Results for “special section” — Page 55

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-01: Vision for Medical Physics and Status of Current Initiatives

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-02: Improving Manuscript Quality Via Structured Reviews, Enhanced Scientific Category Taxonomy, and Outreach

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-03: Writing Good Scientific Papers and Responding to Critiques

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2012

Searches for Lorentz Violation in Top-Quark Production and Decay at Hadron Colliders

We present a first-of-its-kind confirmation that the most massive known elementary particle obeys the special theory of relativity. Lorentz symmetry is a fundamental aspect of special relativity which posits that the laws of physics are invariant regardless of the orientation and velocity of the reference frame in which they are measured. Because this symmetry is a fundamental tenet of physics, it is important to test its validity in all processes. We quantify violation of this symmetry using the Standard-Model Extension framework, which predicts the effects that Lorentz violation would have on elementary particles and their interactions. The top quark is the most massive known elementary particle and has remained inaccessible to tests of Lorentz invariance until now. This model predicts a dependence of the production cross section for top and antitop quark pairs on sidereal time as the orientation of the experiment in which these events are produced changes with the rotation of the Earth. Using data collected with the DØ detector at the Fermilab Tevatron Collider, we search for violation of Lorentz invariance in events involving the production of a $t\bar{t}$ pair. Within the experimental precision, we find no evidence for such a violation and set upper limits on parameters describing its possible strength within the Standard-Model Extension. We also investigate the prospects for extending this analysis using the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider which, because of the higher rate of $t\bar{t}$ events at that experiment, has the potential to improve the limits presented here.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

NASA NTRS1992

An acetate precursor process for BSCCO (2223) thin films and coprecipitated powders

Since the discovery of high temperature superconducting oxides much attention has been paid to finding better and useful ways to take advantage of the special properties exhibited by these materials. One such process is the development of thin films for engineering applications. Another such process is the coprecipitation route to producing superconducting powders. An acetate precursor process for use in thin film fabrication and a chemical coprecipitation route to Bismuth based superconducting materials has been developed. Data obtained from the thin film process were inconclusive to date and require more study. The chemical coprecipitation method of producing bulk material is a viable method, and is preferred over the previously used solid state route. This method of powder production appears to be an excellent route to producing thin section tape cast material and screen printed devices, as it requires less calcines than the oxide route to produce quality powders.

Haertling, Gene H.↗

NASA NTRS1988

Postbuckling of eccentric open-section stiffened composite panels

A numerical study of the postbuckling behavior of open-section stiffened composite compression panels is presented with emphasis on the effects of an anisotropic attached flange on results, the strain distribution near collapse, and the change of buckle pattern during postbuckling response. Results are obtained for a blade stiffened panel with orthotropic or anisotropic attached flanges from a new verison of STAGS, a general, branched shell, nonlinear computer program. Comparisons between these results indicate the effects of anisotropic flanges on the results. Elastic strain distributions are obtained from STAGS and indications are given about the collapse loads and modes of a particular panel. Change of buckle pattern is studied using STAGS and a special purpose computer program for long plates. Comparisons are made with experimental results.

Stein, Manuel↗

NASA NTRS2010

Jake Garn Mission Simulator and Training Facility, Building 5, Historical Documentation

In response to President George W. Bush's announcement in January 2004 that the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) would end in 2010, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) completed a nation-wide historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned facilities and properties (real property assets) at all its Centers and component facilities. The buildings and structures which supported the SSP were inventoried and assessed as per the criteria of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in the context of this program. This study was performed in compliance with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), as amended; the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190); Executive Order (EO) 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment; EO 13287, Preserve America, and other relevant legislation. As part of this nation-wide study, in September 2006, historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned and managed facilities at was conducted by NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. The results of this study are presented in a report entitled, "Survey and Evaluation of NASA-owned Historic Facilities and Properties in the Context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas," prepared in November 2007 by NASA JSC's contractor, Archaeological Consultants, Inc. As a result of this survey, the Jake Gam Mission Simulator and Training Facility (Building 5) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, with concurrence by the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The survey concluded that Building 5 is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C in the context of the U.S. Space Shuttle program (1969-2010). Because it has achieved significance within the past 50 years, Criteria Consideration G applies. At the time of this documentation, Building 5 was still used to support the SSP as an astronaut training facility. This documentation package precedes any undertaking as defined by Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and implemented in 36 CFR Part 800, as NASA JSC has decided to proactively pursue efforts to mitigate the potential adverse affects of any future modifications to the facility. It includes a historical summary of the Space Shuttle program; the history of JSC in relation to the SSP; a narrative of the history of Building 5 and how it supported the SSP; and a physical description of the structure. In addition, photographs documenting the construction and historical use of Building 5 in support of the SSP, as well as photographs of the facility documenting the existing conditions, special technological features, and engineering details, are included. A contact sheet printed on archival paper, and an electronic copy of the work product on CD, are also provided.

Slovinac, Trish↗

NASA NTRS2011

Avionics Systems Laboratory/Building 16. Historical Documentation

As part of this nation-wide study, in September 2006, historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned and managed facilities that was conducted by NASA s Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. The results of this study are presented in a report entitled, "Survey and Evaluation of NASA-owned Historic Facilities and Properties in the Context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas," prepared in November 2007 by NASA JSC s contractor, Archaeological Consultants, Inc. As a result of this survey, the Avionics Systems Laboratory (Building 16) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, with concurrence by the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The survey concluded that Building 5 is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C in the context of the U.S. Space Shuttle program (1969-2010). Because it has achieved significance within the past 50 years, Criteria Consideration G applies. At the time of this documentation, Building 16 was still used to support the SSP as an engineering research facility, which is also sometimes used for astronaut training. This documentation package precedes any undertaking as defined by Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and implemented in 36 CFR Part 800, as NASA JSC has decided to proactively pursue efforts to mitigate the potential adverse affects of any future modifications to the facility. It includes a historical summary of the Space Shuttle program; the history of JSC in relation to the SSP; a narrative of the history of Building 16 and how it supported the SSP; and a physical description of the structure. In addition, photographs documenting the construction and historical use of Building 16 in support of the SSP, as well as photographs of the facility documenting the existing conditions, special technological features, and engineering details, are included. A contact sheet printed on archival paper, and an electronic copy of the work product on CD, are also provided

Slovinac, Patricia↗

NASA NTRS2011

Communications and Tracking Development Laboratory/Building 44. Historical Documentation

As part of this nation-wide study, in September 2006, historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned and managed facilities was conducted by NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. The results of this study are presented in a report entitled, Survey and Evaluation of NASA-owned Historic Facilities and Properties in the Context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, prepared in November 2007 by NASA JSC s contractor, Archaeological Consultants, Inc. As a result of this survey, the Communications and Tracking Development Laboratory (Building 44) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, with concurrence by the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The survey concluded that Building 44 is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C in the context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program (1969-2010). Because it has achieved significance within the past 50 years, Criteria Consideration G applies. At the time of this documentation, Building 44 was still used to support the SSP as an engineering research facility, which is also sometimes used for astronaut training. This documentation package precedes any undertaking as defined by Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and implemented by 36 CFR Part 800, as NASA JSC has decided to proactively pursue efforts to mitigate the potential adverse affects of any future modifications to the facility. It includes a historical summary of the Space Shuttle Program; the history of JSC in relation to the SSP; a narrative of the history of Building 44 and how it supported the SSP; and a physical description of the building. In addition, photographs documenting the construction and historical use of Building 44 in support of the SSP, as well as photographs of the facility documenting the existing conditions, special technological features, and engineering details, are included. A contact sheet printed on archival paper, and an electronic copy of the work product on CD, are also provided.

Slovinac, Patricia↗

NASA NTRS2010

Mission Control Center/Building 30. Historical Documentation

As part of this nation-wide study, in September 2006, historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned and managed facilities was conducted by NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. The results of this study are presented in a report entitled, Survey and Evaluation of NASA-owned Historic Facilities and Properties in the Context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, prepared in November 2007 by NASA JSC s contractor, Archaeological Consultants, Inc. As a result of this survey, the Mission Control Center (Building 30) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, with concurrence by the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The survey concluded that Building 30 is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C in the context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program (1969-2010). Because it has achieved significance within the past 50 years, Criteria Consideration G applies. It should be noted that the Mission Control Center was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1985 for its role in the Apollo 11 Lunar Landing. At the time of this documentation, Building 30 was still used to support the SSP as an engineering research facility, which is also sometimes used for astronaut training. This documentation package precedes any undertaking as defined by Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and implemented in 36 CFR Part 800, as NASA JSC has decided to proactively pursue efforts to mitigate the potential adverse affects of any future modifications to the facility. It includes a historical summary of the Space Shuttle program; the history of JSC in relation to the SSP; a narrative of the history of Building 30 and how it supported the SSP; and a physical description of the structure. In addition, photographs documenting the construction and historical use of Building 30 in support of the SSP, as well as photographs of the facility documenting the existing conditions, special technological features, and engineering details, are included. A contact sheet printed on archival paper, and an electronic copy of the work product on CD, are also provided.

Source record↗

DOE OSTI2023

Design of Nuclear Criticality Safety Framework for Hands-on Construction of Fast Systems Over Ranges of Multiplication

Since 1945, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has performed critical experiments, primarily at the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility (LACEF) at Technical Area 18 (TA-18). Since 2011, these experiments have been conducted by the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC), operated by LANL, at the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) in the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). These experiments utilize various types of Special Nuclear Material (SNM). Some of these experiments utilize what is referred to as the Rocky Flat Shells, which are called such as they came from the Rocky Flats Plant. These concentric hemi-shells are made of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU), which is 93 w/o 235U. Fig. 1. Subset of the Rocky Flat Shells LANL is designing a new subcritical hands-on experiment with the goal of achieving a neutron multiplication in the range of 50 to 200, which correlates to Keff values of 0.98 to 0.995. ANSI/ANS-1 is the standard for Conduct of Critical Experiments which governs critical operations at NCERC. Section 3.9 of ANSI/ANS-1 states that when manipulating a critical assembly by hand, the predicted k eff of a known configuration should not exceed 0.95 (a neutron multiplication of 20). This presents a challenge, as this system would have a higher multiplication than 20 and the assembly would have to remain subcritical in normal and credible accident scenarios. To ensure the safety of such an assembly, the different normal and abnormal conditions that could alter the criticality 1 MCNP® and Monte Carlo N-Particle® are registered trademarks owned by Triad National Security, LLC, manager and operator of Los Alamos National Laboratory. Any third party use of such registered marks should be properly of the system must be considered and analyzed. If such a condition is deemed to be credible, it will be further investigated using the Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) transport code. If the results of these simulations show that a k eff larger than one could be possible, modifications to the assembly will be made until such an event is deemed no longer possible.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2014

Pulsed-focusing recirculating linacs for muon acceleration

Since the muon has a short lifetime, fast acceleration is essential for high-energy applications such as muon colliders, Higgs factories, or neutrino factories. The best one can do is to make a linear accelerator with the highest possible accelerating gradient to make the accelerating time as short as possible. However, the cost of such a single linear accelerator is prohibitively large due to expensive power sources, cavities, tunnels, and related infrastructure. As was demonstrated in the Thomas Jefferson Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab) Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF), an elegant solution to reduce cost is to use magnetic return arcs to recirculate the beam through the accelerating RF cavities many times, where they gain energy on each pass. In such a Recirculating Linear Accelerator (RLA), the magnetic focusing strength diminishes as the beam energy increases in a conventional linac that has constant strength quadrupoles. After some number of passes the focusing strength is insufficient to keep the beam from going unstable and being lost. In this project, the use of fast pulsed quadrupoles in the linac sections was considered for stronger focusing as a function of time to allow more successive passes of a muon beam in a recirculating linear accelerator. In one simulation, it was shown that the number of passes could be increased from 8 to 12 using pulsed magnet designs that have been developed and tested. This could reduce the cost of linac sections of a muon RLA by 8/12, where more improvement is still possible. The expense of a greater number of passes and corresponding number of return arcs was also addressed in this project by exploring the use of ramped or FFAG-style magnets in the return arcs. A better solution, invented in this project, is to use combined-function dipole-quadrupole magnets to simultaneously transport two beams of different energies through one magnet string to reduce costs of return arcs by almost a factor of two. A patent application was filed for this invention and a detailed report published in Physical Review Special Topics. A scaled model using an electron beam was developed and proposed to test the concept of a dog bone RLA with combined-function return arcs. The efforts supported by this grant were reported in a series of contributions to particle accelerator conferences that are reproduced in the appendices and summarized in the body of this report.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗

NASA NTRS1924

Tests on a model of the D.F.W. airplane T-29 of the "Deutsche Flugzeug derke" (German airplane works)

Experiments similar to those carried out with the A.E.G (Allgemeine Elektrizitats-Gesellschaft) were made in the small wind tunnel of the Gottingen laboratory on a model of the D.F.W. airplane T-29. Three series of tests were carried out on the model with a velocity head (or dynamic pressure) of 5 kg/sq m (1.02 lb/sq ft), during which one of the movable surfaces was deflected at various angles, while both the others were retained in their central positions. Of special interest among the results of the tests is the different run of the elevating moments. The curves for the A.E.G. model, rising to the right, denote stability with the elevator locked, while the slight inclination to the left with the D.F.W model denotes a slight instability. For the maximum C(sub L) values, the stability of A.E.G. model continues to increase and the instability of the D.F.W. model is converted into stability. The rolling moments shown when the angular deflection of the ailerons is 0 degrees are due, in both series of tests, to the unequal distribution of the air velocity over the cross section of the wind tunnel, rather than to a lack of symmetry in the model.

Molthan, Wilhelm↗

NASA NTRS1999

Hot Gas Testing Results of Stagnant Volume Filling Through a Back-Filled RSRM Nozzle Joint

Silicone rubber is back-filled into RSW nozzle joints after assembly. A possible artifact of this process is the formation of small pathways through this filter leading to sensitive sealing materials within the joint. At motor ignition, hot gases fill the stagnant volumes within the joint through this path. A series of 14 test has been completed studying this scenario and providing anchoring data for thermal/flow models. Parameters such as gas path cross section, gas path length, gas path materials, fill volume size, and post path gas spreading prior to unpingement on seal material, have been investigated. Tests were accomplished using geometry similar to RSRM nozzle joint 4 with attached volumes replicating the free volume and flow friction in the actual hardware. The test hardware simulated 8 inches of the full-scale circumference. Testing has pointed to changes required in model boundary condition assumptions and gas dynamics corrections for gas paths of this size and geometry. Areas ,where this date has provided improvement in analysis models will be covered as well as model inadequacies that require separate specialized efforts. Questions remaining after this testing and a possible direction for future testing will be suggested.

Prince, Andrew S.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Modeling of the Orbital Debris Population of RORSAT Sodium-Potassium Droplets

A large population resident in the orbital debris environment is composed of eutectic sodium-potassium (NaK) droplets, released during the reactor core ejection of 16 nuclear-powered Radar Ocean Reconnaissance Satellites (RORSATs) launched in the 1980s by the former Soviet Union. These electrically conducting RORSAT debris objects are spherical in shape, generating highly polarized radar returns. Their diameters are mostly in the centimeter and millimeter size regimes. Since the Space Surveillance Network catalog is limited to objects greater than 5 cm in low Earth orbit, our current knowledge about this special class of orbital debris relies largely on the analysis of Haystack radar data. This paper elaborates the simulation of the RORSAT debris populations in the new NASA Orbital Debris Engineering Model ORDEM2010, which replaces ORDEM2000. The estimation of the NaK populations uses the NASA NaK-module as a benchmark. It follows the general statistical approach to developing all other ORDEM2010-required LEO populations (for various types of debris and across a wide range of object sizes). This paper describes, in detail, each major step in the NaK-population derivation, including a specific discussion on the conversion between Haystack-measured radar-cross-sections and object-size distribution for the NaK droplets. Modeling results show that the RORSAT debris population is stable for the time period under study and that Haystack data sets are fairly consistent over the observations of multiple years.

Xu, Y.-L.↗

DOE OSTI2024

ASME Design Code Rule Changes for Nuclear Graphite

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler Pressure and Vessel Code (ASME BPVC) Section III, Division 5, Article HHA-3000 outlines graphite core component and graphite core assembly design guidelines. Graphite core components are defined as ?components manufactured from graphite that are installed to form a graphite core assembly within the reactor pressure vessel of a high temperature, graphite moderated fission reactor.? (p. 413) Graphites? inherent defect distributions do not allow for deterministic material reliability. Rather, graphite has variable strength distributions which change by grade. Article HHA-3000 outlines two semi-probabilistic methods, the full and simplified assessments, which set design load limit targets for each of three component structural reliability classes. The Design Task Group was officially recognized as a specialized task group within ASME November of 2023, though we?ve been collaborating since 2022. The purpose of the Design Task Group is to correct, clarify, and make HHA-3000 function as intended. The Design Task Group will sunset once we?ve achieved our objectives. The Design Task Group was specifically told to not write new Code. While there may be more precise and more accurate methods to determine reliability targets, the current methods are conservative, relatively simple to implement, and have thus far been considered satisfactory for setting design reliability targets. Much of the ground-work to write proposal files and background documents for records to make the changes needed to achieve our objective have been completed. The Design Task Group has documented much of their work through papers, presentations, and memorandums. Three memorandums in which INL team members had substantial contributions are found in the Appendices: FEA Modeling for the Baseline Program, Evaluating the Effects on Margin of Updating the Threshold and Shape Parameters in the Full Assessment, and Interpretations of the Full and Simplified Assessments in ASME BPVC. Most of the on-going work to achieve the Design Task Group?s objective will be addressing comments on existing records and moving records through the balloting process. The Design Task Group met bi-weekly mostly through the end of FY2023. Since February 2024, the Design Task Group has mostly been completed with solving and documenting the technical issues associated with the assessments. Unless new tasks are identified, the remaining work of the Design Task Group will be political and editorial.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2024

A deep learning-based battery sizing optimization tool for hybridizing generation plants

Hybrid generation and energy storage systems offer the ability to increase flexibility of the combined asset. This flexibility can be used to increase provision of services already provided by the generation asset, such as timing sale of electricity to the energy market during high price periods, and also enable provision of additional services, such as ancillary services or contribute to resource adequacy. From a generation asset owner perspective, the decision to hybridize includes selecting an energy storage system that, among other factors, maximizes financial performance of the energy storage investment. Yet, existing tools to optimize energy storage sizing are either too rudimentary (i.e., based on “rules of thumb”) or too complex to implement (i.e., require specialized engineering and software knowledge and a high-performance computer to run). This work presents a novel deep learning-based battery sizing optimization tool that is designed to help generation asset owners easily assess preliminary sizing considerations for potential battery investments to hybridize their generation facility. The tool uses deep learning to predict revenue over a broad search space of potential battery sizes, estimates capital and operating costs (including accounting for battery degradation), and computes financial performance of each potential battery system investment, recommending a system with maximum financial performance. The tool is tested and validated for hydropower assets. Finally, this tool will help a greater cross-section of industry consider investments in battery systems, increasing their revenue and helping them compete in rapidly evolving electrify markets.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

NASA NTRS1984

Biaxial constitutive equation development for single crystals

Current gas turbine engines utilize large single crystal superalloy components in the hot section. Structural analysis of these components requires a valid stress strain temperature constitutive equation. The goal of the program described is to create one or more models and verify these models. A constitutive equation based on an assumed slip behavior of a single slip system was formulated, programmed, and debugged. Specifically, the basic theory for a model based on aggravating slip behavior on individual slip systems was formulated and programmed and some simulations were run using assumed values of constants. In addition, a formulation allowing strain controlled simulations was completed. An approach to structural analysis of the specimen was developed. This approach uses long tube consistancy conditions and finite elements specially formulated to take advantage of the symmetry of 100 oriented specimens.

Jordan, E. H.↗