidance to industryand academia, a top level assessment was performedand provide that divides critical areas of ISRUcapabilities and technologies into 3 categories:Significant Funding, Partially Covered/MoreRequired, and Limited/No Funded Activities.Envisioned Future Priorities- Next Steps forISRU: While a significant amount of work over abroad range of technology areas has been performedover the last several years for lunar ISRU, to reach theenvisioned future for ISRU, a lot more work isrequired at the technology level leading to bothsystems and technology demonstrations in the nearfuture. To guide investments within NASA, industry,and academia, 5 specific areas of high priority wereidentified. These are:1.Complete development of the Water and Oxygen Mining Paths and close technology gaps, with emphasis on oxygen extraction from Highland regolith and parallel paths for polar water mining.2.Expand development of metal extraction and feedstock for manufacturing and construction, with emphasis on aluminum and initial/easy to obtain/make construction feedstocks leading to more refined metals and other regolith resources. Also, evaluate biologically inspired/derived technologies in bio-mining, bio-plastic, and other feedstock commodities.3.Ensure the resource assessment needed for future ISRU commercial operations is coordinated with both near/long-term science objectives as well as Artemis mission locations of interest.4.Initiate NASA and industry-led system-level analyses, integration, and testing activities for ISRU capabilities. While significant work has been performed at the technology and subsystemlevel, it is now important to understand how these technology investments can be leveraged and utilized in actual systems and applications5.Initiate lunar ISRU technology flight demonstrations leading to initial ‘Pilot Plant’ end-to-end production capability demonstrations, led by industry

ISRU↗