Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “SCIENTIST”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Early Lab scientists had questions, Plastic Man gave them answers

He was a willing subject in countless scientific experiments, a superstar of health physics, as well as a favorite photo prop -- and not just around Halloween time. He was Plastic Man. Beginning in the mid-1950s, the Lab (then called Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory) often relied on several life-sized synthetic test subjects to avoid experimenting on people. In the early days of the Laboratory, not much was known about how different radioisotopes interacted with the human body and how much it absorbed from different radiation sources. Answering queries like these is where Plastic Man came in. For example, during the 1950s and 1960s, the Lab was tasked with developing nuclear rockets for space exploration under the Rover Program. One of the concerns was how astronauts might be affected when exposed to radiation from these rocket engines. So, the Lab’s health group set up an experiment in which Plastic Man was placed in close proximity to an experimental Rover nuclear rocket engine. Running experiments like this using Plastic Man kept humans safer. How life-like was he? There were actually two variations of Plastic Man. Both had hard plastic exteriors, but one of the models encased a real human skeleton. They also had movable joints and simulated organs, such as a liver, a spleen, kidneys, lungs and a thyroid. Although Plastic Man in its entirety was used in experiments, much of the data collected were from research conducted inside on these replicated organs. In time, technology advanced and Plastic Man was able to retire from the Lab. He found a new home in 1964 as a display at the Laboratory’s science museum, and is sometimes displayed today in the Bradbury Science Museum in downtown Los Alamos.

63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTAN↗
DOE OSTI2023

Notes by LANL scientists for science teacher professional development [Slides]

The notes presented in this presentation are an example of taking notes working at the computer while working with data files. The presenter helped collect the data in Antarctica, and they took notes while they collected the data. Later, to use the data once they were back home, the researcher spent many hours looking at the files on the computer to connect two types of data files: GPR and GPS.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

In the Lab with Nuclear Scientists: Critical and Subcritical Assemblies

This presentation talks on the Critical experiments performed on the NCERC machines. Plutonium ( 239 Pu and 240 Pu), Highly Enriched Uranium, Low-Temperature (-40°C). This is all based on a simple design useful for modeling and validation. The design is made to incorporate materials of interest such as Tantalum, hafnium, lithium & more.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

The role of peer review and science for advancing public understanding

We live in a time of rapid change. The Covid-19 pandemic has united the world to understand and develop solutions to protect the health and wellbeing of society. At the same time, access to information on the internet and social media has exploded. People are exposed to information with many claims. Some of the information is relevant and accurate. A significant fraction may be inaccurate, biased, and potentially dangerous. With Covid-19, the information might point to cures that are toxic or risks that are not relevant. The scientific community has developed a process to develop and convey knowledge. The validation of results and their interpretation is critical to advancing knowledge. The core of the scientific process is based on developing a hypothesis-driven concept, designing and executing an experimental approach to prove or disprove the hypothesis, conducting a statistical analysis of the results to confirm their validity, and interpreting their meaning and impact. When their work is completed the scientist prepares to publish the work. Publication requires peer review. Hypotheses, experimental approaches, results, and interpretation of results are independently and anonymously reviewed by a scientific peer. The reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field. The peer review process is essential for the integrity of the scientific process. Without a robust scientific process, society cannot discriminate between validated results and interpretations and biased, inaccurate, and potentially dangerous conjecture. With inaccurate science society and policy makers may make poor decisions that could hurt people and the world around them. While scientists should not censor information available to the public, scientists have a responsibility to inform the public. We must articulate what the scientific process is and why it is essential when considering the validity of information. Scientist are responsible for pointing out when public information has not been vetted through a scientific process and therefore cannot be considered conclusive. Scientists are responsible for highlighting information that has been generated and vetted with the scientific process. Over time, our goal is for the public to value the scientific process based on peer review. The public could become enlightened to the necessity for peer review to support decisions and action. Scientists need to contribute to advancing public knowledge. When invited to serve as a peer reviewer, scientists have a responsibility to contribute to the process. We all are extremely busy making peer review a distraction. While peer review does not directly benefit our own work and career, it benefits our chosen field of science. This is very important for the research area that our journal, Water-Energy Nexus, is focusing on. We cover the convergence of science and technology integrating across large spatial ranges (micro to global) in environmental pollution and the balance of remediation issues with energy use. Water-Energy Nexus wants to provide scientists with a platform for scientific debate and discussion on this rich and complicated topic. With the manuscripts submitted to WEN cover integrated research topics across a broad range of subjects from environment sciences through energy engineering, the role of peer review is essential. Peer review on a new submission to WEN should not be biased towards a specific science field. It should be done considering the complex nature of issues in the water-energy nexus. Scientists need to contribute to the public dialog. To accomplish these goals, we need to be honest, accurate, articulate, and use understandable language. The impact of WEN is very diverse affecting society in many ways. The scientific audience for WEN is diverse and readers may not fully understand the content of the papers outside their research expertise. Therefore, scientists, especially those who want to contribute to WEN, should work with communications specialists to convey message to benefit society. The audience includes the general public and researchers outside the author’s core specialty. While the peer-reviewed journal article is the cornerstone of our careers and critical for advancing scientific knowledge, a general interest story could benefit society even more. The author cannot lose sight that our work has two audiences, the science community, and more importantly, our family, friends, neighbors, and policy makers.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Agile collaboration: Citizen science as a transdisciplinary approach to heliophysics

Citizen science connects scientists with the public to enable discovery, engaging broad audiences across the world. There are many attributes that make citizen science an asset to the field of heliophysics, including agile collaboration. Agility is the extent to which a person, group of people, technology, or project can work efficiently, pivot, and adapt to adversity. Citizen scientists are agile; they are adaptable and responsive. Citizen science projects and their underlying technology platforms are also agile in the software development sense, by utilizing beta testing and short timeframes to pivot in response to community needs. As they capture scientifically valuable data, citizen scientists can bring expertise from other fields to scientific teams. The impact of citizen science projects and communities means citizen scientists are a bridge between scientists and the public, facilitating the exchange of information. These attributes of citizen scientists form the framework of agile collaboration. In this paper, we contextualize agile collaboration primarily for aurora chasers, a group of citizen scientists actively engaged in projects and independent data gathering. Nevertheless, these insights scale across other domains and projects. Citizen science is an emerging yet proven way of enhancing the current research landscape. To tackle the next-generation’s biggest research problems, agile collaboration with citizen scientists will become necessary.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗