The Cryogenic Referent Registry
Ten referent records audited against six criteria: what each can and cannot support in cryogenic tank model validation.
Technical notes
A documentary audit and traceability study of the public experiment reports used to validate cryogenic propellant tank models. Every claim is traceable to a passage in a primary document we have read, and every note carries its own errata.
The Accuracies Travelled Back. The Warning Did Not. K-Site, 1992–2025
A 1992 liquid hydrogen dataset, five downstream validation documents through 2025, and the one piece of experimental context that still does not travel.
286 Pages of Candor, and Still No Assembled u_D
SHIIVER — the best-documented cryogenic tank test I have read — and what a modeler still cannot reconstruct from it.
The MHTB Primary Is a TVS Performance Study, Not a Self-Pressurization Characterization
Auditing the 161-page primary report beneath a liquid-hydrogen validation citation examined in this series.
Published
The four notes above and the supporting dataset were published on 12 August 2026, frozen at v1.0, with 30 errata of our own recorded in Note 000. Each carries a permanent identifier: the Zenodo deposit is the citable version of record, and the full text on this site is the same version. Corrections do not overwrite a published note — they produce a new version with its own identifier, and every prior version stays retrievable.
Referent Audit Records for Cryogenic Tank Model Validation (Technical Notes 000–003)
The per-referent working records behind every claim in the notes, bilingual, with source hashes.
doi:10.5281/zenodo.21895803 · all versions: doi:10.5281/zenodo.21895802
Who wrote this
ElarionX CPMS is a one-person project. The notes are written by an independent researcher working with AI assistance, and no independent human reviewer has yet examined this work — it is exploratory, and labelled as such throughout.
Competing interest, declared. ElarionX develops cryogenic engineering models, and the referent registry described in these notes is a planned product of that work. The full statement is in Note 000, §IX, alongside the other limitations: the candidate list is derived from four modelling papers of which three share an author and an institution, seven registry entries remain unobtained, and the step from context did not travel to decisions were worse is argued rather than demonstrated.
This is a documentary audit of public NASA experiment reports and the documents citing them. It is not conducted for, on behalf of, or in association with NASA, and it makes no agency compliance or certification claim.