The Mobility Space Race: 7 Surprising Truths About LH2

1. Anthropocene Effects and Liquid Hydrogen Solutions

The climate data for 2023 was a wake-up call for the planet: global surface temperatures spiked to 1.18°C above the 20th-century average—the highest since records began in 1850. In this warming world, the transportation sector presents a daunting challenge; its carbon dioxide emissions have nearly tripled since 1970, now reaching almost 8 gigatonnes annually. We no longer have the luxury of merely reducing our footprint; we must eliminate it.

Enter liquid hydrogen (LH2). Imagine a future of silent, soot-free skies and shipping lanes where the only exhaust is a crystalline mist of water. LH2 is not a fringe experiment or an unproven fuel of the future. It is a seasoned, space-proven technology entering its second act. This cryogenic liquid is uniquely poised to decarbonize the heavy-lifters of our global economy—from long-haul trucking to transcontinental aviation—transforming how we move goods and ourselves across the globe.

2. It’s Not New Technology—It’s Space-Age Heritage

While many view hydrogen as an emerging tech, it actually carries a deep space-age pedigree. Liquid hydrogen has been in continuous large-scale use for over six decades. The timeline is remarkable: from the first gas turbines in the 1930s to the 1950s flight demonstrations of the Martin B-57 Canberra, and finally becoming the lifeblood of the 1960s Apollo program.

NASA’s experience with the Centaur upper stage and the Saturn rocket stages wasn't just about reaching the moon; it was about mastering the most energy-dense fuel in the universe. Today, we aren't testing the basic physics of LH2—we are simply optimizing the systems for terrestrial costs. This heritage provides a unique safety and infrastructure foundation that other green technologies simply do not have.

"Since LH2 has been continuously used in the space sector for nearly six decades, all the necessary systems and supply chains for large-scale LH2 production, delivery, storage, fueling, and launch vehicle consumption are well established."*

3. The End of the Legacy Fuel Model

The transition to LH2 signals the end of the legacy fuel model. For a century, we have relied on a rigid chain where fuel is extracted in one corner of the world, refined in another, and shipped to a third for use. LH2 enables a decentralized energy node concept.

Because hydrogen can be produced via water electrolysis using renewable microgrids and modular liquefiers, fuel can be generated on-demand at the point of use, such as an airport or a remote trucking hub. We are even seeing the prospect of geologic hydrogen—naturally occurring hydrogen created by subterranean catalytic reactions in iron deposits.

4. The Weight vs. Volume Tug-of-War

Liquid hydrogen presents a counter-intuitive physical profile that makes it the "holy grail" for heavy-duty mobility. By mass (gravimetric density), LH2 packs nearly three times the energy of fossil fuels. However, by volume, it holds less than 25% of the energy content of gasoline.

In the world of logistics, mass equals revenue. For a long-haul truck or a cargo plane, every kilogram of battery weight is a kilogram of lost payload. Because LH2 is so light, it allows these vehicles to maintain high payload capacities and long ranges that battery-electric systems cannot match. While the low volumetric density means tanks must be larger, the trade-off favors the heavy-lifters: planes can fly further and trucks can carry more goods, making the physics of LH2 a direct driver of economic viability.

5. The "Thermos Tank" Revolution

Storing a liquid at -253°C (-423°F) requires high performance insulation. Traditional metal tanks aren't enough; vacuum-jacketed (double-wall) dewar construction is required for most applications. This functions as a super-insulator, utilizing advanced materials like mulitlayer insulation (MLI), aerogels, perlite, or other suitable insulation options within an evacuated space to reduce heat transfer.

To make LH2 viable for the long haul, we distinguish between two critical thermal management strategies:

• Passive Methods (e.g., conduction-optimized structures and MLI to reflect radiant heat).
• Active Methods: (e.g., cryocoolers and cryo-refrigeration to maintain the liquid state indefinitely).

Perfecting these strategies is the key to minimizing boil-off—the costly loss of fuel as it warms.

6. Safety is a Matter of Physics, Not Perception

Public perception of hydrogen is often anchored in myth, but the physics of the molecule tell a different story. Unlike gasoline, which pools on the ground and creates a lingering fire hazard, gaseous hydrogen has a 20 m/s rise rate. If a leak occurs, the fuel dissipates almost instantly into the upper atmosphere.

Hydrogen also has an auto-ignition temperature of 585°C—higher than natural gas. When it does burn, it produces no smoke or soot, eliminating the inhalation risks common in hydrocarbon fires. While the flame is invisible in daylight and requires infrared sensors for detection, its low radiant energy means it is less likely to cause heat damage to surrounding structures than a petrol fire.

"Education and awareness of safe hydrogen usage over time is needed to achieve public and market acceptance."*

7. The Decade of Deployment

We are standing at the threshold of a tiered deployment. In the near-term (0–5 years), we will see LH2 increasingly used for buses, rail, and marine vessels. The medium-term (5–10 years) will bring commercial commuter aircraft and drones into the fold. Beyond 10 years, LH2 will integrate into the long-range aviation sector, supported by a global footprint of renewable energy hubs.

As we chase the "1-1-1" goal—$1 for 1 kg of clean hydrogen in one decade—we are leveraging machine learning and generative AI to optimize every step of the supply chain. The question is no longer if hydrogen will power our world, but how quickly we can scale. Are we ready to trade the convenience of the traditional gas pump for a fuel system that finally matches the scale of our climate challenge?

* "Decarbonizing Mobility with Liquid Hydrogen", Moran, et al., SAE, 2024.

[This blog post was originally drafted by Google's AI-enabled NotebookLM using only content from the footnoted source. It did require some editing for clarity, formatting, and other minor issues such as a peculiar overuse of "air quotes". 

Nevertheless, it represents a noteworthy capability for several reasons that currently plague other AI options: hallucinations are mitigated by constraining the sources; the content can remain private to the user and not used for training; chatbot prompts can be used to explore the sources; and various "studio tools" can be applied.

The studio tools include auto-generated mind maps, podcasts, videos, articles (like the draft of this post), flashcards, quizzes, infographics, slide decks, and data tables. Up to 50 content sources can be contained in a single notebook with the free version enabling integrated exploration of a chosen topic. Paid versions allow hundreds of sources.

What to do with all these rapidly advancing AI tools? Misusing or overusing them is a problem both online and within organizations. But ignoring their utility or refusing to explore how they add value is a losing proposition. 

Personally, I plan to continue experimenting with how AI might help us accelerate the deployment of hydrogen systems. If that's of interest to you, visit the www.h2sage.com site and click on the request email updates button.]

Author Bio

Matt Moran is the Managing Member at Moran Innovation LLC, and previous Managing Partner at Isotherm Energy. He's been developing power and propulsion systems for more than 40 years; and first-of-a-kind gas, slush, and liquid hydrogen systems since the mid-1980s. Matt was also the Sector Manager for Energy & Materials in his final position at NASA where he worked for 31 years. He's been a cofounder in seven technology-based startups; and provided R&D, engineering, and innovation consulting to several hundred organizations. Matt has three patents and more than 50 publications including his online Cryogenic Fluid Management guide and Decarbonizing Mobility with Liquid Hydrogen SAE report. He has created and taught liquid hydrogen courses, webinars, and workshops to global audiences.

Armchair Rocketeers and Their Hydrogen Misconceptions

Artemis II mission SLS rocket "wet dress rehearsal" testing (photo credit: NASA/Sam Lott)

Liquid hydrogen (LH2) related news this week saw heavy coverage on the Artemis II mission fueling tests that NASA performed on the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. Called a wet dress rehearsal, these tests involve loading the SLS with LH2 and liquid oxygen (LOx) on the launch pad to check out various systems and operations before clearing the rocket for launch.

NASA reported some hydrogen leaks that they are troubleshooting, which of course is one of the key reasons for a wet dress rehearsal. This has resulted in a rescheduled launch target in March. It's worth noting that SLS has only flown one other time and these types of fixable issues are extremely common in new launch vehicles.

Nonetheless, armchair rocketeers in traditional and social media have predictably jumped into the fray. The authors often have some combination of lack of any relevant competence; vested interests threatened by hydrogen; and/or are drawn to the siren call of easy clickbait. Below are a few facts to help filter out the noise from unqualified critics.

Workhorse Fuels for Heavy Launch Vehicles

There are many parameters to consider in the propulsion trade studies performed for any given rocket stage. Program and mission architectures, economic and technical assumptions and constraints, system requirements, concept of operations, flight heritage, supply chains, and a host of other considerations all come into play.

Two workhorse fuels that have been widely and successfully used for heavy launch vehicles are kerosene and LH2. These fuels are generally coupled with LOx as the oxidizer resulting in "kerolox" or "hydrolox" rocket propulsion systems. Other solid, liquid, and hybrid fuels are used for boosters and various stages, but none are more ubiquitous than kerosene and hydrogen. 

Some examples of rocket stages using hydrogen that have successfully launched large payloads and astronauts on over 500 missions over the past six decades include:

• NASA Apollo Saturn rocket (second and third stages)
• Centaur upper stage (atop Atlas, Titan, and Vulcan* first stages)
• NASA Space Shuttle (external tank)
• ESA Ariane 5 and now 6 rockets (both core stages)
• ULA Delta IV M+/Heavy (both core stages)
• NASA SLS rocket (both core stages)
• China Long March rockets (various configurations and stages)
• JAXA H3 rocket (both core stages)
• Blue Origin New Glenn* rocket (upper stage)
• ISRO LVM 3 and next generation rockets (upper stages)

The reason LH2 has been used (and continues to be used) for so long on so many rockets from so many countries is quite simple. It delivers the highest specific impulse among practical rocket fuel options and has provided decades of reliable and safe operations**.

Liquid Methane (LCH4) is Not Inherently Better

Methalox (LCH4 and LOx) heavy launch vehicle stages are still relatively new despite many years of testing at NASA going back to the 1960s. So far, there have been only three successful orbital launches with rockets fueled by liquid methane: Landspace ZQ-2 in 2023 (Chinese), SpaceX Starship in 2024 (US), and Blue Origin New Glenn first stage in 2025 (US)*. While the ongoing development and demonstration of these vehicles is impressive, it's a very limited number of launches so far compared to other rocket fuels.

In regards to safety, methane and hydrogen have many similar risks and associated mitigations. Hydrogen has never been the root cause of a NASA launch failure. And the use of methane instead of hydrogen would not have prevented any of the failures that did occur. But methane has been the root cause of several failures of launch vehicles under development, including some caused by leaks.

It's also worth noting that methane is a 25 times more powerful greenhouse gas over one hundred years than carbon dioxide (CO2), and much worse in shorter timeframes. As a result, while methalox propulsion may be lower capex and opex for a clean sheet vehicle design with a high launch cadence, the extrinsic cost to the global community of any methane releases to the air are high and very long lasting.

Finally, if a mission architecture requires in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) to produce more fuel on the moon or Mars, hydrogen can be generated by melting ice deposits followed by electrolysis. In contrast, methane requires all of that since hydrogen is a necessary feedstock, plus processing the hydrogen with a source of carbon to produce methane (e.g., Sabatier process with CO2 and H2). In the case of the moon, that requires bringing the carbon along or collecting a great deal of astronaut respiration over a long time.

Despite all of the above - and the significantly lower specific impulse of methalox vs hydrolox propulsion - there are a gaggle of armchair rocketeers who start writing about the demise of hydrogen and how it should be replaced by methane every time there is a hiccup with a hydrolox rocket stage. This is nonsense.

The Problem with Umbilicals

The only association most people have with umbilicals is the biological kind that allows vital fluids to pass between a mother and her fetus. At birth, the mammalian umbilical is severed and the remaining stump dries up and falls off leaving a sealed useless belly button to wash (and perhaps get a piercing in).

Launch vehicle fluid umbilicals are another matter. They must be easily mated, flexible, tightly seal, allow very large flowrates, de-mate on command, and retract away from the vehicle for launch. And do all of that repeatably, reliably, and automated at very low allowable leakage rates. No other cryogenic fluid interface outside of the aerospace and defense sector has to deal with these kinds requirements.

As a result, rocket umbilicals can (and sometimes do) leak regardless of the fluid being used. The question is how much is too much, and how to stay below that threshold via design and operational procedures. And when you're dealing with a human rated vehicle, the stakes are too high to take any chances when sensors indicate you might be at or over the allowable leakage limit during testing. Failing fast and iterating is not an acceptable option when lives are at stake.

Hydrogen Will Take Us to the Moon Again

Minimizing loss of life risks must take precedence over launch schedules, external pressure, or the "optics" of poor media coverage. NASA has learned and relearned this painful lesson three times in its history: Apollo I (1967), Challenger (1986), and Columbia (2003). We must never forget the ultimate sacrifice of those astronauts. 

Artemis II will launch when it's ready. And all the noise from this week's news and social media coverage will be immediately forgotten as we send humans around the moon again for the first time since the Apollo program.

Leveraging AI for Hydrogen Projects

[After the last newsletter, received some great feedback and questions from several readers about the article on assessing AI for a hydrogen microgrid project. To provide some additional context and details, this post is a scrubbed version of the AI section of my final report for the project. Hopefully it's of some interest to others who may be charting these waters.]

AI Overview

AI methodologies mindmap (image credit: Dr. Milan Milanovic)

There are a wide range of AI methodologies as illustrated above. Some of these AI types have been under development for many years (e.g., expert systems, speech recognition, game playing, etc.).

Impressive advances have been achieved in deep learning neural networks methods, particularly those using large language models (LLM) that incorporate enormous amounts of public domain data from the internet and other sources for training the model (e.g., AI chatbots). AI chatbots produce human-like responses based on user prompts.

Small language models (SLM) were also initially considered early in the project but ultimately not used. SLMs require identifying and labeling selected source data for training by subject matter experts. Since published codes and standards are copyrighted, there are unresolved issues about how to use SLM-based models without infringing on the associated intellectual property rights.

The most widely available and heavily used general purpose LLM-based AI chatbots in mid-2024 included OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, and Microsoft’s Copilot. As of early 2026, Anthropic Claude and Perplexity have now become top ranked general purpose options as well.

The interim report in mid-2024 contained responses and assessments of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot relevant to hydrogen system safety. Since Copilot incorporates OpenAI models and is now more commonly used within the Microsoft ecosystem of products, it was not included in the most recent assessment.

 

Limitations and Constraints

 

There are a variety of limitations and constraints to keep in mind when using AI chatbots, including: prompts, responses, data sources, accuracy, and pace of evolution.

The responses from AI chatbots are highly influenced by the wording of the prompt provided by the user (aka, “prompt engineering”). Contextual information and perspective in the prompt helps to refine the response. Responses also change based on the conversation thread, timing of the prompt, and other parameters.

LLM models are trained with massive amounts of data available from the internet and other potential undisclosed sources. Confidential or proprietary data is not accessible unless provided by the user in an uploaded document or via app usage permissions. Most hydrogen codes and standards represent unresolved intellectual property issues regarding use as data sources as previously mentioned.

Generated responses are an amalgam of legitimate reference material, extrapolated information, and sometimes nonexistent sources (aka, “hallucinations”). Verification of responses by independent means should be done to the greatest extent possible via an internet search and review of any provided citations.

All of the AI Chatbots tested are in continuous development with new capabilities released frequently. As a result of their rapidly evolving performance and capabilities, any assessment is only valid within a limited timeframe.

 

Summary of AI Results

 

The AI chatbots were each given specific prompts on the following topics: describing how they work; hydrogen codes and standards; hazards analysis; summarizing a safety document; and safety training.

Initial Assessment in Mid-2024

 

Some specific areas where the individual AI chatbots performed better relative to each other in the mid-2024 assessment:

• ChatGPT (OpenAI) provided the best response on the topic of codes and standards; good response with details on hydrogen hazards analysis; and the best summary of types of training (but without details on sources or providers)
• Gemini (Google) provided a good response and formatting on hydrogen hazards analysis
• Copilot (Microsoft) provided the most detailed response summarizing a selected safety document, but the source document’s table of contents provided a much better overview

None of the AI chatbots were consistently better on all prompts, and none of them provided comprehensive information that could be used without supplemental methods and verification. Personal domain experience, benchmarking, and standard internet searches provided more comprehensive and verified hydrogen safety information compared to the AI chatbots.

For individuals or organizations inexperienced with hydrogen systems and related safety considerations, the AI chatbots may be useful as an initial starting point. However, they cannot be relied upon to provide comprehensive accurate information on hydrogen systems safety. They may also be useful as a complementary tool to use in conjunction with other methods such as internet searches, benchmarking, etc.

Copyright infringement and other intellectual property issues are a significant barrier to using AI tools to extract relevant data from codes and standards for a specific hydrogen system. Although none of them appear to include this data in their general responses, they all have the capability to upload or otherwise access user-provided documents that could contain protected or proprietary material.

One area where the AI chatbots currently exhibit very promising capabilities is text generation of new documents (e.g., summaries, checklists, outlining, etc.). Using these tools to create a draft for further refinement by an appropriately skilled person could significantly reduce the preparation time and potentially identify items that may not have been otherwise considered. An example prompt and response for a hydrogen microgrid system checklist are given in the final section that illustrates this capability using ChatGPT.

 

Updated Assessment in Early-2026

 

The responses from ChatGPT and Gemini to the same user prompts 18 months after the initial assessment illustrates how quickly these AI tools have evolved. The quality, details, and comprehensiveness of the newer responses is greatly improved.

While all the limits and constraints previously discussed still apply (along with the recommended mitigations), there is a remarkable increase in the utility of these AI tools. Whereas the initial assessment indicated they would be useful as a starting point for those with limited hydrogen experience, they are now a valuable augmentation even for subject matter experts.

Another interesting observation is that it is more difficult to discern specific areas where one tool is superior to the other. Instead, each performs quite well in its own right while also providing different perspectives and some unique supplemental content. In fact, an effective approach would be to use the same prompts with two or more of these AI tools and integrate the responses (e.g. Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, etc.).

A few other AI themes are currently emerging that are worth considering. First, the combination of an expert human augmented with an AI “assistant” can produce better results than either can produce alone. Second, more specialized AI tools for specific use cases are rapidly growing and provide further improvements in application-specific domains (e.g., hydrogen safety). Finally, the growth of more advanced AI agents that proactively perform user-specified tasks rather than requiring human prompts can vastly improve productivity.

 

Checklist Example

 

Prompt: Create a checklist for starting and operating a hydrogen microgrid system that electrolyzes water using input power and water supply, compresses the resulting hydrogen gas, stores it in a compressed hydrogen pressure vessel, and feeds the hydrogen to a fuel cell stack when electrical power is needed.

 

2026-Jan-14 ChatGPT 4o response:

"Below is a practical, end-to-end checklist for starting, operating, and maintaining a hydrogen microgrid system that uses electrolysis, compression, storage, and a fuel cell stack.

It is structured so it can be used by operators, engineers, or commissioning teams, moving from planning → startup → normal operation → shutdown → safety & maintenance.

 

1. Pre-Project & Design Checklist (Before Installation)

 

System Architecture

☐ Define power sources for electrolysis (grid, solar, wind, backup generator)

☐ Define electrical loads and peak/average power requirements

☐ Select operating mode:

☐ Grid-connected

☐ Islanded

☐ Hybrid

☐ Establish hydrogen production vs. consumption balance

☐ Define storage autonomy (hours/days of backup)

 

Component Selection

☐ Electrolyzer type selected (PEM / alkaline / solid oxide)

☐ Hydrogen compressor type selected (mechanical / electrochemical)

☐ Storage vessel type selected (Type I–IV pressure vessel)

☐ Fuel cell type selected (PEMFC / SOFC)

☐ Power electronics selected (DC/DC, inverter, rectifier)

☐ Control system / PLC specified

 

Codes, Standards & Permitting

☐ Compliance with local electrical codes (e.g., NEC, IEC)

☐ Compliance with hydrogen standards (e.g., NFPA 2, ISO 19880)

☐ Pressure vessel certification (ASME / PED)

☐ Environmental permits (water use, venting)

☐ Fire marshal approval

☐ Emergency response plan documented

 

2. Installation & Commissioning Checklist

 

Site Preparation

☐ Adequate ventilation for hydrogen areas

☐ Classified electrical zones identified (hazardous area rating)

☐ Hydrogen leak detection installed and tested

☐ Fire suppression systems installed

☐ Physical barriers and signage installed

 

Water Supply System

☐ Feedwater quality verified (conductivity, purity)

☐ Water treatment system installed (RO / DI if required)

☐ Flow rate meets electrolyzer requirements

☐ Drain and purge lines installed

 

Electrical Systems

☐ Input power verified (voltage, frequency, phase)

☐ Grounding and bonding completed

☐ Emergency stop circuits tested

☐ Power isolation and lockout/tagout verified

 

Hydrogen System

☐ Piping pressure-tested

☐ Hydrogen-rated materials verified

☐ Check valves installed and oriented correctly

☐ Pressure relief devices installed and set

☐ Vent stacks routed to safe discharge locations

 

3. Startup Checklist (Initial System Energization)

 

Pre-Startup Safety Checks

☐ No hydrogen leaks detected

☐ All valves in correct startup position

☐ Storage vessel pressure within allowable limits

☐ Compressor oil/cooling systems operational

☐ Fuel cell stack isolated from hydrogen supply

☐ Control system alarms enabled

 

Electrolyzer Startup

☐ Water supply active and within spec

☐ Electrolyzer warmed up (if applicable)

☐ Power ramped gradually to operating level

☐ Hydrogen purity verified

☐ Oxygen venting confirmed

☐ Electrolyzer operating within temperature limits

 

Compression & Storage

☐ Compressor started unloaded

☐ Compression stages ramped gradually

☐ Intercoolers and aftercoolers functioning

☐ Storage vessel pressure increase monitored

☐ Automatic shutdown thresholds verified

 

4. Normal Operating Checklist

 

Electrolysis Operation

☐ Power input within design range

☐ Water consumption monitored

☐ Stack voltage and current stable

☐ Hydrogen production rate within expected range

☐ Oxygen venting unobstructed

 

Hydrogen Compression & Storage

☐ Compressor vibration within limits

☐ Storage pressure below maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP)

☐ Temperature within design limits

☐ No abnormal pressure decay (leaks)

☐ Storage state-of-charge logged

 

Fuel Cell Operation (Power Demand Mode)

☐ Hydrogen supply pressure within fuel cell specs

☐ Fuel cell purging sequence completed

☐ Stack temperature stabilized

☐ Power ramped gradually

☐ DC output stable before inverter connection

☐ Electrical load matched properly

 

Electrical Power Management

☐ Inverter synchronized (if grid-connected)

☐ Load sharing logic functioning

☐ Battery (if present) operating correctly

☐ Power quality (voltage, frequency, THD) within limits

 

5. Shutdown Checklist

 

Planned Shutdown

☐ Reduce electrical load gradually

☐ Ramp down fuel cell power

☐ Close hydrogen supply to fuel cell

☐ Purge fuel cell with inert gas or air (per OEM)

☐ Stop electrolyzer production

☐ Depressurize lines if required

☐ Secure compressors and auxiliary systems

 

Emergency Shutdown

☐ Activate E-stop

☐ Hydrogen supply isolated automatically

☐ Venting systems activated

☐ Electrical isolation engaged

☐ Area evacuated if hydrogen alarm triggers

 

6. Safety & Monitoring Checklist (Continuous)

 

Hydrogen Safety

☐ Leak detectors calibrated and operational

☐ Ventilation fans running

☐ Pressure relief devices unobstructed

☐ Flame detectors operational (if installed)

 

System Monitoring

☐ Pressure, temperature, and flow logged

☐ Stack health monitored (electrolyzer & fuel cell)

☐ Alarm thresholds reviewed periodically

☐ Remote monitoring functional

 

7. Maintenance Checklist

 

Daily / Weekly

☐ Visual inspection of piping and vessels

☐ Check for abnormal noise or vibration

☐ Review alarm logs

 

Monthly

☐ Compressor service checks

☐ Leak detection system test

☐ Sensor calibration spot checks

 

Annual

☐ Pressure vessel inspection

☐ Full electrical inspection

☐ Electrolyzer stack performance evaluation

☐ Fuel cell stack degradation assessment

☐ Emergency drills conducted

 

8. Documentation & Training Checklist

☐ Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) documented

☐ Emergency response procedures posted

☐ Operator training completed

☐ Maintenance manuals accessible

☐ System diagrams updated (P&ID, single-line)

 

If you want, I can:

• Convert this into a one-page operational checklist
• Tailor it for PEM vs alkaline electrolyzers
• Adapt it for remote/off-grid operation
• Create a failure modes & troubleshooting checklist

Just tell me how detailed or specialized you want it."

Author Bio

Matt Moran is the Managing Member at Moran Innovation LLC, and previous Managing Partner at Isotherm Energy. He's been developing power and propulsion systems for more than 40 years; and first-of-a-kind gas, slush, and liquid hydrogen systems since the mid-1980s. Matt was also the Sector Manager for Energy & Materials in his final position at NASA where he worked for 31 years. He's been a cofounder in seven technology-based startups; and provided R&D, engineering, and innovation consulting to several hundred organizations. Matt has three patents and more than 50 publications including his online Cryogenic Fluid Management guide and Decarbonizing Mobility with Liquid Hydrogen SAE report. He has created and taught liquid hydrogen courses, webinars, and workshops to global audiences.