SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “virtual field testing”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

151 records · Page 9

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

Coupled Aerodynamic and Hydrodynamic Hybrid Simulation of Floating Offshore Wind Turbines

The development and innovation of floating offshore wind energy in the U.S. requires detailed high-fidelity observations and measurements of turbine and platform loading due to wind, waves, and currents. However, full-scale and quasi-full-scale experiments require significant financial and temporal investments for construction, experimental testing, and long-term field campaigns. To support the commercial advancement of the offshore wind energy industry, specialized wind tunnel and wave basin experimental facilities are critical to be able to test FOWT designs at small scale under controlled conditions prior to full-scale deployment. Oregon State University (OSU) is internationally known as a leader in water and energy research, development, and testing. The O.H. Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory (HWRL) and the Wallace Energy Systems and Renewables Facility (WESRF) at OSU have extensive experience building, modeling, monitoring, controlling, and actuating scaled systems. Experiments on wave-structure interaction have been performed at the HWRL since its establishment in 1972. Studies have included the interaction of waves with coastal structures (breakwaters, seawalls, buildings, cylinders, bridges, fixed foundations of offshore wind turbines, etc.) and with floating structures (e.g., wave energy converters, maneuvering of vessels, etc.). Hinsdale is actively used by marine energy technology developers, both for private testing and OSU-collaborative research projects. However, despite the availability of several large-scale facilities for hydrodynamic testing (at OSU and elsewhere in the U.S.), existing experimental laboratories are generally limited in their ability to accurately generate combined wind and wave conditions. The simulation of both wind and waves in experimental testing is complicated due to a number of constraints, including: [i] incompatible similitude laws governing the wind and waves for scaled experiments, [ii] producing accurate wind over a large enough control volume via fans, and [iii] generating wind that reasonably represents the atmospheric boundary layer in existing wave basins/flumes. Hence, physical test data providing insight into the simultaneous wave- and wind-structure response of floating offshore wind components can be difficult to generate. Given the aforementioned challenges in classic hydrodynamic experiments, the motivation of this project is to establish a real-time hybrid simulation (RTHS) approach that can apply aero- and hydro-dynamic loading by augmenting wave-only experimental facilities with virtual aerodynamic forces through numerical models representing the remaining dynamic forces. RTHS is a physical-numerical approach that partitions a prototype system into physical and numerical sub-assemblies that interact with each other through actuators and sensors in real time. In coupling physical and numerical models, the hybrid simulation approach applied herein is ideal for problems with: (1) structures subjected to different scaling laws, such as floating offshore wind turbines subjected to combined aero/hydro-dynamic loading, (2) structures that are too large or complex to be tested entirely in a laboratory setting, such as deep-water mooring applications, and (3) component testing, where the behavior of a portion of the assembly is uncertain but still interacts with other portions of the structure, such as testing the fatigue life of turbine blades. Few U.S. experimental facilities are able to test simultaneous aero- and hydro-dynamic loading and none can accurately produce aero/hydro-dynamic response on scaled FOWT models due to conflicting similitude laws between the wind (commonly Reynolds) and the waves (commonly Froude). To aid in accelerating the development of the U.S. floating offshore industry, there is a significant need to develop a flexible, modular framework that can expand the capacities of existing wave-only laboratories. The project goal is to demonstrate a hydrodynamic real-time hybrid simulation (hydro-RTHS) framework that couples numerical wind and physical waves acting on a FOWT, thus representing simultaneous aero/hydro-dynamic loading. The FOWT is partitioned into a full-scale numerical sub-assembly associated with the aerodynamics and a model-scale physical sub-assembly associated with the hydrodynamics. The numerical-physical partition associated with hydro-RTHS mitigates scaling constraints by supplying different scaling laws to the physical and numerical sub-assemblies. Herein, length, force, and time are scaled and exchanged between the sub-assemblies using Froude scaling to represent the open-channel flow in the physical sub-assembly. Other similitude laws could also be utilized depending on the problem definition. It is envisioned that the ability to model FOWTs under waves and wind, with mitigation of similitude distortions, would result in reduced development costs (currently, FOWT concept development is performed with full-size pro- totypes at enormous expense and risk) and increase the reliability of the FOWT industry (since extreme wave and wind conditions and contingency events can be tested safely in a controlled environment).

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

NASA NTRS1998

Applying Space Technology to Enhance Control of an Artificial Arm for Children and Adults With Amputations

The first single function myoelectric prosthetic hand was introduced in the 1960's. This hand was controlled by the electric fields generated by muscle contractions in the residual limb of the amputee user. Electrodes and amplifiers, embedded in the prosthetic socket, measured these electric fields across the skin, which increase in amplitude as the individual contracts their muscle. When the myoelectric signal reached a certain threshold amplitude, the control unit activated a motor which opened or closed a hand-like prosthetic terminal device with a pincher grip. Late in the 1990's, little has changed. Most current myoelectric prostheses still operate in this same, single-function way. To better understand the limitations of the current single-function myoelectric hand and the needs of those who use them, The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research (TIRR), sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NUH), surveyed approximately 2,500 individuals with upper limb loss [1]. When asked to identify specific features of their current myoelectric prostheses that needed improvement, the survey respondents overwhelmingly identified the lack of wrist and finger movement, as well as poor control capability. However, simply building a mechanism with individual finger and wrist motion is not enough. In the 1960's and 1970's, engineers built a number of more dexterous prosthetic hands. Unfortunately, these were rejected during clinical trials due to a difficult and distracting control interface. The goal of this project, "Applying Space Technology to Enhance Control of an Artificial Arm for Children and Adults with Amputations," was to lay the foundation for a multi-function, intuitive myoelectric control system which requires no conscious thought to move the hand. We built an extensive myoelectric signal database for six motions from ten amputee volunteers, We also tested a control system based on new artificial intelligence techniques on the data from two of these subjects. This data is available to anyone doing myoelectric control research. Its availability is an important contribution to the prosthetics research community, as many researchers do not have access to amputee subjects. Since we collected myoelectric data from subjects' sound arms as well as their residual arms, this database will also prove useful to virtual reality and robotics researchers who want to explore myoelectric-based interfaces between any user and a machine. Currently, one small company (Intelligenta, Inc.) and one university (University of New Brunswick, Canada) are using this myoelectric database under other funding to develop multifunction control systems for prostheses. A prosthetics manufacturer (Liberty Technology, Inc.) is making plans to incorporate the results of their work into an artificial hand capable of several different movements to provide functionality only dreamed of by current myoelectric users. Methods Six adults and four children, all with unilateral, below-elbow amputations served as subjects. Five of the adults (3 male, 2 female, average age 34 years) had amputations due to traumatic injury, while one adult (female, age 32 years) and the four children (3 male, 1 female, average age 13 years) had congenital (i.e. from birth) limb deficiencies.

Atkins, Diane J.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Additive Manufacturing, Design, Testing, and Fabrication: A Full Engineering Experience at JSC

I worked on several projects this term. While most projects involved additive manufacturing, I was also involved with two design projects, two testing projects, and a fabrication project. The primary mentor for these was Richard Hagen. Secondary mentors were Hai Nguyen, Khadijah Shariff, and fabrication training from James Brown. Overall, my experience at JSC has been successful and what I have learned will continue to help me in my engineering education and profession long after I leave. My 3D printing projects ranged from less than a 1 cubic centimeter to about 1 cubic foot and involved several printers using different printing technologies. It was exciting to become familiar with printing technologies such as industrial grade FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling), the relatively new SLA (Stereolithography), and PolyJet. My primary duty with the FDM printers was to model parts that came in from various sources to print effectively and efficiently. Using methods my mentor taught me and the Stratasys Insight software, I was able to minimize imperfections, hasten build time, improve strength for specific forces (tensile, shear, etc...), and reduce likelihood of a print-failure. Also using FDM, I learned how to repair a part after it was printed. This is done by using a special kind of glue that chemically melts the two faces of plastic parts together to form a fused interface. My first goal with SLA technology was to bring the printer back to operational readiness. In becoming familiar with the Pegasus SLA printer, I researched the leveling, laser settings, and different vats to hold liquid material. With this research, I was successfully able to bring the Pegasus back online and have successfully printed multiple sample parts as well as functional parts. My experience with PolyJet technology has been focused on an understanding of the abilities/limits, costs, and the maintenance for daily use. Still upcoming will be experience with using a composite printer that uses FDM technology to print plastic while laying an internal filament of Kevlar or carbon-fiber inside the printed material. It has been incredible being exposed to this range of technologies and I feel very fortunate to be ready for virtually any kind of printing technology I come across in the future. Design work played a part in my internship this term as well. Working with Hai Nguyen, I was able to design a set of testing tips and a test frame for use with an Arcjet. The testing tips will be made of several different materials that will possibly be used in the heat shield of the Orion space craft. These designs included technical drawings that were presented to the fabrication shop. The frame design was created from 80/20 (a popular brand of frame construction equipment) and included an order form with pricing for fabrication. An independent design was also done for the virtual reality lab. This design was to create a hand-controller based on a previous design. This final design was sent directly to a 3D printer without technical drawings. Overall, my design work has given me experience with using 80/20, helped improve my CAD (Computer Aided Design) proficiency, and increased my knowledge of how to set up technical drawings for fabrication. The final role I have played in this internship has been to assist with testing of the inflatable technology materials working Khadijah Shariff. I began the internship assisting with permeability testing with the initial plan to continue the testing independently after training. Unfortunately, the testing apparatus suffered a technical failure and had funding pulled which cancelled that portion of the project. Further testing with inflatable technology continued with tensile testing of various stitching methods. This testing took place over a two-days and concluded successfully. Final testing was to be more tensile testing but of straps used to connect various inflatable sections. Unfortunately, the needed grips for the tensile tests could not be located and put the testing on hold. It is possible this round of testing will still take place by the end of the internship if the grips can be found. Overall, this portion of the internship has helped me become familiar with one kind of permeability test as well as a popular tensile/compression testing machine. Finally, I also had the chance to be trained using a metal lathe for making very small tips for a soldering iron. These tips will be used to melt threaded brass inserts into 3D printed plastic. Working with James Brown, I was able to successfully machine a brass rod down to as little as 0.064 inches plus or minus 0.001 inches. It was very rewarding to learn how to best use the machine and become familiar with a skill that will undoubtedly be used again in the future. I have been told by several professional engineers that learning to use a lathe and mill will be invaluable skills in the field. This knocks 50 percent of that goal off and I look forward to learning the mill at some point in the future. As is apparent with this list of projects, my internship was not focused on a single over-arching goal. Instead, I was able to gain experience in a myriad of very different areas. I feel like my time here was spent bouncing from one project to the next. Though sometimes difficult to switch gears, it was very rewarding to be a part of so much in so little time. My career and education will be positively impacted by what I have learned at JSC. My experience with 3D printing has improved my ability to handle many issues that may come up in the future with multiple different technologies. The design work I took part in, especially creating technical drawings, will help me better present designs to any engineer or shop I will encounter. My testing experience has helped me become familiar with a popular kind of tensile test machine that will likely be similar to the kinds I will encounter in the future. Finally, my experience with fabrication has given me a rare opportunity, as an engineer, to take part in the fabrication of a part. This experience will help me better tailor my future designs for the manufacturing process and has given me an appreciation for detailed/delicate machining work. My experience at JSC has been successful and will continue to assist me for a long time within the engineering field.

Zusack, Steven↗

NASA NTRS2014

Robonaut 2 - IVA Experiments On-Board ISS and Development Towards EVA Capability

Robonaut 2 (R2) has completed its fixed base activities on-board the ISS and is scheduled to receive its climbing legs in early 2014. In its continuing line of firsts, the R2 torso finished up its on-orbit activities on its stanchion with the manipulation of space blanket materials and performed multiple tasks under teleoperation control by IVA astronauts. The successful completion of these two IVA experiments is a key step in Robonaut's progression towards an EVA capability. Integration with the legs and climbing inside the ISS will provide another important part of the experience that R2 will need prior to performing tasks on the outside of ISS. In support of these on-orbit activities, R2 has been traversing across handrails in simulated zero-g environments and working with EVA tools and equipment on the ground to determine manipulation strategies for an EVA Robonaut. R2 made significant advances in robotic manipulation of deformable materials in space while working with its softgoods task panel. This panel features quarter turn latches that secure a space blanket to the task panel structure. The space blanket covers two cloth cubes that are attached with Velcro to the structure. R2 was able to open and close the latches, pull back the blanket, and remove the cube underneath. R2 simulated cleaning up an EVA worksite as well, by replacing the cube and reattaching the blanket. In order to interact with the softgoods panel, R2 has both autonomously and with a human in the loop identified and localized these deformable objects. Using stereo color cameras, R2 identified characteristic elements on the softgoods panel then extracted the location and orientation of the object in its field of view using stereo disparity and kinematic transforms. R2 used both vision processing and supervisory control to successfully accomplish this important task. Teleoperation is a key capability for Robonaut's effectiveness as an EVA system. To build proficiency, crewmembers have attempted increasingly difficult tasks using R2 inside the Station. After donning motion capture equipment and a virtual reality visor, Expedition 34/35 flight engineer Tom Marshburn began operations with simple hand movements. Having gained confidence, Marshburn guided R2's arms in a leader-follower exercise with crewmate Chris Cassidy. He was also able to use the hand to grab a tumbling roll of tape, a task only demonstrable in microgravity. Later efforts saw Cassidy handle softgoods through shared control with ground operators, mimicking an activity previously achieved using only autonomy. Robotic climbing through the ISS on handrails requires both precision motion and compliant grasps in order to both position grippers on handrails/seat track and prevent large internal forces. R2 climbs using actively controlled compliance and torque limiting to meet both the precision and softness requirements. During a step, the attached leg is controlled to be strong and stiff in order to maintain precision trajectory tracking. The swing leg is controlled to be stiff but weak to minimize unintentional impact forces while maintaining precision. During a simulated dual limb grasp (as shown in Figure 1), the R2 controller maintains one limb rigid and one limb soft to prevent large internal forces from building up. R2's grippers also use a form of force control to limit grip force while not fully closed on either a handrail or seat track thus limiting unintentional forces on cables/objects that may be present in R2's translational path. The on-board torso R2 safety system relies on a single end-effector velocity limit to prevent potential impact forces from exceeding Station maximum load requirements. R2's mobile configuration required modifications to the velocity limiting safety function due to its large, dynamic inertia. R2's legs maneuver the robot's mass creating configuration dependent, joint-relative inertias. A single all-encompassing velocity limit to cover worst case inertia is prohibitively low. The upgraded R2 control and safety systems solve this problem using momentum limiting, momentum control, and kinetic energy minimization. Momentum and kinetic energy take the robot mass into account relieving low velocity restrictions on low inertia end-effectors while ensuring that the overall mass of R2 is limited from hazardous velocities. The momentum of R2's five safety nodes (each of the four end-effectors and the body) is monitored and compared to a single momentum limit. If any of the five nodes exceeds the safety limit, the motor power is removed and the robot comes to a stop. Momentum control/limiting also provides a simple, reliable method to integrate hand held tools into the safety system by providing the tool mass to the control system thus automatically reducing the allowable velocity of the end-effector with the tool. Work on the ground continues to build the skill set for an EVA Robonaut. Recent experiments (Figure 2) demonstrate how a teleoperator can use R2 to manipulate a tether hook, an important safety precaution on spacewalks. Another task displayed Robonaut's ability to pull back a protective jacket over a hose and search for damage, as well as inspect a quick-disconnect fitting for debris. Demonstrations such as these are indicative of EVA work done on ISS, specifically seen during a series of spacewalks over 2012 and 2013 where astronauts searched for an ammonia leak in one of the external cooling loops. Through experiments both on ISS and on the ground, R2 is evolving and providing the information needed to plan out the upgrades that will make an EVA Robonaut an effective tool. With the addition of legs, R2 will start climbing inside the space station and supply invaluable information on how the climbing strategies and task stabilization techniques must be refined. Ground R2 systems will continue to work with additional EVA tools and equipment in preparation for onboard IVA testing and future EVA applications.

Diftler, Myron↗

DOE OSTI2025

MPEX AI Digital Twins

All magnetically confined plasma fusion power plant concepts (Tokamak, Spherical Tokamak, Stellarator, Mirror, ...) must exhaust the heat and plasma from the core confinement region to the material walls. The primary channel for this exhaust is through a plasma divertor which directs plasma along open magnetic field lines to a material target. The Material Plasma Exposure eXperiment (MPEX) illustrated in Figure 1, is a high-power, steady-state linear plasma device designed to produce the plasma material interaction (PMI) conditions of the divertor of future magnetic confinement fusion power plants: energy flux 20MW/m 2 , ion fluence 1031/m 2 , pulse duration 106 sec. These goals of plasma exposure in MPEX are well beyond those achieved in magnetic fusion experimental devices. Successfully achieving these high power steady state conditions for long pulses requires operational control of the heating and particle sources and the plasma flux to the walls and target. The MPEX AI Hot Spot Controller, proposed in this project, will help achieve the operational milestones of MPEX. The MPEX device will begin commissioning at the end of FY26. A smaller proto-MPEX was operated for 14,666 plasma discharges and will resume operation in September of 2025 as proto-MPEX-lite, with reduced capability, to test a new window for the Helicon plasma source. The proto-MPEX data has undergone surrogate modeling with machine learning methods (R. Archibald, 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data). This proto-MPEX data will be used to begin development of the AI digital twins described in this white paper. The scientific mission of MPEX is to qualify materials of different composition for use in the high energy and plasma flux conditions of a fusion power plant. The materials exposed in MPEX will in some cases be exposed to high neutron fluxes at other ORNL facilities to measure the changes to their PMI properties. The targets exposed in MPEX will be transported under vacuum to a Surface Analysis Station (SAS). The SAS will be equipped with the following diagnostics: Focused Ion Beam (FIB) for trench milling, 100-400 angstrom resolution scanning electron microscope (SEM), surface mapping x-ray spectrometer, high resolution camera, and a future upgrade to a laser induced breakdown spectroscopy quadruple mass spectrometer (LIBS-QMS). The MPEX experiments will generate diverse pre- and post-exposure measurement data of detailed material properties down to the crystal grain level in 3D for post-exposure assessment of PMI damage (e.g. cracking, melting, erosion and redeposition of the material). Physics models for the PMI, and how the material composition and manufacturing impact its performance under high energy plasma exposure, need to be validated with MPEX data to guide the selection of new candidate materials. Our vision for the MPEX AI Digital Twins project is to supply experimental and physics model simulation data to train Artificial Intelligence (AI) models for data processing, analysis, operational control, PMI and materials simulation to maximize the scientific output of the MPEX device. Ultimately, an AI digital twin of MPEX material assessment metrics for tested and synthetic material types with simulated PMI will be trained by the AI Modeling Teams on the experimental and physics simulation data submitted to the American Science Cloud by this project. A purely empirical search for the best material is inefficient given the finite number of samples that can be tested on MPEX. In order to expand the material properties database for training the MPEX Material Assessment AI Digital Twin, and to gain physics understanding of the PMI processes, physics models of the material properties and PMI processes are required. The physics simulations provide detailed simulation data, like impact angles for plasma ions, sputtering yields, transport of the ionized sputtered target material in the plasma, and redeposition locations. This simulation data expands the measurement data for deeper physics understanding. The experimental data is essential to validate the PMI and material structure simulation models. The validated models can then be used to generate new simulation data of MPEX material assessments for synthetic material compositions that have not been exposed in MPEX. These predictive simulations, plus the whole experimental dataset, will be used to train the MPEX Material Assessment AI Digital Twin allowing a rapid generative AI search for new materials with reduced PMI damage by interpolating the domain of the training set. These new optimum materials can be simulated with the physics codes and/or tested in MPEX. The ability of AI neural networks to interpolate multi-dimensional parameter spaces and generate virtual data is exploited for a more efficient search for optimum materials. The advent of the Transformational AI Models Consortium (TAIMC) is an opportunity to engage with state of the art private and public AI developers to achieve the goals of the AI digital twins and AI accelerated physics models proposed in this project. Our partners at ORNL from the Advance Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) organization will collaborate in accelerating the integrated plasma material interaction simulation framework. This simulation framework will provide a platform for generating simulation data across a range of physical fidelities, including hybrid methods that produce multi-fidelity results. This data will be leveraged for AI model development, both for generation of surrogates and the automation of simulation campaigns. A part of the research below will include collaborative efforts with the TAIMC to (i) adapt data storage approaches to ensure AI-readiness, (ii) provide a protypical exemplar to inform and exercise constructed workflows, and (iii) generate and share data, using the TAIMC unified AI data standard, for foundational models that will be trained from multiple sources across the DOE complex. We will also collaborate with the TAIMC, as well as the planned AI modeling teams, to develop approaches for reducing the cost of data generation. These include tailored multi-fidelity approaches as well as fine-tuning strategies to augment general, large-scale foundational models.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

NASA NTRS2023

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↗

DOE OSTI2025

Measurement of the Higgs boson mass and width using the four-lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ =13 TeV

A measurement of the Higgs boson mass and width via its decay to two 𝑍 bosons is presented. Proton-proton collision data collected by the CMS experiment, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb −1 at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, is used. The invariant mass distribution of four leptons in the on-shell Higgs boson decay is used to measure its mass and constrain its width. This yields the most precise single measurement of the Higgs boson mass to date, 125.04 ± 0.12 GeV, and an upper limit on the width Γ 𝐻 < 330 MeV at 95% confidence level. A combination of the on- and off-shell Higgs boson production decaying to four leptons is used to determine the Higgs boson width, assuming that no new virtual particles affect the production, a premise that is tested by adding new heavy particles in the gluon fusion loop model. This result is combined with a previous CMS analysis of the off-shell Higgs boson production with decay to two leptons and two neutrinos, giving a measured Higgs boson width of 3.0$^{+2.0}_{−1.5}$ MeV, in agreement with the standard model prediction of 4.1 MeV. The strength of the off-shell Higgs boson production is also reported. The scenario of no off-shell Higgs boson production is excluded at a confidence level corresponding to 3.8 standard deviations.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗