Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Engineering Directorate”

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.

At least 451 records · Page 25
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Ground Test History

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) was started in ~1955 under the Atomic Energy Commission as project Rover and was assigned to Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Nevada Test Site was selected in 1956 and facility construction began in 1957. The KIWI-A was tested on July 1, 1959 for 5 minutes at 70MW. KIWI-A1 was tested on July 8, 1960 for 6 minutes at 85MW. KIWI-A3 was tested on October 10, 1960 for 5 minutes at 100MW. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was formed in 1958. On August 31, 1960 the AEC and NASA established the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office and named Harold Finger as Director. Immediately following the formation of SNPO, contracts were awarded for the Reactor In Flight Test (RIFT), master plan for the Nuclear Rocket Engine Development Station (NRDS), and the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA). From December 7, 1961 to November 30, 1962, the KIWI-B1A, KIWI-B1B, and KIWI-B4A were tested at test cell A. The last two engines were only tested for several seconds before noticeable failure of the fuel elements. Harold Finger called a stop to any further hot fire testing until the problem was well understood. The KIWI-B4A cold flow test showed the problem to be related to fluid dynamics of hydrogen interstitial flow causing fuel element vibrations. President Kennedy visited the NTS one week after the KIWI-B4A failure and got to see the engine starting to be disassembled in the maintenance facility. The KIWI-B4D and KIWI-B4E were modified to not have the vibration problems and were tested in test cell C. The NERVA NRX program started testing in early 1964 with NRX-A1 cold flow test series (unfueled graphite core), NRX-A2 and NRX-A3 power test series up to 1122 MW for 13 minutes. In March 1966, the NRX-EST (Engine System Test) was the first breadboard using flight functional relationship and total operating time of 116 minutes. The NRX-EST demonstrated the feasibility of a hot bleed cycle. The NRX-A5 had multiple start-ups in May-June 1966 with 30.75 minutes accumulative operating time at or above 1GW. The NRX-A6 was tested in December 1969 and ran for 62 minutes at 1100 MW. Each engine had post-test examination and found various structure anomalies which were identified for correction and the fuel element corrosion rate was reduced. The Phoebus series of research reactors began testing at test cell C, in June 1965 with Phoebus 1A. Phoebus 1A operated for 10.5 minutes at 1100 MW before unexpected loss of propellant and leading to an engine breakdown. Phoebus 1B ran for 30 minutes in February of 1967. Phoebus 2A was the highest steady state reactor built at 5GW. Phoebus 2A ran for 12 minutes at 4100 MW demonstrating sufficient power is available. The Peewee test bed reactor was tested November- December 1968 in test cell C for 40 minutes at 500MW with overall performance close to pre-run predictions. The XE' engine was the only engine tested with close to a flight configuration and fired downward into a diffuser at the Engine Test Stand (ETS) in 1969. The XE' was 1100 MW and had ~28 start-ups. The nuclear furnace NF-1 was operated at 44 MW with multiple test runs at 90 minutes in the summer of 1972. The NF-1 was the last NTP reactor tested. The Rover/NERVA program was cancelled in 1973. However, before cancellation, a lot of other engineering work was conducted by Aerojet on a 75, 000 lbf prototype flight engine and by Los Alamos on a ~16,000 lbf "Small Engine" nuclear rocket design. The ground test history of NTP at the NRDS also offers many lessons learned on how best to setup, operate, emergency shutdown, and post-test examine NTP engines. The reactor and engine maintenance and disassembly facilities were used for assembly and inspection of radioactive engines after testing. Most reactor/ engines were run at test cell A or test cell C with open air exhaust. The Rover/NERVA program became aware of a new environmental regulation that would restrict the amount of radioactive particulates allowed to be release in open air and successfully demonstrated a scrubber concept with the NF-1. The ETS stand was the only one with a high altitude test chamber used for XE'. The ETS and other test cells showed the effects the engine's radiation had on the facility materials and instrumentation as well as side effects the ground test facility has back on the engine operation. The breakdown of Phoebus 1A at test cell C showed how the site was cleaned up and back to operation for five more engines before the program was cancelled.

Gerrish, Harold P.↗
NASA NTRS2018

GSFC Risk Assessment Process for Inherited Items

The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate is implementing an alternate process for approval of Spacecraft Inherited Items in accordance with Goddard Procedural Requirements 8730.5. A Commodity Risk Assessment Engineer is performing an Inherited Item Risk Assessment (I2RA) for the use of Spacecraft Standard Components (items generally necessary to control the spacecraft, e.g. reaction wheel assemblies) and payload flight spares or Built-to-Print items. The I2RA may take into account prior space flight performance, criticality of the component, qualification records, quality and reliability records, storage conditions, manufacturer assessments, and mission specific parameters like mission environment and duration. The I2RA provides a means to accept for the entire item materials, parts or workmanship non-conformances, that do not significantly increase risk.

Risk Assessment↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Medical Database Accomplishments and Lessons Learned - 2021

The Medical Database (MD) is a virtual repository consisting of two software components: the Medical Item Database (MedID) and the Evidence Library (EL). MedID consists of engineering data and associated information for specific medical resource items (e.g., pharmaceutical, medical devices, and supporting components), while the EL is a tool which provides all of the medical evidence necessary. The Medical Database will serve as the single “source of truth” for the Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces (IMPACT) tool suite for both medical evidence and medical resource engineering data. It will be used in conjunction with the IMPACT tool suite to inform research prioritizations and perform systematic trade study evaluations using probabilistic risk assessment and simulated human spaceflight missions to aid stakeholders in making informed decisions during Pre-Phase-A planning of human spaceflight missions. The IMPACT project is conducted under the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) element of the Human Research Program (HRP), within NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. Over the past year, the MedID software has been successfully merged with the Evidence Library into one cohesive Medical Database with two independent user interface experiences for modifying either clinical evidence or resource engineering data. As MD has evolved substantially over the past year, a number of challenges have been encountered and overcome along the way. A number of ‘lessons learned’ and practical/logistical realizations have emerged which will be detailed in the forthcoming Medical Database presentation.

Exploration Medical Capability↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Glenn Extreme Environments Rig (GEER) Facility Users Guide

The Glenn Extreme Environment Rig (GEER) is a large capacity pressure vessel capable of simulating high pressure and temperature conditions with a specified, custom mixture of gas. The chamber is certified for operation in physical and chemical conditions representative of the surface conditions of Venus. It can accommodate large scientific or engineering test articles while maintaining the specified conditions indefinitely. The user-configurable gas supply is capable of handling a mixture of up to nine independent streams for injection directly into the vessel. GEER is supported in part by NASA’s Planetary Science Division under the Science Mission Directorate and is available for use by the commercial, academic, and research communities. GEER was operationally commissioned in November of 2014. At that time, it successfully maintained the temperature, pressure, and chemistry of the Venus surface atmosphere. In the spring of 2015, GEER began operations for engineering and scientific research. Since then, over 20 tests have been successfully conducted in the chamber with a variety of atmospheric test conditions.

Blake W. Beckley↗
NASA NTRS2019

Modeling Turboshaft Engines for the Revolutionary Vertical Lift Technology Project

Turboshaft engine performance and weight models were developed to support conceptual propulsion and vehicle mission design in support of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Aeronautics Mission Research Directorate's (ARMD) Revolutionary Vertical Lift Technology (RVLT) Project. These models were developed using open data sources, assuming current and advanced technology levels, and range from 650 to 7,500 shaft output horsepower (485 to 5,600 kilowatts). Documenting the methodology, assumptions, and resulting performance realizes important benefits for NASA and the aviation community. NASA concept vehicle efforts using these propulsion models can more readily shared among the government, industry and university community as common baselines to support current and future work. Assessing the benefits of advanced technologies and new configurations can be facilitated using these models, which helps guide technology investment. As the various modeling conceptual vehicle and mission analysis environments advance, these models can be used directly for broader systems analysis studies, including optimization within the propulsion model itself. To perform this effort, the turboshaft engine is briefly discussed, highlighting the specific components and their expected performance characteristics over the power range and technology levels considered. Engine configurations will also be discussed as they will vary based on power output and assumed technology level. Engine performance, such as airflow, power output and weight will be reported, noting trends that are important for system studies. The effect of advanced propulsion technologies on RVLT-concept vehicles are also reported. Finally, potential future propulsion modeling work will be proposed.

Snyder, Christopher A.↗
DOE OSTI2013

2013 LLNL Nuclear Forensics Summer Program

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Nuclear Forensics Summer Program is designed to give both undergraduate and graduate students an opportunity to come to LLNL for 8–10 weeks for a hands-on research experience. Students conduct research under the supervision of a staff scientist, attend a weekly lecture series, interact with other students, and present their work in poster format at the end of the program. Students also have the opportunity to meet staff scientists one-on-one, participate in LLNL facility tours (e.g., the National Ignition Facility and Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) to gain a better understanding of the multi-disciplinary, on going science at LLNL. Currently called the Nuclear Forensics Summer Program, this program began 13 years ago as the Actinide Sciences Summer Program. The program is run within the Glenn T. Seaborg Institute in the Physical and Life Sciences Directorate at LLNL. The goal of the Nuclear Forensics Summer Program is to facilitate the training of the next generation of nuclear scientists and engineers to solve critical national security problems in the field of nuclear forensics and have the student experience conducting research at the Lab. We select students who are majoring in physics, chemistry, geology, mathematics, nuclear engineering, chemical engineering and environmental sciences. Students engage in research projects in the disciplines of actinide chemistry, radiochemistry, isotopic analysis, computational analysis, radiation detection, and nuclear engineering in order to strengthen the “pipeline” for future scientific disciplines critical to DHS (DNDO), NNSA.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗
DOE OSTI2015

2015 LLNL Nuclear Forensics Summer Program

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Nuclear Forensics Summer Program is designed to give graduate students an opportunity to come to LLNL for 8–10 weeks for a hands-on research experience. Students conduct research under the supervision of a staff scientist, attend a weekly lecture series, interact with other students, and present their work in poster format at the end of the program. Students also have the opportunity to meet staff scientists one-on-one, participate in LLNL facility tours (e.g., the National Ignition Facility and Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) to gain a better understanding of the multidisciplinary, on going science at LLNL. Currently called the Nuclear Forensics Summer Program, this program began 15 years ago as the Actinide Sciences Summer Program. The program is run within the Glenn T. Seaborg Institute in the Physical and Life Sciences Directorate at LLNL. The goal of the Nuclear Forensics Summer Program is to facilitate the training of the next generation of nuclear scientists and engineers to solve critical national security problems in the field of nuclear forensics and have the students participate in conducting research at LLNL. We select students who are majoring in physics, chemistry, geology, mathematics, nuclear engineering, chemical engineering and environmental sciences. Students engage in research projects in the disciplines of actinide chemistry, radiochemistry, isotopic analysis, computational analysis, radiation detection, and nuclear engineering in order to strengthen the “pipeline” for future scientific disciplines critical to DHS (DNDO), NNSA.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗
NASA NTRS1997

Physics and Process Modeling (PPM) and Other Propulsion R and T: Materials Processing, Characterization, and Modeling; Lifting Models - Volume 1

This CP contains the extended abstracts and presentation figures of 36 papers presented at the PPM and Other Propulsion R&T Conference. The focus of the research described in these presentations is on materials and structures technologies that are parts of the various projects within the NASA Aeronautics Propulsion Systems Research and Technology Base Program. These projects include Physics and Process Modeling; Smart, Green Engine; Fast, Quiet Engine; High Temperature Engine Materials Program; and Hybrid Hyperspeed Propulsion. Also presented were research results from the Rotorcraft Systems Program and work supported by the NASA Lewis Director's Discretionary Fund. Authors from NASA Lewis Research Center, industry, and universities conducted research in the following areas: material processing, material characterization, modeling, life, applied life models, design techniques, vibration control, mechanical components, and tribology. Key issues, research accomplishments, and future directions are summarized in this publication.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2011

Fault Management Guiding Principles

Regardless of the mission type: deep space or low Earth orbit, robotic or human spaceflight, Fault Management (FM) is a critical aspect of NASA space missions. As the complexity of space missions grows, the complexity of supporting FM systems increase in turn. Data on recent NASA missions show that development of FM capabilities is a common driver for significant cost overruns late in the project development cycle. Efforts to understand the drivers behind these cost overruns, spearheaded by NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD), indicate that they are primarily caused by the growing complexity of FM systems and the lack of maturity of FM as an engineering discipline. NASA can and does develop FM systems that effectively protect mission functionality and assets. The cost growth results from a lack of FM planning and emphasis by project management, as well the maturity of FM as an engineering discipline, which lags behind the maturity of other engineering disciplines. As a step towards controlling the cost growth associated with FM development, SMD has commissioned a multi-institution team to develop a practitioner's handbook representing best practices for the end-to-end processes involved in engineering FM systems. While currently concentrating primarily on FM for science missions, the expectation is that this handbook will grow into a NASA-wide handbook, serving as a companion to the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. This paper presents a snapshot of the principles that have been identified to guide FM development from cradle to grave. The principles range from considerations for integrating FM into the project and SE organizational structure, the relationship between FM designs and mission risk, and the use of the various tools of FM (e.g., redundancy) to meet the FM goal of protecting mission functionality and assets.

principles↗
NASA NTRS2017

Technical Challenges and Barriers Affecting Turbo-Electric and Hybrid Electric Aircraft Propulsion

In order to meet aggressive aircraft performance goals set by NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, the Glenn Research Center (GRC) is leading research and development of electrified aircraft propulsion systems with electricity being generated from a gas turbine engine or combination of gas turbine engine and an alternate energy source. The presentation will provide an overview of technical challenges and barriers affecting the development and implementation of turboelectric and hybrid electric systems. Advances will be required in multiple areas, which include energy storage, electrical machines, power transmission, power electronics, control systems, materials, thermal management, and multi-scale modeling tools. The presentation will summarize current GRC activities in these areas. Challenges associated with integration and demonstration of multiple technologies at the system level will be presented.

Propulsion↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-G-213-01: Roentgen and the Birth of Modern Medical Physics

Roentgen and the Birth of Modern Medical Physics – Perry Sprawls Wilhelm Roentgen is well known for his discovery of x-radiation. What is less known and appreciated is his intensive research following the discovery to determine the characteristics of the “new kind of radiation” and demonstrate its great value for medical purposes. In this presentation we will imagine ourselves in Roentgen’s mind and follow his thinking, including questions and doubts, as he designs and conducts a series of innovative experiments that provided the foundation for the rapid growth of medical physics. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the personal characteristics and work of Prof. Roentgen that establishes him as an inspiring model for the medical physics profession. Observe the thought process and experiments that determined and demonstrated the comprehensive characteristics of x-radiation. The AAPM Award Eponyms: William D. Coolidge, Edith H. Quimby, and Marvin M.D. Williams - Who were they and what did they do? – Lawrence N. Rothenberg William David Coolidge (1873–1975) William Coolidge was born in Hudson, NY in 1873. He obtained his BS at the Massacusetts Institute of Technology in 1896. Coolidge then went to the University of Leipzig, Germany for graduate study with physicists Paul Drude and Gustave Wiedemann and received a Ph.D. in 1899. While in Germany he met Wilhelm Roentgen. Coolidge returned to the US to teach at MIT where he was associated with Arthur A. Noyes of the Chemistry Department, working on the electrical conductivity of aqueous solutions. Willis R. Whitney, under whom Coolidge had worked before going to Germany, became head of the newly formed General Electric Research Laboratory and he invited Coolidge to work with him. In 1905, Coolidge joined the staff of the GE laboratory and was associated with it for the remainder of his life. He developed ductile tungsten filaments to replace fragile carbon filaments as the material for electric light bulb filaments. Until that innovation light bulbs had a notoriously short life. He later incorporated the ductile tungsten as a filament material for a hot cathode, fully evacuated x-ray tube, first described in 1912, which allowed higher current and x-ray output, and greater reliability than had previously been possible. These “Coolidge x-ray tubes” were far superior to the cold cathode, partial pressure gas x-ray tubes that had been in use since Roentgen’s discovery of x-rays in 1895. The Coolidge tube with incremental developments is now the key component for x-ray production in all of our modern x-ray imaging devices, such as CT scanners, interventional radiology systems, and mammography units. Coolidge was also involved in the development of sectional x-ray tubes for research and treatment that were initially designed to reach 800 kV. Additional improvements led to 1 MV and 2 MV devices. In 1932 Coolidge became director of the General Electric Research Laboratory, and in 1940, was made Vice-President and Director of Research. In 1945 he retired and was named Director Emeritus of the laboratory. Coolidge held 83 patents and was recognized for these and many other achievements by election to the National Academy of Engineers, a place in the Engineering Hall of Fame and the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame. The AAPM’s highest honor, the Coolidge Award, was named after him. He accepted Honorary Membership in the AAPM and was the first recipient of the AAPM Coolidge Award, which was presented to him in a special ceremony in Schenectady, NY in 1972 when he was 100 years old. Edith Hinckley Quimby (1891–1982) Edith Quimby was born in Rockford, IL in 1891. She graduated from Whitman College in Walla Walla, WA with a B.S. in 1913, and then obtained a masters degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Later in her career, after many significant achievements, Quimby was awarded honorary doctorates by Whitman College and Rutgers University. Edith Quimby was hired by Giacchino Failla as a radiation physicist at Memorial Hospital for Cancer in New York City. Failla had studied with Madame Curie and obtained his doctoral degree in her laboratory. After many groundbreaking medical physics studies from 1919 until 1942, they both moved to Columbia University. Dr. Quimby developed a widely employed dosimetry system for single plane implants with radium and radon seeds, and a dosimetry methodology for internal radionuclides. She was author of more than 75 scientific publications, and of significant textbooks including the first comprehensive physics textbook for radiologists “Physical Foundations of Radiology”, which was co-authored with Otto Glasser, Lauriston Taylor and James Weatherwax in the first edition, with Russell Morgan added for the second edition and Paul Goodwin for the fourth edition. With Sergei Feitelberg, M.D. she published two editions of “Radioactive Isotopes in Medicine and Biology: Basic Physics and Instrumentation”. Quimby became a renowned examiner for the American Board of Radiology when the third ABR examination, given in 1936, added physics. She served as President of the American Radium Society, received the RSNA Gold Medal, and also numerous prestigious awards given to women in science. Edith Quimby was a Charter Member of AAPM. The AAPM Lifetime Achievement Award was renamed the Edith H. Quimby Lifetime Achievement Award in her honor in 2011. Marvin Martin Dixon Williams (1902–1981) Marvin Williams was born in Walla Walla, WA in 1902, and attended the same college as Edith Quimby, graduating from Whitman College in 1926. He was greatly influenced to go into medical physics by her accomplishments. During his early career, Williams worked with James Weatherwax in Philadelphia while he was working toward an M.S. from the University of Pennsylvania. In 1931 Williams was awarded a Ph.D. in Biophysics from the University of Minnesota, with the work actually performed at the Mayo Clinic Graduate School of the University. While completing his Ph.D. studies, Marvin met Dr. Paul Hodges who had returned from the Peiping Union Medical College in Peiping (now Beijing), China. Hodges suggested that a physicist be sent to Peiping to install x-ray therapy equipment and a radon plant. Williams accepted the position and, in 1931, he and his wife Orpha left for China. Before going to China, Williams had spent time with the physics group at Memorial Hospital to learn about the operation of a radon plant. In China, he constructed the radon plant, employing 0.25 g of radium, and also installed the x-ray therapy unit. Williams and his wife returned to the US in 1935, and he accepted a research position at the Mayo Clinic. In 1950, he became Professor of Biophysics at Mayo, where he taught physics and biophysics until his retirement in 1967. Williams was also very active in the American Board of Radiology where, from 1944 through 1977, he examined over 3000 radiologists and 250 physicists. Marvin Williams was a Charter member of AAPM, served as the fourth President of AAPM in 1963, and was the fourth recipient the AAPM Coolidge Award in 1975. The Marvin Williams Award was originally established as the highest award of the American College of Medical Physics. When various functions of the ACMP were absorbed into the AAPM in 2012, the Marvin M D Williams Professional Achievement Award became one of the AAPM’s highest honors. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the persons in whose honor the three major AAPM Award are named Learn about the achievements and activities which influenced the AAPM to name these awards in their honor.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-G-213-00: History Symposium: Radiological Physics Pioneers: Roentgen and the AAPM Award Eponyms - William Coolidge, Edith Quimby, and Marvin Williams - Who Were They and What Did They Do?

Roentgen and the Birth of Modern Medical Physics – Perry Sprawls Wilhelm Roentgen is well known for his discovery of x-radiation. What is less known and appreciated is his intensive research following the discovery to determine the characteristics of the “new kind of radiation” and demonstrate its great value for medical purposes. In this presentation we will imagine ourselves in Roentgen’s mind and follow his thinking, including questions and doubts, as he designs and conducts a series of innovative experiments that provided the foundation for the rapid growth of medical physics. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the personal characteristics and work of Prof. Roentgen that establishes him as an inspiring model for the medical physics profession. Observe the thought process and experiments that determined and demonstrated the comprehensive characteristics of x-radiation. The AAPM Award Eponyms: William D. Coolidge, Edith H. Quimby, and Marvin M.D. Williams - Who were they and what did they do? – Lawrence N. Rothenberg William David Coolidge (1873–1975) William Coolidge was born in Hudson, NY in 1873. He obtained his BS at the Massacusetts Institute of Technology in 1896. Coolidge then went to the University of Leipzig, Germany for graduate study with physicists Paul Drude and Gustave Wiedemann and received a Ph.D. in 1899. While in Germany he met Wilhelm Roentgen. Coolidge returned to the US to teach at MIT where he was associated with Arthur A. Noyes of the Chemistry Department, working on the electrical conductivity of aqueous solutions. Willis R. Whitney, under whom Coolidge had worked before going to Germany, became head of the newly formed General Electric Research Laboratory and he invited Coolidge to work with him. In 1905, Coolidge joined the staff of the GE laboratory and was associated with it for the remainder of his life. He developed ductile tungsten filaments to replace fragile carbon filaments as the material for electric light bulb filaments. Until that innovation light bulbs had a notoriously short life. He later incorporated the ductile tungsten as a filament material for a hot cathode, fully evacuated x-ray tube, first described in 1912, which allowed higher current and x-ray output, and greater reliability than had previously been possible. These “Coolidge x-ray tubes” were far superior to the cold cathode, partial pressure gas x-ray tubes that had been in use since Roentgen’s discovery of x-rays in 1895. The Coolidge tube with incremental developments is now the key component for x-ray production in all of our modern x-ray imaging devices, such as CT scanners, interventional radiology systems, and mammography units. Coolidge was also involved in the development of sectional x-ray tubes for research and treatment that were initially designed to reach 800 kV. Additional improvements led to 1 MV and 2 MV devices. In 1932 Coolidge became director of the General Electric Research Laboratory, and in 1940, was made Vice-President and Director of Research. In 1945 he retired and was named Director Emeritus of the laboratory. Coolidge held 83 patents and was recognized for these and many other achievements by election to the National Academy of Engineers, a place in the Engineering Hall of Fame and the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame. The AAPM’s highest honor, the Coolidge Award, was named after him. He accepted Honorary Membership in the AAPM and was the first recipient of the AAPM Coolidge Award, which was presented to him in a special ceremony in Schenectady, NY in 1972 when he was 100 years old. Edith Hinckley Quimby (1891–1982) Edith Quimby was born in Rockford, IL in 1891. She graduated from Whitman College in Walla Walla, WA with a B.S. in 1913, and then obtained a masters degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Later in her career, after many significant achievements, Quimby was awarded honorary doctorates by Whitman College and Rutgers University. Edith Quimby was hired by Giacchino Failla as a radiation physicist at Memorial Hospital for Cancer in New York City. Failla had studied with Madame Curie and obtained his doctoral degree in her laboratory. After many groundbreaking medical physics studies from 1919 until 1942, they both moved to Columbia University. Dr. Quimby developed a widely employed dosimetry system for single plane implants with radium and radon seeds, and a dosimetry methodology for internal radionuclides. She was author of more than 75 scientific publications, and of significant textbooks including the first comprehensive physics textbook for radiologists “Physical Foundations of Radiology”, which was co-authored with Otto Glasser, Lauriston Taylor and James Weatherwax in the first edition, with Russell Morgan added for the second edition and Paul Goodwin for the fourth edition. With Sergei Feitelberg, M.D. she published two editions of “Radioactive Isotopes in Medicine and Biology: Basic Physics and Instrumentation”. Quimby became a renowned examiner for the American Board of Radiology when the third ABR examination, given in 1936, added physics. She served as President of the American Radium Society, received the RSNA Gold Medal, and also numerous prestigious awards given to women in science. Edith Quimby was a Charter Member of AAPM. The AAPM Lifetime Achievement Award was renamed the Edith H. Quimby Lifetime Achievement Award in her honor in 2011. Marvin Martin Dixon Williams (1902–1981) Marvin Williams was born in Walla Walla, WA in 1902, and attended the same college as Edith Quimby, graduating from Whitman College in 1926. He was greatly influenced to go into medical physics by her accomplishments. During his early career, Williams worked with James Weatherwax in Philadelphia while he was working toward an M.S. from the University of Pennsylvania. In 1931 Williams was awarded a Ph.D. in Biophysics from the University of Minnesota, with the work actually performed at the Mayo Clinic Graduate School of the University. While completing his Ph.D. studies, Marvin met Dr. Paul Hodges who had returned from the Peiping Union Medical College in Peiping (now Beijing), China. Hodges suggested that a physicist be sent to Peiping to install x-ray therapy equipment and a radon plant. Williams accepted the position and, in 1931, he and his wife Orpha left for China. Before going to China, Williams had spent time with the physics group at Memorial Hospital to learn about the operation of a radon plant. In China, he constructed the radon plant, employing 0.25 g of radium, and also installed the x-ray therapy unit. Williams and his wife returned to the US in 1935, and he accepted a research position at the Mayo Clinic. In 1950, he became Professor of Biophysics at Mayo, where he taught physics and biophysics until his retirement in 1967. Williams was also very active in the American Board of Radiology where, from 1944 through 1977, he examined over 3000 radiologists and 250 physicists. Marvin Williams was a Charter member of AAPM, served as the fourth President of AAPM in 1963, and was the fourth recipient the AAPM Coolidge Award in 1975. The Marvin Williams Award was originally established as the highest award of the American College of Medical Physics. When various functions of the ACMP were absorbed into the AAPM in 2012, the Marvin M D Williams Professional Achievement Award became one of the AAPM’s highest honors. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the persons in whose honor the three major AAPM Award are named Learn about the achievements and activities which influenced the AAPM to name these awards in their honor.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-G-213-02: The AAPM Award Eponyms: William D. Coolidge, Edith H. Quimby, and Marvin M.D. Williams - Who Were They and What Did They Do?

Roentgen and the Birth of Modern Medical Physics – Perry Sprawls Wilhelm Roentgen is well known for his discovery of x-radiation. What is less known and appreciated is his intensive research following the discovery to determine the characteristics of the “new kind of radiation” and demonstrate its great value for medical purposes. In this presentation we will imagine ourselves in Roentgen’s mind and follow his thinking, including questions and doubts, as he designs and conducts a series of innovative experiments that provided the foundation for the rapid growth of medical physics. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the personal characteristics and work of Prof. Roentgen that establishes him as an inspiring model for the medical physics profession. Observe the thought process and experiments that determined and demonstrated the comprehensive characteristics of x-radiation. The AAPM Award Eponyms: William D. Coolidge, Edith H. Quimby, and Marvin M.D. Williams - Who were they and what did they do? – Lawrence N. Rothenberg William David Coolidge (1873–1975) William Coolidge was born in Hudson, NY in 1873. He obtained his BS at the Massacusetts Institute of Technology in 1896. Coolidge then went to the University of Leipzig, Germany for graduate study with physicists Paul Drude and Gustave Wiedemann and received a Ph.D. in 1899. While in Germany he met Wilhelm Roentgen. Coolidge returned to the US to teach at MIT where he was associated with Arthur A. Noyes of the Chemistry Department, working on the electrical conductivity of aqueous solutions. Willis R. Whitney, under whom Coolidge had worked before going to Germany, became head of the newly formed General Electric Research Laboratory and he invited Coolidge to work with him. In 1905, Coolidge joined the staff of the GE laboratory and was associated with it for the remainder of his life. He developed ductile tungsten filaments to replace fragile carbon filaments as the material for electric light bulb filaments. Until that innovation light bulbs had a notoriously short life. He later incorporated the ductile tungsten as a filament material for a hot cathode, fully evacuated x-ray tube, first described in 1912, which allowed higher current and x-ray output, and greater reliability than had previously been possible. These “Coolidge x-ray tubes” were far superior to the cold cathode, partial pressure gas x-ray tubes that had been in use since Roentgen’s discovery of x-rays in 1895. The Coolidge tube with incremental developments is now the key component for x-ray production in all of our modern x-ray imaging devices, such as CT scanners, interventional radiology systems, and mammography units. Coolidge was also involved in the development of sectional x-ray tubes for research and treatment that were initially designed to reach 800 kV. Additional improvements led to 1 MV and 2 MV devices. In 1932 Coolidge became director of the General Electric Research Laboratory, and in 1940, was made Vice-President and Director of Research. In 1945 he retired and was named Director Emeritus of the laboratory. Coolidge held 83 patents and was recognized for these and many other achievements by election to the National Academy of Engineers, a place in the Engineering Hall of Fame and the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame. The AAPM’s highest honor, the Coolidge Award, was named after him. He accepted Honorary Membership in the AAPM and was the first recipient of the AAPM Coolidge Award, which was presented to him in a special ceremony in Schenectady, NY in 1972 when he was 100 years old. Edith Hinckley Quimby (1891–1982) Edith Quimby was born in Rockford, IL in 1891. She graduated from Whitman College in Walla Walla, WA with a B.S. in 1913, and then obtained a masters degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Later in her career, after many significant achievements, Quimby was awarded honorary doctorates by Whitman College and Rutgers University. Edith Quimby was hired by Giacchino Failla as a radiation physicist at Memorial Hospital for Cancer in New York City. Failla had studied with Madame Curie and obtained his doctoral degree in her laboratory. After many groundbreaking medical physics studies from 1919 until 1942, they both moved to Columbia University. Dr. Quimby developed a widely employed dosimetry system for single plane implants with radium and radon seeds, and a dosimetry methodology for internal radionuclides. She was author of more than 75 scientific publications, and of significant textbooks including the first comprehensive physics textbook for radiologists “Physical Foundations of Radiology”, which was co-authored with Otto Glasser, Lauriston Taylor and James Weatherwax in the first edition, with Russell Morgan added for the second edition and Paul Goodwin for the fourth edition. With Sergei Feitelberg, M.D. she published two editions of “Radioactive Isotopes in Medicine and Biology: Basic Physics and Instrumentation”. Quimby became a renowned examiner for the American Board of Radiology when the third ABR examination, given in 1936, added physics. She served as President of the American Radium Society, received the RSNA Gold Medal, and also numerous prestigious awards given to women in science. Edith Quimby was a Charter Member of AAPM. The AAPM Lifetime Achievement Award was renamed the Edith H. Quimby Lifetime Achievement Award in her honor in 2011. Marvin Martin Dixon Williams (1902–1981) Marvin Williams was born in Walla Walla, WA in 1902, and attended the same college as Edith Quimby, graduating from Whitman College in 1926. He was greatly influenced to go into medical physics by her accomplishments. During his early career, Williams worked with James Weatherwax in Philadelphia while he was working toward an M.S. from the University of Pennsylvania. In 1931 Williams was awarded a Ph.D. in Biophysics from the University of Minnesota, with the work actually performed at the Mayo Clinic Graduate School of the University. While completing his Ph.D. studies, Marvin met Dr. Paul Hodges who had returned from the Peiping Union Medical College in Peiping (now Beijing), China. Hodges suggested that a physicist be sent to Peiping to install x-ray therapy equipment and a radon plant. Williams accepted the position and, in 1931, he and his wife Orpha left for China. Before going to China, Williams had spent time with the physics group at Memorial Hospital to learn about the operation of a radon plant. In China, he constructed the radon plant, employing 0.25 g of radium, and also installed the x-ray therapy unit. Williams and his wife returned to the US in 1935, and he accepted a research position at the Mayo Clinic. In 1950, he became Professor of Biophysics at Mayo, where he taught physics and biophysics until his retirement in 1967. Williams was also very active in the American Board of Radiology where, from 1944 through 1977, he examined over 3000 radiologists and 250 physicists. Marvin Williams was a Charter member of AAPM, served as the fourth President of AAPM in 1963, and was the fourth recipient the AAPM Coolidge Award in 1975. The Marvin Williams Award was originally established as the highest award of the American College of Medical Physics. When various functions of the ACMP were absorbed into the AAPM in 2012, the Marvin M D Williams Professional Achievement Award became one of the AAPM’s highest honors. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the persons in whose honor the three major AAPM Award are named Learn about the achievements and activities which influenced the AAPM to name these awards in their honor.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Research Reactors Division Infrastructure Investment Plan for the High Flux Isotope Reactor

The High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) is a unique national asset. Operational for nearly 60 years, continued investment into the aging infrastructure is necessary to ensure operation for another 6 decades. Additionally, growing missions require HFIR as well as important upgrades. Consequently, carefully integrated planning is required to ensure that infrastructure investments are timely executed to ensure long-term, reliable operation of HFIR. Concerns about challenges to the operational reliability of HFIR resulted in a recommendation from the 2023 Operations Review by the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Basic Energy Sciences that a HFIR management strategy be developed to address the infrastructure needs. This report defines the investment needs, which are evolving as new upgrade efforts are better defined. HFIR is part of the three-source strategy within the Neutron Sciences Directorate (NScD) and contributes to the five strategic science areas outlined in the NScD 10 Year Strategic Science Plan: quantum materials, soft matter, materials and engineering, chemistry, and biosciences. Fundamental to this strategy are three core values: operational excellence, responsible stewardship, and servant leadership. These values guide our mission of safe and reliable operation of the reactor and require a strong and just nuclear safety culture, a solemn respect for responsible care of the facility, good workforce development, robust procedures and processes, an effective communication strategy, world-class asset management, a determined customer focus, and a commitment to protecting the environment, the safety and health of the public and our people, and the quality of work performed within our facility. These principles are all essential to operate HFIR at a world-class level. The Research Reactors Division (RRD) will lead a new era of neutron science and isotope production at HFIR through responsible and purposeful leadership and unwavering support of the science community. The approach outlined in this plan highlights the direction leadership is taking to ensure that HFIR is ready to support the science challenges and national needs of the future and that the United States maintains world leadership in neutron sciences. The plan is in alignment with the DOE’s desire to continue operating HFIR and with the NScD strategic science goals for the future. HFIR is an aging facility with numerous infrastructure challenges and needs. It has an aging workforce in relation to the general population of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), with many expected retirements over the next 5–10 years. With an increase in work scope caused by changing national priorities and science goals, several critical hires have been identified. To manage HFIR’s infrastructure needs, a prioritized list of equipment upgrades has been identified along with an analysis of future staffing requirements. A desire to operate HFIR at eight cycles per year will necessarily require some significant changes to procedures and processes currently in place as well as targeted staffing additions. Many of the equipment upgrades identified in this plan will significantly increase the reliability of the plant, thus contributing to the effort to reach the goal of safely operating eight cycles per year. A plan to attain eight-cycle operation is being prepared in parallel with the activities identified in this plan, although the actions identified to satisfy both plans will overlap. This plan identifies new infrastructure needs—for both plant equipment and staffing—thus necessitating formulation of future budget requests to fund the increased work scope and improvement activities. Some activities are currently being scheduled with the expectation that funding will be received. Any delays to funding or reductions of funding from the identified cost estimations will directly and negatively affect the plan’s implementation.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
NASA NTRS2004

Developing Advanced Support Technologies for Planetary Exploration Missions

The United States Vision for Space Exploration calls for sending robots and humans to explore the Earth s moon, the planet Mars, and beyond. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing a set of design reference missions that will provide further detail to these plans. Lunar missions are expected to provide a stepping stone, through operational research and evaluation, in developing the knowledge base necessary to send crews on long duration missions to Mars and other distant destinations. The NASA Exploration Systems Directorate (ExSD), in its program of bioastronautics research, manages the development of technologies that maintain human life, health, and performance in space. Using a systems engineering process and risk management methods, ExSD s Human Support Systems (HSS) Program selects and performs research and technology development in several critical areas and transfers the results of its efforts to NASA exploration mission/systems development programs in the form of developed technologies and new knowledge about the capabilities and constraints of systems required to support human existence beyond Low Earth Orbit. HSS efforts include the areas of advanced environmental monitoring and control, extravehicular activity, food technologies, life support systems, space human factors engineering, and systems integration of all these elements. The HSS Program provides a structured set of deliverable products to meet the needs of exploration programs. these products reduce the gaps that exist in our knowledge of and capabilities for human support for long duration, remote space missions. They also reduce the performance gap between the efficiency of current space systems and the greater efficiency that must be achieved to make human planetary exploration missions economically and logistically feasible. In conducting this research and technology development program, it is necessary for HSS technologists and program managers to develop a common currency for decision making and the allocation of funding. A high level assessment is made of both the knowledge gaps and the system performance gaps across the program s technical project portfolio. This allows decision making that assures proper emphasis areas and provides a key measure of annual technological progress, as exploration mission plans continue to mature.

Berdich, Debra P.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Developing Advanced Human Support Technologies for Planetary Exploration Missions

The United States Vision for Space Exploration calls for sending robots and humans to explore the Earth's moon, the planet Mars, and beyond. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing a set of design reference missions that will provide further detail to these plans. Lunar missions are expected to provide a stepping stone, through operational research and evaluation, in developing the knowledge base necessary to send crews on long duration missions to Mars and other distant destinations. The NASA Exploration Systems Directorate (ExSD), in its program of bioastronautics research, manages the development of technologies that maintain human life, health, and performance in space. Using a system engineering process and risk management methods, ExSD's Human Support Systems (HSS) Program selects and performs research and technology development in several critical areas and transfers the results of its efforts to NASA exploration mission/systems development programs in the form of developed technologies and new knowledge about the capabilities and constraints of systems required to support human existence beyond Low Earth Orbit. HSS efforts include the areas of advanced environmental monitoring and control, extravehicular activity, food technologies, life support systems, space human factors engineering, and systems integration of all these elements. The HSS Program provides a structured set of deliverable products to meet the needs of exploration programs. These products reduce the gaps that exist in our knowledge of and capabilities for human support for long duration, remote space missions. They also reduce the performance gap between the efficiency of current space systems and the greater efficiency that must be achieved to make human planetary exploration missions economically and logistically feasible. In conducting this research and technology development program, it is necessary for HSS technologists and program managers to develop a common currency for decision making and the allocation of funding. A high level assessment is made of both the knowledge gaps and the system performance gaps across the program s technical project portfolio. This allows decision making that assures proper emphasis areas and provides a key measure of annual technological progress, as exploration mission plans continue to mature.

Berdich, Debra P.↗
NASA NTRS2019

NASA Undergraduate Student Instrument (USIP) Project--Lessons Learned

NASA offers real-world experiences, with the goal of developing students’ skills and capabilities in science, technology, engineering and math, skills critical to building a STEM-literate workforce and achieving the nation's exploration goals. In 2016, the NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) and the Office of Education National Space Grant Program (OE Space Grant) awarded $8 million through the Undergraduate Student Instrument Project (USIP) to 47 student teams to conduct hands-on research with 23 of the projects being CubeSat projects. The USIP student teams proposed science or technology experiments that are relevant to NASA missions, and the platform to fly their payload. The platforms include sounding rockets, scientific and hand-held balloons, aircraft, suborbital reusable and commercial launch vehicles, and CubeSats launched as a secondary payload on an orbital vehicle. The mission management for USIP was the responsibility of NASA Goddard Space Flight Centers Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) in Virginia. The university faculty supporting USIP attest to the benefits students are receiving in the hands-on aspects of the projects, as well as the real-world problem resolution. The USIP university teams are receiving an authentic NASA educational experience that will encourage the students to be part of NASA’s or the Nations’ future workforce and leaders.

Winterton, Joyce L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

VIPER: Mission Design & Development

The NASA Artemis Program plans to return humans to the Moon to stay. Extended human stays on the Moon will require substantial resources to sustain human presence over the long-term, requiring continuous supplies delivered from the Earth. However, if some of the resources were indigenously available, substantial logistical complexity and costs could be saved by “living off the land”, wherever possible. The LCROSS, LRO and other missions have confirmed the presence of resources such as volatiles in polar regions, so the next step is to understand the scientific nature and physical distribution of those candidate resources. Those local volatiles could be processed into propellants and human life-supporting needs, reducing risk of maintaining a permanent human presence on the Moon. The Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Resource (VIPER) is a surface mobility scientific platform, designed to spend ~100 days mapping and surveying four different Ice Stability Regions to understand the scientific nature and distribution of water and other volatiles. VIPER will also provide scientific mineralogical context of the lunar regolith, such as the presence of silicon and light metals in lunar regolith, providing a composite picture of resource availability and sustainment. This paper will discuss the latest development progress by the VIPER team, following our initial introduction to this mission at IAC2021. The VIPER team has passed both its NASA Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Reviews (CDR), and is now looking to performing significant testing of engineering units representing the design, prior to the team turning its attention to building the flight hardware. VIPER is managed within NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD), utilizing the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) delivery model with partner, Astrobotic, Inc.

Daniel Andrews↗