Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Neutron optics”

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.

364 records · Page 21
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2010

Radiation Environment and Surface Radiolytic Interactions at Mimas

Saturn's innermost principal moon Mimas shares the distinction with Europa at Jupiter of being the most irradiated icy moon in its respective planetary system, although the energetic electron energy flux at Mimas is forty times smaller than at Europa. High energy (> 10 MeV) proton fluxes are low in this moon's orbital corridor, likely since slowly diffusing protons from the weak but steady source of cosmic ray albedo neutron decay (CRAND) cannot accumulate without impacting the moon surface. Lower energy proton fluxes are also evidently suppressed in this orbital region. Plasma ion and electron fluxes are also low apparently due to cooling by interaction with E-ring dust and neutral gas from Enceladus. Due to energy-dependent effects of longitudinal gradient-curvature drift for the electrons, the trailing hemisphere is mainly irradiated by electrons at energies below 1 MeV that drift relative to Mimas in the prograde direction of orbital motion around Saturn, while higher energy electrons primarily impact the leading hemisphere. Plasma ions in the inner magnetosphere of Saturn are mainly pickup ions forming from the dissociation products of Enceladus plume water molecules, additionally including some contribution from photosputtering of the main rings, and do not introduce new elemental materials at Mimas via surface implantation from the corotating plasma. Thus the primary interaction at the surface is radiolytic chemistry induced in pure water ice by relatively deep penetration of the energetic electrons to millimeter and greater depths, as compared to the micron depths impacted by the corotating plasma ions. If surface erosion by sputtering from relatively low fluxes of the plasma and more energetic ions is indeed ineffective, then molecular products (OH, H2O2, 02, 03) of the radiolytic interactions may accumulate in the meters-deep impact regolith of the surface ices. An effect of regolith trapped gas accumulation could be to increase porosity and reduce thermal conductivity of the ice, potentially contributing to reported thermal anomalies from Cassini infrared map observations. Low amplitude of trailing-leading asymmetry in optical albedo and color maps at Mimas is suggestive of relative weakness of asymmetrical effects from low-energy ions. Greater induced asymmetries are expected and observed for the moons beyond Enceladus in the middle magnetospheric region of hot plasma ions at much greater fluxes than at Mimas. Low density (1.15 g/cc) of this moon indicates paucity of mineral salts and radiogenic heating to maintain subsurface liquids, so Enceladus-like cryovolcanism as a resurfacing process is unlikely despite closer proximity to Saturn, greater tidal forcing, and more intense surface irradiation than for Enceladus.

Cooper, J. F.↗
NASA NTRS2013

XIPE the X-Ray Imaging Polarimetry Explorer

X-ray polarimetry, sometimes alone, and sometimes coupled to spectral and temporal variability measurements and to imaging, allows a wealth of physical phenomena in astrophysics to be studied. X-ray polarimetry investigates the acceleration process, for example, including those typical of magnetic reconnection in solar flares, but also emission in the strong magnetic fields of neutron stars and white dwarfs. It detects scattering in asymmetric structures such as accretion disks and columns, and in the so-called molecular torus and ionization cones. In addition, it allows fundamental physics in regimes of gravity and of magnetic field intensity not accessible to experiments on the Earth to be probed. Finally, models that describe fundamental interactions (e.g. quantum gravity and the extension of the Standard Model) can be tested. We describe in this paper the X-ray Imaging Polarimetry Explorer (XIPE), proposed in June 2012 to the first ESA call for a small mission with a launch in 2017. The proposal was, unfortunately, not selected. To be compliant with this schedule, we designed the payload mostly with existing items. The XIPE proposal takes advantage of the completed phase A of POLARIX for an ASI small mission program that was cancelled, but is different in many aspects: the detectors, the presence of a solar flare polarimeter and photometer and the use of a light platform derived by a mass production for a cluster of satellites. XIPE is composed of two out of the three existing JET-X telescopes with two Gas Pixel Detectors (GPD) filled with a He-DME mixture at their focus. Two additional GPDs filled with a 3-bar Ar-DME mixture always face the Sun to detect polarization from solar flares. The Minimum Detectable Polarization of a 1 mCrab source reaches 14 in the 210 keV band in 105 s for pointed observations, and 0.6 for an X10 class solar flare in the 1535 keV energy band. The imaging capability is 24 arcsec Half Energy Width (HEW) in a Field of View of 14.7 arcmin 14.7 arcmin. The spectral resolution is 20 at 6 keV and the time resolution is 8 s. The imaging capabilities of the JET-X optics and of the GPD have been demonstrated by a recent calibration campaign at PANTER X-ray test facility of the Max-Planck-Institut fr extraterrestrische Physik (MPE, Germany). XIPE takes advantage of a low-earth equatorial orbit with Malindi as down-link station and of a Mission Operation Center (MOC) at INPE (Brazil). The data policy is organized with a Core Program that comprises three months of Science Verification Phase and 25 of net observing time in the following 2 years. A competitive Guest Observer program covers the remaining 75 of the net observing time.

Astronomy X-ray Polarimetry↗
NASA NTRS2016

A Dark Energy Camera Search for an Optical Counterpart to the First Advanced LIGO Gravitational Wave Event GW150914

We report the results of a deep search for an optical counterpart to the gravitational wave (GW) event GW150914, the first trigger from the Advanced LIGO GW detectors. We used the Dark Energy Camera (DECam) to image a 102 deg(exp 2) area, corresponding to 38% of the initial trigger high-probability sky region and to 11% of the revised high-probability region. We observed in the i and z bands at 4-5, 7, and 24 days after the trigger. The median 5(sigma) point-source limiting magnitudes of our search images are i = 22.5 and z = 21.8 mag. We processed the images through a difference-imaging pipeline using templates from pre-existing Dark Energy Survey data and publicly available DECam data. Due to missing template observations and other losses, our effective search area subtends 40 deg(exp 2), corresponding to a 12% total probability in the initial map and 3% in the final map. In this area, we search for objects that decline significantly between days 4-5 and day 7, and are undetectable by day 24, finding none to typical magnitude limits of i = 21.5, 21.1, 20.1 for object colors (i-z)= 1, 0, -1, respectively. Our search demonstrates the feasibility of a dedicated search program with DECam and bodes well for future research in this emerging field.

binaries: close – catalogs – gravitational wav↗
NASA NTRS2013

Put X-Ray Polarimetry on the MAP!

With Prof. R. Novick and others at the Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory I help found the field of X-ray polarimetry in the early 1970s. Currently I have more experience with the design, construction, calibration, and space flight of such instruments than anyone on the planet. The early probing beginnings saw only one definitive measurement (that of the integrated low-energy X-ray emission from the Crab Nebula sans pulsar) and a number of upper limits. The limited success did nevertheless inspire a number of detailed theoretical calculations, concentrating at first on neutron stars and black holes showing how precise measurements (e.g. degree of polarization and position angle as a function of pulse phase) would provide definitive limitations on otherwise equally plausible theoretical models. Over time the theoretical foundation has grown (e.g. the proceedings of the X-Ray Polarimetry Workshop held at SLAC in 2004). I will outline these foundations. It is important to understand the history of X-ray polarimetry beyond the early excitement. A polarimeter was at the focus of the original Einstein mission but was dropped during the restructuring. A polarimeter was successfully proposed (R. Novick PI, I was a Co-I) and built for the original Spectrum-X mission. During the years before the cancellation of Spectrum-X, the potential flight of this device stood in the way of other space flights for polarimeters --- "let us wait and see what it finds". This was unfortunate as there were a number of reasons why that polarimeter should not have been flown on the mission. Perhaps the most significant (but not only) reason was that a shared focal plane provided very little observing time. This is an extremely important point in considering the Roadmap. It is doubtful that there many 100%-polarized sources and so the "signal" is more typically a small fraction of the source flux. Thus, the source itself provides a substantial background, making continuum polarimetry even more difficult than narrow-line spectroscopy. X-ray polarimetry thus requires a dedicated mission that can, without programmatic pressures from other instruments/users, devote the integration time to perform meaningful measurements. The recently cancelled GEMS might have been such a mission. At least it was dedicated to polarimetry. Performing meaningful measurements is not going to be easy. In part because of the long hiatus and lack of experience, there appears to be too much pressure to "sell" polarimetry missions by the number of sources for which one might answer the simple question is, or is not, the integrated and time averaged emission from the source polarized at some confidence level? This was a fine question for the 1970 s but, I maintain, it is not today. One simply doesn't want to measure the time averaged polarization of the Crab s pulsar, but one wants to know the polarization as a function of energy and pulse phase to compare, e.g. to optical and radio measurements which divide even the primary pulse into dozens of phase bins. Such observations can distinguish amongst competing theories for the pulsed emission. The Roadmap should define what meaningful experiments are. I will pose some suggestions. Note that , because X-rays are usually believed originate in either non-thermal or highly aspherical situations we expect X-ray polarimetry to be much more important and rich in astrophysical information as opposed to the visible, where starlight often dominates the emission. One has often dreamt about an instrument that does polarimetry whilst it does other things, and I will discuss this. Even in this case, one needs to realize that the observing time will be driven by the polarimetry, otherwise no useful polarization measurements will be made. Finally, I will discuss some misconceptions that have appeared in the literature and at conferences which indicate to me that certain fundamental principles of polarimeter design and performance are not clearly understoodt is important for the Roadmap that we understand these principles and not advocate instruments that will not (or even worse cannot) accomplish the promised scientific return. I will discuss these principles.

Weisskopf, Martin C.↗