SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Jeff Miller, head of Public Affairs, sat down in conversation with Omar Yaghi, director of the Molecular Foundry, in the first of a series of powerpoint-free talks on July 11th 2012, at Berkeley Lab.
The development and validation of radiotracers is a critical step in the clinical translation of molecular imaging and theranostics to support personalized medicine. The proposed program is to support such efforts by an interdisciplinary team of investigators at the University of Washington (UW) and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC) and to provide opportunities for trainees to learn the spectrum of translational research in imaging biomarkers and therapeutic development. The proposed translational research projects include "Preclinical Evaluation of PET Imaging for Use in the Translation of Targeted Alpha Therapy of Blood-Related Cancers to Clinical Studies" (Project 1-Wilbur, leader); "Hypoxia Imaging: Radiopharmaceuticals, Preclinical Studies, Mechanisms and Clinical trials" (Project 2-Krohn, leader); and "Diagnostic Applications of Radiolabeled Biologics in Solid Tumors" (Project 3-Minoshima, leader). These projects use radiotracers with long half-lives, such as F-18, Zr-89, I-124, and At-211, that can potentially be handled commercially if translation research is successful. The proposed research method is to use an interdisciplinary 'team' of expert investigators and trainees working on a specific project for 1 or 2 years along the timeline and milestones set by the Program Directors. Each team includes 1) a clinician expert; 2) a radiochemistry expert; 3) an imaging or radiation therapy expert; 4) a physicist; 5) trainees; and 6) a UW technology transfer officer. Two groups of trainees will be involved: clinical and basic science (radiochemistry) trainees. Clinical trainees will be recruited from 3 training programs: Nuclear Medicine Resident Program; Radiology Residency Program; and Residency Program in Radiation Oncology. Basic science trainees will be graduate students from degree-awarding departments (chemistry, material sciences, bioengineering) or post-doctoral students (radiology, radiation oncology, or collaborating departments). A goal of training is to develop future investigators who will be able to conduct independent translational research with knowledge and expertise earned in this interdisciplinary team environment. To address clinically relevant questions, the program will organize regular brainstorming meetings participated by clinicians from various medical disciplines; program investigators; trainees; technology transfer officers to discuss medical questions, relevant targets, and technical feasibility. UW provides outstanding research and clinical facilities and resources that can be accessed by investigators. The Departments of Radiology and Radiation Oncology at UW have been at the forefront of translational imaging and therapeutics research efforts in cancer, neurological disorders, and cardiovascular diseases. This funding opportunity will solidify ongoing efforts of interdisciplinary collaborations at UW into a cohesive program that will train a new generation of investigators. This will, in turn, accelerate the translational potential of new radiotracers by rapid developments of proof-of-concept and first-in-man studies along with in vivo validations in a clinically relevant context.
This report documents a study conducted by the MSFC working group on Institutes in 1995 on the structure, organization and business arrangements of Institutes at a time when the agency was considering establishing science institutes. Thirteen institutes, ten science centers associated with the state of Georgia, Stanford Research Institute (SRI), and IIT Research Institute (IITRI), and general data on failed institutes were utilized to form this report. The report covers the working group's findings on institute mission, structure, director, board of directors/advisors, the working environment, research arrangements, intellectual property rights, business management, institute funding, and metrics.
The Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) mission was the culmination of two decades of research and development for Hyper-sonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) technology. LOFTID was a project overseen by the Technology Demonstration Mission (TDM) program within NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate. The success of the LOFTID mission could enable new NASA missions to Mars, Venus, and most solar-system destinations with atmospheres, as well as cost-effective payload returns to Earth, including in-space manufactured materials and launch vehicle asset recovery. LOFTID, with its unique inflatable heat shield, was the first-of-a-kind orbital reentry flight, and the largest blunt body atmospheric entry of any kind. On November 10, 2022, just over 10 years since the previous flight test of the smaller sub-orbital Inflatable Reentry Vehicle Experiment-3 (IRVE-3) [1], NASA Langley Research Center, with partner United Launch Alliance (ULA), successfully launched and achieved reentry and recovery of the LOFTID Reentry Vehicle (RV), further demonstrating the viability of the HIAD technology for large-diameter, inflatable heat shields to safely and accurately deliver large payloads through an atmosphere via a controlled descent and landing. Launching as a secondary payload with the Joint Polar Satellite System 2 (JPSS-2) from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, stowed inside an ex-tended payload adapter of the Atlas V 401 launch vehicle, the LOFTID mission officially began after the JPSS-2 payload was delivered to its orbit by the Centaur second stage. The LOFTID RV was flying solo on its spin-stabilized ballistic reentry trajectory about one hour after launch, and the flight ended approximately one hour later with a gentle splashdown under parachute in the Pacific Ocean off the east coast of Hawaii, where the RV was recovered and later shipped back to NASA Langley. LOFTID endured the harsh environments of atmospheric reentry while demonstrating stable aerodynamics through the entire spectrum of hypersonic, supersonic, transonic, and subsonic flight. The LOFTID RV was exposed to an aeroheating environment representative of many Mars and LEO HIAD applications, while successfully demonstrating the ability of the heat-affected inflatable structure to with-stand aerodynamic forces that exceeded those expected at Mars. This flight demonstration of a 6m diameter HIAD confirmed the technology structural and thermal performance as it protected the 1100kg RV entering Earth’s atmosphere at 8 km/s, reaching Mach 30, and experiencing 9g deceleration before deploying parachutes and splashing down in the Pacific Ocean. HIAD technology involves an aeroshell that can be hard packed into a small volume for launch and then deployed prior to atmospheric entry for a controlled deceleration through the atmosphere. Large deployable heat shields enable spacecraft to carry bigger, heavier payloads, including scientific instruments and human support systems for planetary landing and exploration. Much larger than traditional fixed diameter aeroshells that are constrained by the size of launch vehicle shrouds, inflatable decelerators create more drag and start the deceleration process in the upper reaches of the atmosphere with greater efficiency and stability. LOFTID’s successful demonstration of the HIAD technology has greatly expanded NASA’s options for future planetary missions and opened new commercial opportunities for lower-cost mission pay-load recovery including recovery of launch vehicle assets, or as a delivery system to return cargo from the International Space Station or cislunar space. The developments for some of these applications are al-ready underway. While LOFTID was indeed a first-of-a-kind flight for an inflatable heatshield, the largest blunt-body entry ever, its remarkable performance assured that it will not be the last of its kind.
This year the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility (ALCF) delivered nearly 900 million core hours of science. The research conducted at their leadership class facility touched our lives in both minute and massive ways - whether it was studying the catalytic properties of gold nanoparticles, predicting protein structures, or unearthing the secrets of exploding stars. The authors remained true to their vision to act as the forefront computational center in extending science frontiers by solving pressing problems for our nation. Our success in this endeavor was due mainly to the Department of Energy's (DOE) INCITE (Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment) program. The program awards significant amounts of computing time to computationally intensive, unclassified research projects that can make high-impact scientific advances. This year, DOE allocated 400 million hours of time to 28 research projects at the ALCF. Scientists from around the world conducted the research, representing such esteemed institutions as the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and European Center for Research and Advanced Training in Scientific Computation. Argonne also provided Director's Discretionary allocations for research challenges, addressing such issues as reducing aerodynamic noise, critical for next-generation 'green' energy systems. Intrepid - the ALCF's 557-teraflops IBM Blue/Gene P supercomputer - enabled astounding scientific solutions and discoveries. Intrepid went into full production five months ahead of schedule. As a result, the ALCF nearly doubled the days of production computing available to the DOE Office of Science, INCITE awardees, and Argonne projects. One of the fastest supercomputers in the world for open science, the energy-efficient system uses about one-third as much electricity as a machine of comparable size built with more conventional parts. In October 2009, President Barack Obama recognized the excellence of the entire Blue Gene series by awarding it to the National Medal of Technology and Innovation. Other noteworthy achievements included the ALCF's collaboration with the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) to examine cloud computing as a potential new computing paradigm for scientists. Named Magellan, the DOE-funded initiative will explore which science application programming models work well within the cloud, as well as evaluate the challenges that come with this new paradigm. The ALCF obtained approval for its next-generation machine, a 10-petaflops system to be delivered in 2012. This system will allow us to resolve ever more pressing problems, even more expeditiously through breakthrough science in the years to come.
Chris Marshall: Memorial Introduction Donald Edmonds Herbert Jr., or Don to his colleagues and friends, exemplified the “big tent” vision of medical physics, specializing in Applied Statistics and Dynamical Systems theory. He saw, more clearly than most, that “Making models is the difference between doing science and just fooling around [ref Woodworth, 2004]”. Don developed an interest in chemistry at school by “reading a book” - a recurring theme in his story. He was awarded a Westinghouse Science scholarship and attended the Carnegie Institute of Technology (later Carnegie Mellon University) where his interest turned to physics and led to a BS in Physics after transfer to Northwestern University. After (voluntary) service in the Navy he earned his MS in Physics from the University of Oklahoma, which led him to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore to pursue a PhD. The early death of his wife led him to take a salaried position in the Physics Department of Colorado College in Colorado Springs so as to better care for their young daughter. There, a chance invitation from Dr. Juan del Regato to teach physics to residents at the Penrose Cancer Hospital introduced him to Medical Physics, and he decided to enter the field. He received his PhD from the University of London (UK) under Prof. Joseph Rotblat, where I first met him, and where he taught himself statistics. He returned to Penrose as a clinical medical physicist, also largely self-taught. In 1975 he formalized an evolving interest in statistical analysis as Professor of Radiology and Head of the Division of Physics and Statistics at the College of Medicine of the University of South Alabama in Mobile, AL where he remained for the rest of his career. He also served as the first Director of their Bio-Statistics and Epidemiology Core Unit working in part on a sickle-cell disease. After retirement he remained active as Professor Emeritus. Don served for several years as a consultant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and may be remembered for his critique of the National Academy of Sciences BEIR III report (stating that their methodology “imposes a Delphic quality to the .. risk estimates”.) This led to his appointment as a member of the BEIR V committee. Don presented refresher courses at the AAPM, ASTRO and RSNA meetings and was active in the AAPM as a member or chair of several committees. He was the principal author of AAPM Report 43, which is essentially a critique of established clinical studies prior to 1992. He was co-editor of the Proceedings of many symposia on Time, Dose and Fractionation held in Madison, Wisconsin. He received the AAPM lifetime Achievement award in 2004. Don’s second wife of 46 years, Ann, predeceased him and he is survived by daughters Hillary and Emily, son John and two grandsons. Don was a true gentleman with a unique and erudite writing style illuminated by pithy quotations. If he had a fault it was, perhaps, that he did not realize how much smarter he was than the rest of us. This presentation draws heavily on a biography and video interview in the History and Heritage section of the AAPM website. The quote is his own. Andrzej Niemierko: Statistical modeling plays an essential role in modern medicine for quantitative evaluation of the effect of treatment. This session will feature an overview of statistical modeling techniques used for analyzing the many types of research data and an exploration of recent advances in new statistical modeling methodologies. Learning Objectives: To learn basics of statistical modeling methodology. To discuss statistical models that are frequently used in radiation oncology To discuss advanced modern statistical modeling methods and applications.
Chris Marshall: Memorial Introduction Donald Edmonds Herbert Jr., or Don to his colleagues and friends, exemplified the “big tent” vision of medical physics, specializing in Applied Statistics and Dynamical Systems theory. He saw, more clearly than most, that “Making models is the difference between doing science and just fooling around [ref Woodworth, 2004]”. Don developed an interest in chemistry at school by “reading a book” - a recurring theme in his story. He was awarded a Westinghouse Science scholarship and attended the Carnegie Institute of Technology (later Carnegie Mellon University) where his interest turned to physics and led to a BS in Physics after transfer to Northwestern University. After (voluntary) service in the Navy he earned his MS in Physics from the University of Oklahoma, which led him to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore to pursue a PhD. The early death of his wife led him to take a salaried position in the Physics Department of Colorado College in Colorado Springs so as to better care for their young daughter. There, a chance invitation from Dr. Juan del Regato to teach physics to residents at the Penrose Cancer Hospital introduced him to Medical Physics, and he decided to enter the field. He received his PhD from the University of London (UK) under Prof. Joseph Rotblat, where I first met him, and where he taught himself statistics. He returned to Penrose as a clinical medical physicist, also largely self-taught. In 1975 he formalized an evolving interest in statistical analysis as Professor of Radiology and Head of the Division of Physics and Statistics at the College of Medicine of the University of South Alabama in Mobile, AL where he remained for the rest of his career. He also served as the first Director of their Bio-Statistics and Epidemiology Core Unit working in part on a sickle-cell disease. After retirement he remained active as Professor Emeritus. Don served for several years as a consultant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and may be remembered for his critique of the National Academy of Sciences BEIR III report (stating that their methodology “imposes a Delphic quality to the .. risk estimates”.) This led to his appointment as a member of the BEIR V committee. Don presented refresher courses at the AAPM, ASTRO and RSNA meetings and was active in the AAPM as a member or chair of several committees. He was the principal author of AAPM Report 43, which is essentially a critique of established clinical studies prior to 1992. He was co-editor of the Proceedings of many symposia on Time, Dose and Fractionation held in Madison, Wisconsin. He received the AAPM lifetime Achievement award in 2004. Don’s second wife of 46 years, Ann, predeceased him and he is survived by daughters Hillary and Emily, son John and two grandsons. Don was a true gentleman with a unique and erudite writing style illuminated by pithy quotations. If he had a fault it was, perhaps, that he did not realize how much smarter he was than the rest of us. This presentation draws heavily on a biography and video interview in the History and Heritage section of the AAPM website. The quote is his own. Andrzej Niemierko: Statistical modeling plays an essential role in modern medicine for quantitative evaluation of the effect of treatment. This session will feature an overview of statistical modeling techniques used for analyzing the many types of research data and an exploration of recent advances in new statistical modeling methodologies. Learning Objectives: To learn basics of statistical modeling methodology. To discuss statistical models that are frequently used in radiation oncology To discuss advanced modern statistical modeling methods and applications.
Chris Marshall: Memorial Introduction Donald Edmonds Herbert Jr., or Don to his colleagues and friends, exemplified the “big tent” vision of medical physics, specializing in Applied Statistics and Dynamical Systems theory. He saw, more clearly than most, that “Making models is the difference between doing science and just fooling around [ref Woodworth, 2004]”. Don developed an interest in chemistry at school by “reading a book” - a recurring theme in his story. He was awarded a Westinghouse Science scholarship and attended the Carnegie Institute of Technology (later Carnegie Mellon University) where his interest turned to physics and led to a BS in Physics after transfer to Northwestern University. After (voluntary) service in the Navy he earned his MS in Physics from the University of Oklahoma, which led him to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore to pursue a PhD. The early death of his wife led him to take a salaried position in the Physics Department of Colorado College in Colorado Springs so as to better care for their young daughter. There, a chance invitation from Dr. Juan del Regato to teach physics to residents at the Penrose Cancer Hospital introduced him to Medical Physics, and he decided to enter the field. He received his PhD from the University of London (UK) under Prof. Joseph Rotblat, where I first met him, and where he taught himself statistics. He returned to Penrose as a clinical medical physicist, also largely self-taught. In 1975 he formalized an evolving interest in statistical analysis as Professor of Radiology and Head of the Division of Physics and Statistics at the College of Medicine of the University of South Alabama in Mobile, AL where he remained for the rest of his career. He also served as the first Director of their Bio-Statistics and Epidemiology Core Unit working in part on a sickle-cell disease. After retirement he remained active as Professor Emeritus. Don served for several years as a consultant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and may be remembered for his critique of the National Academy of Sciences BEIR III report (stating that their methodology “imposes a Delphic quality to the .. risk estimates”.) This led to his appointment as a member of the BEIR V committee. Don presented refresher courses at the AAPM, ASTRO and RSNA meetings and was active in the AAPM as a member or chair of several committees. He was the principal author of AAPM Report 43, which is essentially a critique of established clinical studies prior to 1992. He was co-editor of the Proceedings of many symposia on Time, Dose and Fractionation held in Madison, Wisconsin. He received the AAPM lifetime Achievement award in 2004. Don’s second wife of 46 years, Ann, predeceased him and he is survived by daughters Hillary and Emily, son John and two grandsons. Don was a true gentleman with a unique and erudite writing style illuminated by pithy quotations. If he had a fault it was, perhaps, that he did not realize how much smarter he was than the rest of us. This presentation draws heavily on a biography and video interview in the History and Heritage section of the AAPM website. The quote is his own. Andrzej Niemierko: Statistical modeling plays an essential role in modern medicine for quantitative evaluation of the effect of treatment. This session will feature an overview of statistical modeling techniques used for analyzing the many types of research data and an exploration of recent advances in new statistical modeling methodologies. Learning Objectives: To learn basics of statistical modeling methodology. To discuss statistical models that are frequently used in radiation oncology To discuss advanced modern statistical modeling methods and applications.
NASA's future missions will be more demanding. They require materials to be mass efficient, robust, multi-functional, scalable and able to be integrated with other subsystems to enable innovative missions to accomplish future science missions. Thermal protection systems and materials (TPSM) are critical for the robotic and human exploration of the solar system when it involves entry. TPSM is a single string system with no back-up. Mass efficiency and robustness are required. Integration of TPSM with the aeroshell is both a challenge and an opportunity. Since 2010, NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate has invested in innovative new materials and systems across a spectrum of game changing technologies. In this keynote address, we plan to highlight and present our successful approaches utilized in developing four different materials and system technologies that use innovative new manufacturing techniques to meet mission needs. 3-D weaving and felt manufacturing allowed us to successfully propose new ways of addressing TPSM challenges. In the 3-D MAT project, we developed and delivered a multi-functional TPS materials solution, in under three years that is an enabler for Lunar Capable Orion Spacecraft. Under the HEEET project, we are developing a robust heat-shield that can withstand extreme entry conditions, both thermally and mechanically, for entry at Venus, Saturn or higher speed sample return missions. The improved efficiency of HEEET allows science missions entry at much reduced G'loads enabling delicate science instruments to be used. The ADEPT concept is a foldable and deployable entry system and the critical component is a multi-functional fabric that is foldable and deployable and also functions as a mechanical aeroshell and a TPS. The fourth technology we will highlight involves felt to address integration challenges of rigid ablative system such as PICA that was used on MSL. The felt technology allows us to develop a compliant TPS for easy integration. The above four technology developments have focused on mission infusion as the success criteria. These technologies are in different stages of mission infusion. These innovations have led to new mission concepts to be proposed in the future. In our keynote address we will present approaches we have employed throughout the project to create the bridge to transition from low TRL to mission infusion and to overcome the traditional TRL valley of death.
Introduction: Robotic reconnaissance missions to small bodies will directly address aspects of NASA's Asteroid Initiative and will contribute to future human exploration. The NASA Asteroid Initiative is comprised of two major components: the Grand Challenge and the Asteroid Mission. The first component, the Grand Challenge, focuses on protecting Earth's population from asteroid impacts by detecting potentially hazardous objects with enough warning time to either prevent them from impacting the planet, or to implement civil defense procedures. The Asteroid Mission involves sending astronauts to study and sample a near- Earth asteroid (NEA) prior to conducting exploration missions of the Martian system, which includes Phobos and Deimos. The science and technical data obtained from robotic precursor missions that investigate the surface and interior physical characteristics of an object will help identify the pertinent physical properties that will maximize operational efficiency and reduce mission risk for both robotic assets and crew operating in close proximity to, or at the surface of, a small body. These data will help fill crucial strategic knowledge gaps (SKGs) concerning asteroid physical characteristics that are relevant for human exploration considerations at similar small body destinations. Small Body Strategic Knowledge Gaps: For the past several years NASA has been interested in identifying the key SKGs related to future human destinations. These SKGs highlight the various unknowns and/or data gaps of targets that the science and engineering communities would like to have filled in prior to committing crews to explore the Solar System. An action team from the Small Bodies Assessment Group (SBAG) was formed specifically to identify the small body SKGs under the direction of the Human Exploration and Operations Missions Directorate (HEOMD), given NASA's recent interest in NEAs and the Martian moons as potential human destinations [1]. The action team organized the SKGs into four broad themes: 1) Identify human mission targets; 2) Understand how to work on and interact with the small body surface; 3) Understand the small body environment and its potential risk/benefit to crew, systems, and operational assets; and 4) Understand the small body resource potential. Each of these themes were then further subdivided into categories to address specific SKG issues. Robotic Precursor Contributions to SKGs: Robotic reconnaissance missions should be able to address specific aspects related to SKG themes 1 through 4. Theme 1 deals with the identification of human mission targets within the NEA population. The current guideline indicates that human missions to fastspinning, tumbling, or binary asteroids may be too risky to conduct successfully from an operational perspective. However, no spacecraft mission has been to any of these types of NEAs before. Theme 2 addresses the concerns about interacting on the small body surface under microgravity conditions, and how the surface and/or sub-surface properties affect or restrict the interaction for human exploration. The combination of remote sensing instruments and in situ payloads will provide good insight into the asteroid's surface and subsurface properties. SKG theme 3 deals with the environment in and around the small body that may present a nuisance or hazard to any assets operating in close proximity. Impact and surface experiments will help address issues related to particle size, particle longevity, internal structure, and the near-surface mechanical stability of the asteroid. Understanding or constraining these physical characteristics are important for mission planning. Theme 4 addresses the resource potential of the small body. This is a particularly important aspect of human exploration since the identification and utilization of resources is a key aspect for deep space mission architectures to the Martian system (i.e., Phobos and Deimos). Conclusions: Robotic reconnaissance of small bodies can provide a wealth of information relevant to the science and planetary defense of NEAs. However, such missions to investigate NEAs can also provide key insights into small body strategic knowledge gaps and contribute to the overall success for human exploration missions to asteroids.
The Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis (JCAP) is a DOE Energy Innovation Hub focused on fuels from sunlight. JCAP's Director, Nate Lewis, spoke at the 2011 EFRC Summit about what JCAP is and how it is partnering with the EFRC community to accelerate the progress towards new solar fuels. The 2011 EFRC Summit and Forum brought together the EFRC community and science and policy leaders from universities, national laboratories, industry and government to discuss "Science for our Nation's Energy Future." In August 2009, the Office of Science established 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers. The EFRCs are collaborative research efforts intended to accelerate high-risk, high-reward fundamental research, the scientific basis for transformative energy technologies of the future. These Centers involve universities, national laboratories, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit firms, singly or in partnerships, selected by scientific peer review. They are funded at $2 to $5 million per year for a total planned DOE commitment of $777 million over the initial five-year award period, pending Congressional appropriations. These integrated, multi-investigator Centers are conducting fundamental research focusing on one or more of several “grand challenges” and use-inspired “basic research needs” recently identified in major strategic planning efforts by the scientific community. The purpose of the EFRCs is to integrate the talents and expertise of leading scientists in a setting designed to accelerate research that transforms the future of energy and the environment.
Diagnostic radiology and radiation oncology are arguably two of the most technologically advanced specialties in medicine. The imaging and radiation medicine technologies in clinical use today have been continuously improved through new advances made in the commercial and academic research arenas. This symposium explores the translational path from research through clinical implementation. Dr. Pettigrew will start this discussion by sharing his perspectives as director of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). The NIBIB has focused on promoting research that is technological in nature and has high clinical impact. We are in the age of precision medicine, and the technological innovations and quantitative tools developed by engineers and physicists working with physicians are providing innovative tools that increase precision and improve outcomes in health care. NIBIB funded grants lead to a very high patenting rate (per grant dollar), and these patents have higher citation rates by other patents, suggesting greater clinical impact, as well. Two examples of clinical translation resulting from NIH-funded research will be presented, in radiation therapy and diagnostic imaging. Dr. Yu will describe a stereotactic radiotherapy device developed in his laboratory that is designed for treating breast cancer with the patient in the prone position. It uses 36 rotating Cobalt-60 sources positioned in an annular geometry to focus the radiation beam at the system’s isocenter. The radiation dose is delivered throughout the target volume in the breast by constantly moving the patient in a planned trajectory relative to the fixed isocenter. With this technique, the focal spot dynamically paints the dose distribution throughout the target volume in three dimensions. Dr. Jackson will conclude this symposium by describing the RSNA Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA), which is funded in part by NIBIB and is a synergistic collaboration between medical physicists, radiologists, oncologists, industry representatives, and other stakeholders. The mission of QIBA is to improve the accuracy and practicality of quantitative image-based biomarkers by increasing precision across devices, patients, and time, an essential step in incorporating quantitative imaging biomarkers into radiology practice. Validated quantitative imaging biomarkers are necessary to support precision medicine initiatives, multimodality / multiparametric applications in medicine, treatment planning and response assessment, and radiogenomics applications. Current applications in the QIBA portfolio extend to cancer diagnosis and treatment, pulmonary diseases, and neurological disorders. The overall goal of this symposium is to illustrate the bidirectional exchange between medical research and clinical practice. Revitalizing scientific excellence in clinical medical physics challenges practitioners to identify clinical limitations, which then drive research innovation; research funded by the NIH and other agencies develops technological solutions to these limitations, which are translated to the care environment to ultimately improve clinical practice in radiology and radiation oncology.
Soft-elasticity in monodomain liquid crystal elastomers (LCEs) is promising for impact-absorbing applications where strain energy is ideally absorbed at constant stress. Conventionally, compressive and impact studies on LCEs have not been performed given the notorious difficulty synthesizing sufficiently large monodomain devices. Here, we use direct-ink writing 3D printing to fabricate bulk (>cm 3 ) monodomain LCE devices and study their compressive soft-elasticity over 8 decades of strain rate. At quasi-static rates, the monodomain soft-elastic LCE dissipated 45% of strain energy while comparator materials dissipated less than 20%. At strain rates up to 3000 s –1 , our soft-elastic monodomain LCE consistently performed closest to an ideal-impact absorber. Drop testing reveals soft-elasticity as a likely mechanism for effectively reducing the severity of impacts – with soft elastic LCEs offering a Gadd Severity Index 40% lower than a comparable isotropic elastomer. Lastly, we demonstrate tailoring deformation and buckling behavior in monodomain LCEs via the printed director orientation.
The Mission Control Center (MCC) underwent a major architecture update that has been used for Mission Operations since 2016. The MCC Performance team has collected system performance and usage metrics to improve the configuration, troubleshoot incidents, and help size the system to accommodate future programs. The data is collected through MCC custom software and custom scripts to extract data from our Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) tools. This data has enabled MCC to support more activities concurrently, help our operations and development teams to respond to issues more quickly, and make our directorate informed buyers to meet new requirements when developing project plans for the upcoming Fiscal Year.
What started with an idea and a memo has since grown into a one-of-a-kind, world-renowned facility that contributes to the nation’s advancement of science and technology. First known as LAMPF (Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility) until the 1990s when it became LANSCE (Los Alamos Neutron Science Center), the facility is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its first full-capacity proton beam on June 9, 1972. Since then, LANSCE has contributed to a range of national security goals, such as supporting the Lab’s stockpile stewardship program, helping to advance the science of medical radioisotopes, improving the understanding of hydrodynamics, and more. “LANSCE has served the nation through its near-unique capabilities,” said Alan Carr, Senior Historian at the National Security Research Center, which houses the facility’s evolution through decades of documents, photos and other materials. “Since 1972, LANSCE has been the Lab’s major experimental science facility and underpins Los Alamos as a world-class scientific institution. This was true 50 years ago and is still true today.” In commemoration of this anniversary, we’re taking a look back at LANSCE’s historic five decades, including its first director, earliest milestones and important contributions to national security.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is currently undergoing a substantial redirection. Notable among the changes occurring within NASA is the stated emphasis on technology development, integration, and demonstration. These new changes within the Agency should have a positive impact on the GN&C discipline given the potential for sizeable investments for technology development and in-space demonstrations of both Autonomous Rendezvous & Docking (AR&D) systems and Autonomous Precision Landing (APL) systems. In this paper the NASA Technical Fellow for Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) provides a summary of the present technical challenges, critical needs, and future technological directions for NASA s GN&C engineering discipline. A brief overview of the changes occurring within NASA that are driving a renewed emphasis on technology development will be presented as background. The potential benefits of the planned GN&C technology developments will be highlighted. This paper will provide a GN&C State-of-the-Discipline assessment. The discipline s readiness to support the goals & objectives of each of the four NASA Mission Directorates is evaluated and the technical challenges and barriers currently faced by the discipline are summarized. This paper will also discuss the need for sustained investments to sufficiently mature the several classes of GN&C technologies required to implement NASA crewed exploration and robotic science missions.
This paper is intended to evaluate the sample collection process with respect to sample characterization and decision making. In some cases, it may be sufficient to know whether a given outcrop or hand sample is the same as or different from previous sampling localities or samples. In other cases, it may be important to have more in-depth characterization of the sample, such as basic composition, mineralogy, and petrology, in order to effectively identify the best sample. Contextual field observations, in situ/handheld analysis, and backroom evaluation may all play a role in understanding field lithologies and their importance for return. For example, whether a rock is a breccia or a clast-laden impact melt may be difficult based on a single sample, but becomes clear as exploration of a field site puts it into context. The FINESSE (Field Investigations to Enable Solar System Science and Exploration) team is a new activity focused on a science and exploration field based research program aimed at generating strategic knowledge in preparation for the human and robotic exploration of the Moon, near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) and Phobos and Deimos. We used the FINESSE field excursion to the West Clearwater Lake Impact structure (WCIS) as an opportunity to test factors related to sampling decisions. In contract to other technology-driven NASA analog studies, The FINESSE WCIS activity is science-focused, and moreover, is sampling-focused, with the explicit intent to return the best samples for geochronology studies in the laboratory. This specific objective effectively reduces the number of variables in the goals of the field test and enables a more controlled investigation of the role of the crewmember in selecting samples. We formulated one hypothesis to test: that providing details regarding the analytical fate of the samples (e.g. geochronology, XRF/XRD, etc.) to the crew prior to their traverse will result in samples that are more likely to meet specific analytical objectives than samples collected in the absence of this premission information. We conducted three tests of this hypothesis. Our investigation was designed to document processes, tools and procedures for crew sampling of planetary targets. This is not meant to be a blind, controlled test of crew efficacy, but rather an effort to recognize the relevant variables that enter into sampling protocol and to develop recommendations for crew and backroom training in future endeavors. Methods: One of the primary FINESSE field deployment objectives was to collect impact melt rocks and impact melt-bearing breccias from a number of locations around the WCIS structure to enable high precision geochronology of the crater to be performed [1]. We conducted three tests at WCIS after two full days of team participation in field site activities, including using remote sensing data and geologic maps, hiking overland to become familiar with the terrain, and examining previously-collected samples from other islands. In addition, the team members shared their projects and techniques with the entire team. We chose our "crew members" as volunteers from the team, all of whom had had moderate training in geologic fieldwork and became familiar with the general field setting. The first two tests were short, focused tests of our hypothesis. Test A was to obtain hydrothermal vugs; Test B was to obtain impact melt and intrusive rock as well as the contact between the two to check for contact metamorphism and age differences. In both cases, the test director had prior knowledge of the site geology and had developed a study-specific objective for sampling prior to deployment. Prior to the field deployment, the crewmember was briefed on the sampling objective and the laboratory techniques that would be used on the samples. At the field sites (Fig. 2), the crewmember was given 30 minutes to survey a small section of outcrop (10-15 m) and acquire a suite of three samples. The crewmember talked through his process and the test director kept track of the timeline in verbal cues to the crewmember. At the conclusion, the team member conducting the scientific study appraised the samples and train of thought. Test C was a 90-minute EVA simulation using two crewmembers working out of line-of-sight in communication with a science backroom. The science objectives were determined by the science backroom team in advance using a Gigapan image of the outcrop (Fig. 1). The science team formulated hypotheses for the outcrop units and created sampling objectives for impact-melt lithologies; the science team turned these into a science plan, which they communicated to the crew in camp prior to crew deployment. As part of the science plan, the science team also discussed their sample needs in depth with the crewmembers, including laboratory methods, objectives, and samples sizes needed. During the deployment, the two crewmembers relayed real-time information to the science backroom by radio with no time delay. Both the crew and science team re-evaluated their hypotheses and science plans in real-time. Discussion: Upon evaluation, we found that the focused tests (Tests A and B) were successful in meeting their scientific objectives. The crewmember used their knowledge of how the samples were to be used in further study (technique, sample size, and scientific need) to focus on the sampling task. The crewmember was comfortable spending minimal time describing and mapping the outcrop. The crewmember used all available time to get a good sample. The larger test was unsuccessful in meeting the sampling objectives. When the crewmembers began describing the lithologies, it was quickly apparent that the lithologies were not as the backroom expected and had communicated to the crew. When the outcrop wasn't as expected, the crew members instinctively switched to field characterization mode, taking significant time to characterize and map the outcrop. One crew member admitted that he "kind of lost track" of the sampling strategy as he focused on the basic outcrop characterization. This is the logical first step in a field geology campaign, that a significant amount of time must be spent by the crew and backroom to understand the outcrop and its significance. Basic field characterization of an outcrop is a focused activity that takes significant time and training [2, 3]. Sampling of representational lithologies can be added to this activity for little cost [4]. However, we have shown that identification of unusual or specific samples for laboratory study also takes significant time and knowledge. We suggest that sampling of this type be considered a separate activity from field characterization, and that crewmembers be trained in sampling needs for different kinds of studies (representative lithologies vs. specialized samples) to acquire a mindset for sampling similar to field mapping. Sampling activities should be given a significant amount of specifically allocated time in scheduling EVA activities; and in the better case, that sampling be done as a second activity to a previously studied outcrop where both crew and backroom are comfortable with its context and characteristics. Our hypothesis posited that crewmember knowledge of how the samples would be used upon return would aid them in choosing relevant samples. Our testing bore this hypothesis out to some extent. We therefore recommend that crewmember training should include exposure to the laboratory techniques and analyses that will be used on the samples to foster this knowledge. There is also the potential for increasing crewmember contextual knowledge real-time in the field through the introduction of in situ geochemical technologies such as field portable XRF. The presence of field portable geochemical technology could enable the astronauts to interrogate the samples for K abundance real-time, ensuring they could collect valuable and dateable samples [5]. Though simulations such as these can teach us a fair bit about decision making processes and timeline building, one EVA participant noted that when he wasn't collecting "real" samples, he wasn't at his best. This effect suggests that higher-fidelity studies involving truly remote participants conducting actual scientific studies merit further attention to capture lessons for application to future crew situations.
The U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (JGI) invited scientists interested in the application of genomics to bioenergy and environmental issues, as well as all current and prospective users and collaborators, to attend the annual DOE JGI Genomics of Energy Environment Meeting held March 22-24, 2011 in Walnut Creek, CA. The emphasis of this meeting was on the genomics of renewable energy strategies, carbon cycling, environmental gene discovery, and engineering of fuel-producing organisms. The meeting features presentations by leading scientists advancing these topics. DOE JGI Deputy Director Jim Bristow gives a presentation on the Community Sequencing Program at the 6th annual Genomics of Energy and Environment Meeting on March 23, 2011.