ME 406 Lecture 10: How to Write a Winning Whitepaper/Concept Proposal | HYdrogen Properties for Energy Research (HYPER) Laboratory

Although full research proposals can range from 30-100+ pages in length, the federal funding rate of proposals is less than 10%. Most federal agencies and companies will request concept proposals, a.k.a. whitepapers, to minimize lost time by quickly evaluating concepts to invite for full proposal submission. If each company and organization has a different rubric for evaluating white papers, is it silly to invent a standard format? It turns out that the age-old five paragraph pursuasive essay (a.k.a. the ‘hamburger’ essay, or ‘3-tier’ essay) tends to be a solid place to start. Our process for experimental design naturally maps to these five paragraphs in the form of 1. Introduction, 2. Background, 3. Theory, 4. Experiment, and 5. Summary. From here, it’s easy to quickly adapt the introductory and summary paragraphs to specific agencies/audiences while the body of work remains mostly the same. Let’s break it down paragraph by paragraph.

The Introduction: Creating Anticipation

Did you know that 30% of reviewers make a decision about a proposal after reading the first sentence? While I just made that number up, most reviewers are trying to sort your concept proposal as quickly as possible into either Red — No Way, Yellow — Have to think, or Green — Definitely. The first sentence may be the only one in the entire document that a reviewer is guaranteed to read. The longer they remain unsure about your proposal, the longer they have to spend energy paying attention. You need to use your heaviest hit right out of the gate. Use the rules for engineering communication to hit your audience where it matters most. You know you’re getting close when the opening sentence gives you pause — now hit them with the opportunity to fill a gap in the understanding that led to the opening statistic:

Example: Cryogenic propellant settling contributes approximately 20 % to launch expense and may be completely unnecessary [Brown 2015].

One tool I enjoy is the use of suspense/tension building words like however and although:

Now present your novel idea, hypothesis, or insight:

A good hypothesis follows the if-this-then-that progression. The best hypotheses advance the field regardless of the result. Now show your audience how you are uniquely qualified and/or capable of filling the gap in understanding and solving the problem.

Example: Cryogenic propellant settling contributes approximately 20 % to launch expense and may be completely unnecessary [Brown 2015]. Although NASA investigated thin film polymers to eliminate the problem of propellant settling, the bladders exhibited considerable leakage at cryogenic temperatures [Larson 1968]. If this measurement can be repeated, then permeation through thin films at cryogenic temperatures was the cause, and a new class of cryogenic separation technology can be realized. If the measurement was erroneous, cryogenic fuel bladders may now be possible. WSU is uniquely capable of completing this measurement via a new cryogenic permeation system with a calibrated mass spectrometer [Leachman 2025].

Close the introductory paragraph with a convincing argument for why now is the time for this study.

Notice that we’re near ~5 sentences for this opening paragraph. The format is exactly the same as that for abstracts we used previously. Short concept papers often do not have time for summaries or abstracts. So the opening paragraph functions in a similar way. Each sentence corresponds to one of the five paragraphs of the concept paper, each paragraph corresponds to one of the five sections of a research paper, and each section corresponds to one of the five chapters of a thesis or dissertation.

Background: Shedding new light

If you’ve done your job right, your concept proposal reviewer is asking themselves, “How could someone have missed this?” Now is your chance to teach the lay of the research landscape and how there is a gap (or dark area) in the available literature or understanding that allows the opening problem to persist. If you’re lucky, there is a recently completed literature review, or a seminal research publication in a related space that has already done most of the heavy lifting for you. If not, you may have to cite a considerable number of papers and write your own survey of the literature (here are a few examples of mine: my first publication, and a later one).

Now that we’ve shown what is in the research on the exact topic, one approach is to show how something is in the way or holding back progress.

With the problem in the knowledge basis now established, let’s list the articles supporting and refuting the hypothesis.

Example: NASA’s original effort to develop cryogenic fuel bladders ended shortly after high permeation was discovered. The article has been referenced just five times, and no follow-up studies have repeated the measurements. The leading textbook on liquid acquisition devices for cryogenic propellants completely omitted bladders as a concept [Hartwig 2018]. However, fuel bladders are the preferred liquid acquisition device for non-cryogenic spacecraft [Myers 2005]. One explanation for the high permeability observed by NASA is that the type of experiment used for the measurement is subject to leakage, which could contribute to erroneous results [Larson 1972]. On the contrary, quantum tunneling of hydrogen at cryogenic temperatures is another possible explanation for the increased permeability of cryogenic fuel bladders, but has never been documented within the temperature range of interest near 50 K [Johnson and Barry 1999, Willard and Wormsley 2007].

Now that we’ve covered the literature, now is the time to attack the gap we’ve identified in the background literature. One approach is to state the hypothesis/theory for why this could be happening now. But in this example we’ve already used the hypothesis in the opening paragraph and wouldn’t want to repeat it. So we’ll close by segwaying to what is needed next.

By now, the suspense of the situation should be palpable — we’ve created enough mystery and intrigue for someone to know that the results will be interesting to our community. Let’s get busy in showing how we’ll solve the puzzle!

Theory: A window for what is possible

Trust me, there is insufficient room within a concept proposal for extensive theoretical derivations. Your challenge here is to use the simplest theories, think back of the envelope calculations, to establish limits on what is possible. Knowing these limits is essential to showing whether your follow on experiment can provide a decent coverage of the possible solution space. In other words, if your experiment can only cover 2% of the range that something could occur, or the result will be within the sensitivity of the measurement, what are the odds of finding what you’re looking for?

Now show the key governing equation and define the terms with units (in base SI of course).

Now state the limit or bounds that this equation creates on the problem.

Now state the sensitive variable that deserves further study.

Example: One explanation for the increase leakage is the increasing thermal de Broglie wavelength of the hydrogen molecules at cryogenic temperatures. The thermal de Broglie wavelength is only a function of temperature, which determines the momentum of particles. [Show equation] where T is the temperature in Kelvin, m is the molecular mass in amu, and Na is Avogadro’s number. The equation shows that the thermal de Broglie wavelength only approaches a nanometer in scale below 10 K for free molecules. The presence of other molecular energy wells could overlap with the de Broglie wavelength and increase transport along a surface or through a material, leading to a need to experimentally investigate this effect at elevated temperatures (<100 K).

The stage is now set for the experiment!

Experiment: The work that we will do

This section could describe the experiment, or even an in-depth theoretical analysis involving multiple parameterized studies. Regardless, it will be complicated and a lot of work. Start by orienting ourselves with a map, visual, or reference to a prior in-depth development publication.

Now detail the process by which the experiment is operated or ran to produce a measurement.

Now describe the data that is collected and any post-processing that is necessary.

Example: The HYPER laboratory has recently developed a new cryogenic permeability test facility that utilizes a calibrated mass-spectrometer to measure leakage through materials at unprecedented sensitivity. In-depth details of the experiment have been recently published [Leachman et al. 2024]. Samples are sealed in the test chamber with an indium o-ring, preventing leakage from bypassing the specimen as the only option is escaping to the surrounding vacuum where it is detected. The calibrated leak detector provides the permeation in units of Pa-m^3/s, and the temperature and pressures on either side of the specimen are recorded via a LabView Data Acquisition System. No other post-processing of the information is required.

Finish everything off by giving us an idea for how much data we should expect based on how long each measurement takes.

Now we’re setup to close everything off with the summary.

Summary: Anticipated results and return on investment

Save the best for last and leave us wanting more. Open with a reminder of what we’re doing.

Example: HYPER is prepared to revolutionize in-space propellant management by realizing the first cryogenic fuel bladders.

Review, in reverse order, the key takeaways from each of the prior paragraphs.

Example: HYPER is prepared to revolutionize in-space propellant management by realizing the first cryogenic fuel bladders. The 15 measurements we will provide from a first-of-its-kind experiment will provide unprecedented sensitivities for permeation through thin polymer materials at cryogenic conditions. These results will inform theoretical analysis of hydrogen permeation through constrained materials at cryogenic temperatures and resolve a long-standing problem in the field of whether permeation increases at cryogenic conditions.

Now hit us with the return on investment.

Close by thanking the reviewers (who are typically volunteering their time) for their efforts to support our community.

From the top!

Cryogenic propellant settling contributes approximately 20 % to launch expense and may be completely unnecessary [Brown 2015]. Although NASA investigated thin film polymers to eliminate the problem of propellant settling, the bladders exhibited considerable leakage at cryogenic temperatures [Larson 1968]. If this measurement can be repeated, then permeation through thin films at cryogenic temperatures was the cause, and a new class of cryogenic separation technology can be realized. If the measurement was erroneous, cryogenic fuel bladders may now be possible. WSU is uniquely capable of completing this measurement via a new cryogenic permeation system with a calibrated mass spectrometer [Leachman 2025]. The upcoming Artemis missions are a narrow window of opportunity to reduce mission risk by approximately 10% while reducing cost by adopting cryogenic fuel bladders enabled by this research.

NASA’s original effort to develop cryogenic fuel bladders ended shortly after high permeation was discovered. The article has been referenced just five times, and no follow-up studies have repeated the measurements. The leading textbook on liquid acquisition devices for cryogenic propellants completely omitted bladders as a concept [Hartwig 2018]. However, fuel bladders are the preferred liquid acquisition device for non-cryogenic spacecraft [Myers 2005]. One explanation for the high permeability observed by NASA is that the type of experiment used for the measurement is subject to leakage, which could contribute to erroneous results [Larson 1972]. On the contrary, quantum tunneling of hydrogen at cryogenic temperatures is another possible explanation for the increased permeability of cryogenic fuel bladders, but has never been documented within the temperature range of interest near 50 K [Johnson and Barry 1999, Willard and Wormsley 2007]. Although fundamental theory shows that quantum tunneling may be possible in the range of interest, erroneous leakage will require an experimental analysis.

One explanation for the increase leakage is the increasing thermal de Broglie wavelength of the hydrogen molecules at cryogenic temperatures. The thermal de Broglie wavelength is only a function of temperature, which determines the momentum of particles. [Show equation] where T is the temperature in Kelvin, m is the molecular mass in amu, and Na is Avogadro’s number. The equation shows that the thermal de Broglie wavelength only approaches a nanometer in scale below 10 K for free molecules. The presence of other molecular energy wells could overlap with the de Broglie wavelength and increase transport along a surface or through a material, leading to a need to experimentally investigate this effect at elevated temperatures (<100 K).

The HYPER laboratory has recently developed a new cryogenic permeability test facility that utilizes a calibrated mass-spectrometer to measure leakage through materials at unprecedented sensitivity. In-depth details of the experiment have been recently published [Leachman et al. 2024]. Samples are sealed in the test chamber with an indium o-ring, preventing leakage from bypassing the specimen as the only option is escaping to the surrounding vacuum where it is detected. The calibrated leak detector provides the permeation in units of Pa-m^3/s, and the temperature and pressures on either side of the specimen are recorded via a LabView Data Acquisition System. No other post-processing of the information is required. The total time per measurement is approximately 72 hours, allowing for 15 measurements to be completed, three measurements per set temperature (20 K, 77 K, 100 K, 200 K, 300 K) during the time allotted for this test campaign.

HYPER is prepared to revolutionize in-space propellant management by realizing the first cryogenic fuel bladders. The 15 measurements we will provide from a first-of-its-kind experiment will provide unprecedented sensitivities for permeation through thin polymer materials at cryogenic conditions. These results will inform theoretical analysis of hydrogen permeation through constrained materials at cryogenic temperatures and resolve a long-standing problem in the field of whether permeation increases at cryogenic conditions. The money saved from eliminating propellant settling maneuvers will pay for this entire study on the very first Artemis mission. Thank you for your consideration and efforts to sustain our community!