Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “first responder technology”

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.

130 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2023

Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) Mission

NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission was humanity’s first attempt to move a celestial body, demonstrating the capability to perform a kinetic impact on a planetary defense–relevant sized asteroid. DART was part of the international collaboration known as the Asteroid Impact & Deflection Assessment (AIDA), involving NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI), and scientists around the world. DART was a key step to demonstrating preparedness to respond to planetary defense scenarios, and it provides a crucial data point for likely outcomes. Near-Earth objects (NEOs) greater than 140 m in size are of particular interest to planetary defense because they have the potential to cause significant damage if they were to impact Earth, and also because they are difficult to detect, with less than 50% of the predicted population discovered as of 2022 (National Academies Press, 2022). With an appropriately sized spacecraft and enough warning (typically many years to decades), a kinetic impact can slightly alter the orbit of an asteroid in a way that, over time, prevents the asteroid from colliding with Earth in the future. DART’s target was Dimorphos, the smaller (~150-m-diameter) member of the binary asteroid system (65803) Didymos, which is a near-Earth, potentially hazardous, and well-characterized asteroid system. By simply observing changes to the system after impact and comparing them with a pre-impact reference, it was possible to use ground-based telescopes to observe the deflection in the orbit of Dimorphos after impact. Developed and operated by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), the mission entered formulation in 2015 after multiple years of concept development. The project was administered according to NPR 7120.5, with technical oversight and funding through the Planetary Missions Program Office (PMPO) at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and overall support as a directed mission from NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO). The DART spacecraft hosted a singular payload, the Didymos Reconnaissance and Asteroid Camera for Optical navigation (DRACO), and a deployable CubeSat contributed by ASI named the Light Italian CubeSat for Imaging of Asteroids (LICIACube). On 11 September 2022, DART deployed LICIACube, which subsequently followed the DART spacecraft at a safe distance and observed the immediate aftermath of the DART impact. DART was designed to autonomously detect, navigate to, and impact Dimorphos. This autonomous design was chosen to maximize the probability of impact, since commanding from the ground could result in course corrections arriving too late. On the day of impact, 26 September 2022, the spacecraft’s autonomous systems successfully detected and locked on to Dimorphos, impacting its surface within 2 m of the center of the illuminated figure (Jensenius et al., 2023). No human intervention was required for a successful impact, demonstrating that humanity possesses the technology to perform a kinetic impact. Within 2 weeks of impact, it was clear that the orbit of Dimorphos had been significantly altered. On 11 October 2022, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson announced that the new orbital period of Dimorphos was shortened by approximately 32 ± 2 min, from 11 h and 55 min before impact to 11 h and 23 min after impact. With additional observations over the following months, the accuracy of this measurement improved to a –33.24 min ± 1.4 s orbital period change (Naidu et al., 2023; Scheirich et al., 2023), and Beta (β), the momentum transfer enhancement parameter, was reported to be 3.6 (Cheng et al., 2023). Subsequent studies examined the details of DART’s impact site, modeled the impact event, investigated the ejecta produced, and analyzed the dynamics of the Didymos system. These combined results clearly demonstrate that the project met all Level 1 mission requirements.

asteroid↗
DOE OSTI2020

Expedited Walkdowns and Preparation of Cost Estimates for Decontamination and Demolition of Excess Facilities - 20335

Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) is the prime contractor responsible for managing and operating Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The mission of the LLNL is to strengthen security of the United States through development and application of world-class science and technology to enhance the nation's defense, reduce the global threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and respond with vision, quality, integrity, and technical excellence to scientific issues of national importance. To accomplish its mission, LLNL must plan and manage its campus space and facilities to optimize use of its relatively small one-square-mile footprint. LLNL currently has numerous excess facilities that require decontamination and demolition (D and D). The LLNL Legacy Facility Program is responsible for stewardship and risk reduction programs to effectively manage these excess assets at LLNL. The Legacy Facility Program identified 10 excess facilities at LLNL that were candidates for demolition based on risks from further degradation of the facilities, potential exposure to hazardous materials, or need for removal to make way for new program facilities. The buildings range from a structure built in 1943 to serve as a US Navy drill hall during World War II, to a facility that provided neutrons to study material properties for the fusion energy program. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) appropriated FY19 funding for the development of Class 3 estimates for these 10 excess facilities that would be used to develop a Program Management Plan for funding consideration. Class 3 estimates are not conceptual, nor overly detailed, but adequate to be used for budget and appropriation purposes. Using existing strategic sourcing agreements, LLNL was able to organize a team of senior subject matter experts (SMEs) with diverse technical backgrounds across the Department of Energy (DOE) Complex to complete extensive process knowledge (PK) reviews and walk-downs of each excess facility and to deliver accurate and complete estimates under an expedited schedule (i.e., within eight weeks). To facilitate the expedited schedule, LLNL was fully prepared for the arrival of the JGMS team, which consisted of the following companies: J.G. Management Systems, Inc. (JGMS); Strata-G, LLC; and Michael Baker International. LLNL provided background and PK information on the excess facilities, pictures, supporting historical documentation, and radiological survey history as well as escorted access to the facilities. The JGMS team has previous experience supporting Program Management Plans for excess facilities at the Y-12 National Security Complex. The team mobilized to LLNL and performed the facility walk-downs from January 22-25, 2019. Using a methodical evaluation process, expertise, and experience, the team was able to deliver walk-down draft reports and estimates to LLNL before their February 8, 2019 deadline. LLNL then in turn reviewed, completed the estimates by adding waste management costs and other LLNL costs, and delivered the estimates to NNSA by February 15, 2019. The completed final reports, including draft D and D estimates, were delivered to LLNL before their March 6, 2019 deadline. The work was successfully completed ahead of the expedited schedule required by LLNL, resulting in a commendation from the client. This paper describes how the partnership and collaboration as a fully integrated team comprised of the prime contractor, LLNS, and the JGMS team successfully met the needs of the US government, resulting in the performance of expedited site walk-downs, the development of summary evaluation reports, and the preparation of draft Class 3 estimates and preliminary schedules for the D and D of 10 excess facilities at LLNL. The efforts of the team will enable the D and D of the first excess facility in the 2020-2021 time frame. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Distinguishing fissile uranium isotopes using an active well neutron coincidence counter

Proposed thorium-based nuclear fuel cycles are likely to require quantification and verification of 233 U within nuclear material. Because of their similar fission cross sections, active neutron nondestructive assay (NDA) systems may respond similarly to 233 U and 235 U. Traditional safeguards equipment has been optimized for 235 U and 238 U quantification associated with conventional uranium/plutonium fuel cycles and may not be directly applicable to 233 U quantification when mixed with other actinides. This work used models of the large volume active well coincidence counter (LV-AWCC) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to evaluate the performance of this neutron NDA system to differentiate fissile uranium isotopes. The models were developed to simulate NDA system performance in response to a number of triangular radiation signature training device sources within the central cavity or well. This work predicted that the LV-AWCC can effectively differentiate 233 U from 235 U in certain modes of operation. In active mode, the LV-AWCC with the cadmium liner results in different doubles count rates between the fissile isotopes for a given fissile uranium mass. Without the cadmium liner, the uranium isotopes provide a statistically indistinguishable doubles count rate response for the fissile masses considered in this work (up to approximately 150 g). The cadmium liner serves to harden the neutron interrogation spectrum, which better exploits the notable difference in the 233 U and 235 U fission cross sections at approximately 1 eV. In passive mode, the two fissile isotopes exhibit different doubles and singles count rates regardless of liner presence because the passive source strength of 233 U is approximately 2 orders of magnitude stronger than that of 235 U due to the shorter half-life and correspondingly higher (α, n) yield. We conclude that using neutron interrogation in the LV-AWCC, two measurements are needed to quantify 233 U content in mixed uranium items. The first measurement is used to determine the total fissile uranium mass using a mode that cannot distinguish fissile isotopes (i.e., where a similar response is observed for both fissile uranium isotopes such as active doubles without cadmium or using a thermal neutron interrogation source). In conclusion, the second measurement is used to determine the 233 U content by using a differentiating technique (e.g., passive doubles, passive doubles to singles ratio, active doubles with cadmium).

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2025

Results of a Geant4 benchmarking study for bio‐medical applications, performed with the G4‐Med system

Geant4, a Monte Carlo Simulation Toolkit extensively used in bio-medical physics, is in continuous evolution to include newest research findings to improve its accuracy and to respond to the evolving needs of a very diverse user community. In 2014, the G4-Med benchmarking system was born from the effort of the Geant4 Medical Simulation Benchmarking Group, to benchmark and monitor the evolution of Geant4 for medical physics applications. The G4-Med system was first described in our Medical Physics Special Report published in 2021. Results of the tests were reported for Geant4 10.5. Purpose In this work, we describe the evolution of the G4-Med benchmarking system. Methods The G4-Med benchmarking suite currently includes 23 tests, which benchmark Geant4 from the calculation of basic physical quantities to the simulation of more clinically relevant set-ups. New tests concern the benchmarking of Geant4-DNA physics and chemistry components for regression testing purposes, dosimetry for brachytherapy with a 125 I source, dosimetry for external x-ray and electron FLASH radiotherapy, experimental microdosimetry for proton therapy, and in vivo PET for carbon and oxygen beams. Regression testing has been performed between Geant4 10.5 and 11.1. Finally, a simple Geant4 simulation has been developed and used to compare Geant4 EM physics constructors and physics lists in terms of execution times. Results In summary, our EM tests show that the parameters of the multiple scattering in the Geant4 EM constructor G4EmStandardPhysics_option3 in Geant4 11.1, while improving the modeling of the electron backscattering in high atomic number targets, are not adequate for dosimetry for clinical x-ray and electron beams. Therefore, these parameters have been reverted back to those of Geant4 10.5 in Geant4 11.2.1. The x-ray radiotherapy test shows significant differences in the modeling of the bremsstrahlung process, especially between G4EmPenelopePhysics and the other constructors under study (G4EmLivermorePhysics, G4EmStandardPhysics_option3, and G4EmStandardPhysics_option4). These differences will be studied in an in-depth investigation within our Group. Improvement in Geant4 11.1 has been observed for the modeling of the proton and carbon ion Bragg peak with energies of clinical interest, thanks to the adoption of ICRU90 to calculate the low energy proton stopping powers in water and of the Linhard–Sorensen ion model, available in Geant4 since version 11.0. Nuclear fragmentation tests of interest for carbon ion therapy show differences between Geant4 10.5 and 11.1 in terms of fragment yields. In particular, a higher production of boron fragments is observed with Geant4 11.1, leading to a better agreement with reference data for this fragment. Conclusions Based on the overall results of our tests, we recommend to use G4EmStandardPhysics_option4 as EM constructor and QGSP_BIC_HP with G4EmStandardPhysics_option4, for hadrontherapy applications. The Geant4-DNA physics lists report differences in modeling electron interactions in water, however, the tests have a pure regression testing purpose so no recommendation can be formulated.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗