Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “partnership outcomes”

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.

96 records · Page 6

Medical Data Architecture (MDA) Project Status

The Medical Data Architecture (MDA) project supports the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) risk to minimize or reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes and decrements in performance due to in-flight medical capabilities on human exploration missions. To mitigate this risk, the ExMC MDA project addresses the technical limitations identified in ExMC Gap Med 07: We do not have the capability to comprehensively process medically-relevant information to support medical operations during exploration missions. This gap identifies that the current in-flight medical data management includes a combination of data collection and distribution methods that are minimally integrated with on-board medical devices and systems. Furthermore, there are a variety of data sources and methods of data collection. For an exploration mission, the seamless management of such data will enable a more medically autonomous crew than the current paradigm. The medical system requirements are being developed in parallel with the exploration mission architecture and vehicle design. ExMC has recognized that in order to make informed decisions about a medical data architecture framework, current methods for medical data management must not only be understood, but an architecture must also be identified that provides the crew with actionable insight to medical conditions. This medical data architecture will provide the necessary functionality to address the challenges of executing a self-contained medical system that approaches crew health care delivery without assistance from ground support. Hence, the products supported by current prototype development will directly inform exploration medical system requirements.In fiscal year 2018, the MDA project developed Test Bed 2, the second iteration in a series of prototypes with functionality focused on data security through role-based access control and encryption, integration with One Portal exercise software and ingestion of an ultrasound Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) file and image display. Test Bed 2 advances the medical data system architecture framework by providing these functionalities in a scalable system that maintained a layered, modular design. The architecture framework uses a data services approach with role-based access to data in a customized medical record system suitable for space exploration. These functionalities were demonstrated as part of the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) ground test demonstrated at the NASA Johnson Space Center Integrated Power, Avionics and Software (iPAS) facility. Interfacing to a Core Flight Software (CFS) system, the MDA system, using Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) protocol, transferred an exercise file from the simulated flight MDA system to a mirrored MDA system on the ground through the CFS system. The selection of data sources and demonstrations enabled the team to address stakeholder concerns throughout the development process. In the next iteration, the MDA team will work with stakeholders to identify additional relevant functionalities to further advance system data models, standards and principles that will inform the medical system requirements development.

medical data architecture↗

Demonstrating the Operational Value of Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) Retrieved Profiles in the Pre-Convective Environment

The Short-term Prediction Research and Transition Center (SPoRT) is a collaborative partnership between NASA and operational forecasting partners, including a number of National Weather Service offices. SPoRT provides real-time NASA products and capabilities to its partners to address specific operational forecast challenges. One operational forecast challenge is forecasting convective weather in data-void regions such as large bodies of water (e.g. Gulf of Mexico). To address this forecast challenge, SPoRT produces a twice-daily three-dimensional analysis that blends a model first-guess from the Advanced Research Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF-ARW) model with retrieved profiles from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) -- a hyperspectral sounding instrument aboard NASA's Aqua satellite that provides temperature and moisture profiles of the atmosphere. AIRS profiles are unique in that they give a three dimensional view of the atmosphere that is not available through the current rawinsonde network. AIRS has two overpass swaths across North America each day, one valid in the 0700-0900 UTC timeframe and the other in the 1900-2100 UTC timeframe. This is helpful because the rawinsonde network only has data from 0000 UTC and 1200 UTC at specific land-based locations. Comparing the AIRS analysis product with control analyses that include no AIRS data demonstrates the value of the retrieved profiles to situational awareness for the pre-convective (and convective) environment. In an attempt to verify that the AIRS analysis was a good representation of the vertical structure of the atmosphere, both the AIRS and control analyses are compared to a Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) analysis used by operational forecasters. Using guidance from operational forecasters, convective available potential energy (CAPE) was determined to be a vital variable in making convective forecasts and is used herein to demonstrate the utility of the AIRS profiles in changing the vertical thermodynamic structure of the atmosphere in the pre-convective and convective environment. CAPE is an important metric because of it is a quantitative measure of atmospheric stability, which is necessary information when forecasting for convective weather. Case studies from the summer of 2010 were examined, and most impact from the AIRS retrieved profiles occurred over the data-void Gulf of Mexico with fields of convective potential closer to the RUC than the CNTL. Mixed results were found when AIRS retrieved profiles were used over land, so more cases need to be examined to determine whether AIRS would be an effective tool over land. Additional analyses of problematic convective forecasts over the Gulf Coast will be needed to determine the operational impact of AIRS. SPoRT eventually plans to transition the AIRS product to select Weather Forecast Office (WFO) partners, pending the outcome of these additional analyses.

Kozlowski, Danielle M.↗

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↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

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

Bruce Yost↗

Findings on Subtask 3.1 - Bakken Rich Gas Enhanced Oil Recovery Project

Total in-place oil for the Bakken petroleum system (BPS) (which includes the Bakken and Three Forks Formations) has been estimated to be 600 billion barrels (bbl). However, BPS wells have decline rates as high as 85% over the first 3 years of their lives, and primary recovery factors typically range from 3% to 10% of original oil in place. Given the low initial recovery rates, even small incremental productivity improvements could dramatically increase technically recoverable oil in the BPS. One potential solution is enhanced oil recovery (EOR) using gas injection, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) or hydrocarbon (HC) gases. While commonly used in conventional reservoirs, CO2 EOR in unconventional tight oil reservoirs has been limited to pilot tests. EOR using rich gas (mixture of methane, ethane, and propane) has also been employed in numerous pilots in several unconventional plays and has recently been successfully applied in the Eagle Ford play. If successful, large-scale gas-based EOR in the BPS could dramatically increase oil productivity and recovery factors and extend the life of the play for decades. While CO2 may be a technically suitable working fluid for EOR in the BPS, supplies are limited and costs for using CO2 in EOR pilots are prohibitively high. Meanwhile, produced gas flaring has presented challenges for BPS operators in North Dakota. Analysis conducted by the North Dakota Pipeline Authority indicates that the current gas-gathering infrastructure in North Dakota is insufficient to accommodate all of the associated gas that is produced from the BPS. The geographically isolated location of North Dakota relative to large natural gas markets, combined with suppressed natural gas prices, has made it economically challenging for industry to invest capital in expanding gas-gathering infrastructure in the state. These circumstances led to a research program conducted by the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) in partnership with Liberty Resources Management Company LLC (LR) to examine the potential to use rich gas injection for EOR and mitigate flaring. A rich gas EOR pilot test was designed and executed by LR at its Stomping Horse development area in Williams County, North Dakota. From July 2018 through May 2019, a total of 160 million standard cubic feet (MMscf) of rich produced gas was injected into the BPS using five different wells in a sequential injection strategy. LR’s Leon–Gohrick drill spacing unit (DSU) was used as the test site. Regulatory oversight was provided by the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC). Technical support was provided by the EERC through a series of laboratory, modeling, and field-based activities, and additional post-pilot research activities incorporated learnings from the test, developed new laboratory data, improved fracture modeling methods, and developed machine learning and big data analytics. The results from the Stomping Horse rich gas EOR pilot activities indicate that developing an effective, economical EOR approach for the BPS will require more field tests. Another key lesson learned from the Stomping Horse tests is that detailed pre- and posttest data on reservoir conditions and fluids production are essential. Robust reservoir characterization provides information that is crucial to creating realistic geomodels and conducting valid dynamic simulations of potential EOR scenarios. A detailed understanding of the completions and production history of offset wells is also necessary for valid test result interpretations. This knowledge is essential to designing the operational parameters of injectivity tests and interpreting the results. A conformance control strategy is also essential to success. Laboratory-based examinations of rich gas interactions with reservoir fluids and rocks were conducted, with an emphasis on determining the ability to mobilize oil in the tight reservoir rocks and shales of the BPS. Injection fluid composition was shown to have a positive impact on reducing reservoir oil minimum miscibility pressure (MMP), reducing interfacial tension (IFT), and altering wettability. IFT and contact angle measurements demonstrated that wettability can be altered in the presence of rich gas, suggesting the potential to improve oil recovery. Iterative modeling of surface infrastructure and reservoir performance using data generated by the various project activities was conducted. A geologic model of the Stomping Horse area was built; history-matched oil, gas, and water production was used in simulations of various EOR scenarios. Early programmatic modeling results were used to support LR’s design and operation of the EOR pilot and to provide insight regarding optimization of future commercial-scale BPS EOR design and operations. Post-pilot modeling focused on alternative methods of understanding complex fracture networks and accelerating simulation time. These led to improved simulation run times and provide excellent history-matching results. Several of these iterative models were used as the bases for developing algorithms into machine learning and big data analytics. History matching in reservoir simulation is time-consuming and computer processing-intensive. Machine learning algorithms were created, and an automated history-matching tool was developed. A large set of synthetic reservoir simulations were created to generate well responses (oil, gas, and water production, well bottomhole pressure [BHP], and tracer or propane breakthrough) for a set of EOR operating parameters that included offset well status (open or closed), injectate (rich gas or propane), injection rate, and injection well BHP. A user interface was developed to provide real-time visualization. Machine learning-based models were developed to provide rapid forecasting of well performance given a set of user-defined EOR operating parameters. These predictive models allow the user to modify the offset well status, injection rate, and injection well BHP and rapidly forecast future production performance. The combination of real-time visualization tools with real-time forecasting tools provides a framework for real-time control—operational changes that the EOR site operator can enact (e.g., changing gas injection rates) to affect the observed performance and potentially improve the EOR outcome. There is great reason to be optimistic about the future of EOR in the Bakken. The results of the laboratory studies suggest significant potential for high rates of oil mobilization using produced field gas injection under the right conditions. The results of the lab studies, combined with rigorous statistical analysis of well production data and associated modeling efforts, confirm the notion that fluid mobility within the reservoir is controlled by fractures. As more knowledge is gained about the nature and distribution of fracture networks in the Bakken, the industry will be in a better position to predict and, ultimately, influence fluid mobility. New field tests are necessary to develop a more complete understanding of those conditions. Thoughtful and creatively engineered field tests within a well-characterized geologic setting will yield the fundamental knowledge needed to take Bakken oil production to the next level. This subtask was cofunded through the EERC–U.S. Department of Energy Joint Program on Research and Development for Fossil Energy-Related Resources Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FE0024233. Nonfederal funding was provided by the North Dakota Industrial Commission’s Oil and Gas Research Program and Computer Modelling Group.

04 OIL SHALES AND TAR SANDS↗

Innovating the next generation of commercial smart building software

Nearly 30% of commercial building energy use is wasted due to equipment faults and HVAC controls problems. The result is increased emissions, compromised comfort and productivity, and less reliable coordination of building power needs with a clean grid. The energy impact alone represents $17 billion in potential savings. Today’s smart building software provides a robust solution to address these operational deficiencies. Energy management and information systems (EMIS) are saving up to 9% on average, with two-year paybacks. They are being incorporated into energy management processes, commissioning services, and utility programs. As effective as they are, two barriers prevent even deeper benefits; limited personnel to fix problems once they are identified, and the expense and time to manually implement changes in control systems. In partnership with the research community, the EMIS industry is developing new capabilities to overcome these barriers. Moving beyond siloed products for either fault detection and diagnostics, or optimal control, these new capabilities empower users to not only automatically identify faults, but also to push corrective action, and control improvements to their buildings. In this paper, several areas for enhancements are documented: ‘one-time’ correction of faults such as setpoints, schedules, and economizer lockouts; short-term active testing for automated proportional integral derivative (PID) loop tuning and functional testing; and continuous supervisory control for demand flexibility and year-round efficiency. Results are presented from a pair of partner implementations out of a dozen providers integrating these enhancements into their products, including field tests from across the country, and insights into operator acceptance and integration into operations and maintenance practices.

Casillas, Armando↗