unearthing secret nuclear tests - s&tr | december … · unearthing secret nuclear tests ... or...

September 1998

Lawrence

Livermore

National

Laboratory

Unearthing SecretNuclear TestsUnearthing SecretNuclear Tests

Also in this issue: • Lawrence Livermore Explores Its History• Tabletop X-Ray Lasers Probe Plasmas• Down-to-Earth Testing of Microsatellites

Also in this issue: • Lawrence Livermore Explores Its History• Tabletop X-Ray Lasers Probe Plasmas• Down-to-Earth Testing of Microsatellites

This month’s cover story focuses onLawrence Livermore’s monitoring research insupport of a future Comprehensive Test BanTreaty. The images on the cover tell part of thatstory—a map of North Africa and the Middle Eastwhere Laboratory scientists are concentratingtheir monitoring efforts to distinguish clandestinenuclear tests (red seismogram) from earthquakes(blue seismogram) or other seismic events. Fordetails about the Laboratory’s contributions tonational and international monitoring in supportof the CTBT, turn to p. 4.

About the Cover

About the Review

• •

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated by the University of California for theDepartment of Energy. At Livermore, we focus science and technology on assuring our nation’s security.We also apply that expertise to solve other important national problems in energy, bioscience, and theenvironment. Science & Technology Review is published ten times a year to communicate, to a broadaudience, the Laboratory’s scientific and technological accomplishments in fulfilling its primary missions.The publication’s goal is to help readers understand these accomplishments and appreciate their value tothe individual citizen, the nation, and the world.

Please address any correspondence (including name and address changes) to S&TR, Mail Stop L-664,Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, Livermore, California 94551, or telephone (925) 422-8961. Our electronic mail address is [email protected].

Prepared by LLNL under contractNo. W-7405-Eng-48

© 1998. The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. This document has been authored by theRegents of the University of California under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-48 with the U.S. Government. To requestpermission to use any material contained in this document, please submit your request in writing to the TechnicalInformation Department, Publication Services Group, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 808,Livermore, California 94551, or to our electronic mail address [email protected].

This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neitherthe United States Government nor the University of California nor any of their employees makes any warranty,expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of anyinformation, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, orotherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United StatesGovernment or the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily stateor reflect those of the United States Government or the University of California and shall not be used for advertising orproduct endorsement purposes.

Cov

er d

esig

n: G

eorg

e K

itrin

os

SCIENTIFIC EDITOR

J. Smart

MANAGING EDITOR

Sam Hunter

PUBLICATION EDITOR

Dean Wheatcraft

WRITERS

Bart Hacker, Arnie Heller, Katie Walter, andGloria Wilt

ART DIRECTOR

Ray Marazzi

DESIGNERS

GEORGE KITRINOS AND Ray Marazzi

INTERNET DESIGNER

Kitty Tinsley

COMPOSITOR

Louisa Cardoza

PROOFREADERS

Carolin Middleton and Al Miguel

S&TR is a Director’s Office publication,produced by the Technical InformationDepartment, under the direction of the Office of Policy, Planning, and SpecialStudies.

2 The Laboratory in the News

3 Commentary by Wayne Shotts and Lee YounkerMeeting the Monitoring Challenges of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Features4 Forensic Seismology Supports the Comprehensive Test

Ban TreatyLivermore researchers are helping the nation prepare for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by developing methods to detect clandestine nuclear tests.

12 A Short History of the Laboratory at LivermoreForty years after E. O. Lawrence’s death, the laboratory he founded at Livermore as a branch of his radiation laboratory in Berkeley is a thriving DOE national laboratory, still dedicated to science and technology in support of national security.

Highlights21 The X-Ray Laser: From Underground to Tabletop24 Down-to-Earth Testing of Microsatellites

27 Patents and Awards

Abstracts

S&TR Staff September 1998

LawrenceLivermoreNationalLaboratory

Printed in the United States of America

Available fromNational Technical Information ServiceU.S. Department of Commerce5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, Virginia 22161

UCRL-52000-98-9Distribution Category UC-700September 1998

Page 4

Page 21

Page 12

2 The Laboratory in the News

Science & Technology Review September 1998

Livermore is big R&D 100 Award winnerFor the second year in a row, Lawrence Livermore

scientists and engineers brought home seven R&D 100Awards. Since 1978, the Laboratory has won 75 of theseprestigious awards.

Each year, R&D Magazine presents awards to the top 100industrial, high-technology inventions submitted to itscompetition for outstanding achievement in research anddevelopment. This year, Livermore tied with the Departmentof Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratories for themost awards won by a research institution. In all, DOElaboratories won 30 awards, with other major winners beingLos Alamos (four awards) and Sandia (three awards).

The awards will be presented September 24 at a banquetand ceremony at the Chicago Museum of Science & Industry.S&TR will devote its October issue to detailed reports onLawrence Livermore’s award-winning inventions and theteams that created them.

And the Laboratory’s winners are:• HERMES (High-Performance Electromagnetic RoadwayMapping and Evaluation System), a high-resolution, radar-based mobile inspection system for detecting and mappingdefects in bridge decks.• A Lasershotsm peening system that installs deep compressivestress in metals and is expected to extend the lifetime of majorairplane components.• The Light Lock optical security system, a reprogrammable,laser locking system that provides both the code to activate thelocking device and the power to move the mechanical lock.• An optical dental imaging system to noninvasively imageinternal tooth and soft tissue microstructure for dentalapplications.• A two-color fiber-optic infrared sensor for measuringtemperature and emissions for medical and industrialapplications.• The INDUCT95 computer simulation code that helpsequipment designers optimize tools used in plasma-aidedmanufacturing of semiconductor devices.• The OptiPro-AED (acoustic emission detector) grindingwheel proximity sensor, a real-time feedback product used tosubstantially improve the efficiency of precision opticsmanufacturing by sensing the separation between fine abrasivegrinding tools and optical glass parts.Contact: Karena McKinley, director of the Industrial Partnershipsand Commercialization office at Livermore, (925) 423-9353([email protected]).

Davis to head new DOD agencyChallenged to build a new organization to counter the

threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, Jay Davis isoff to Washington, D.C., where he will head the newDefense Threat Reduction Agency in the Department ofDefense.

On leave as the Associate Director for Earth andEnvironmental Sciences at Livermore, Davis will beresponsible for integrating nuclear, chemical, and biologicalfunctions and for consolidating the On-Site InspectionAgency, Defense Special Weapons Agency, and DefenseSpecial Technology Security Administration. The newagency’s primary function will be to understand nuclear,chemical, and biological warfare threats and minimize themworldwide

“This will be the lead DOD agency for counteringweapons of mass destruction,” Davis said.

Davis came to the Laboratory in 1971 as a physicist, withbachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University ofTexas and a Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University ofWisconsin. He has been the director of Livermore’s Centerfor Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, which he helped found,and is a Fellow of the American Physical Society. In 1991,Davis participated as a member of the United Nations teamthat inspected Iraqi installations for possible nuclearweaponsor technology that could produce nuclear weapons.

Livermore contributes to DOE climate studyPresident Clinton challenged the U.S. to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions and spur economic growth. To meet thechallenge, 11 Department of Energy laboratory directors,including Bruce Tarter of Livermore, reported to theSecretary of Energy some 47 technologies that couldeliminate hundreds of millions of tons of carbon emissionseach year. Technologies cited in the report include: electrichybrid vehicles, high-efficiency lighting, superinsulatingwindows, fuel cells, microturbines, and hydrogen fuelsystems.

Partially finished before the Kyoto environmental summitin October 1997, the report now identifies and prioritizes thepathways to major technology opportunities. The reportaddresses three major issues: energy efficiency, clean energy,and carbon sequestration (removing carbon from emissionsand enhancing carbon storage). The directors of thelaboratories conclude that “success will require pursuit ofmultiple technology pathways to provide choices andflexibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Thereport is available on the Internet at http://www.ornl.gov/climate_change.

http://www.ornl.gov/climate_change

LTHOUGH political tensions have eased significantlybetween the West and the former Soviet Union, nuclear

proliferation remains a grave concern worldwide. Recentevents underscore this concern. In the months following theGulf War, United Nations investigators were surprised todiscover the progress Iraq had secretly made towarddeveloping a nuclear arsenal. Just this spring, the nuclear testsby India and Pakistan raised the frightening specter ofunfriendly neighbors acquiring their own nuclear missileforces and triggered urgent appeals for all nations to sign andratify promptly the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

This ban on “any nuclear weapon test explosion or anyother nuclear explosion”* is the latest step in a decades-longquest to halt nuclear proliferation. The treaty calls for aninternational system of several hundred monitoring stationstransmitting data continuously to an international data centerin Vienna, which in turn distributes the data and summaryreports to national data centers, including the U.S. NationalData Center in Florida.

As the article beginning on p. 4 points out, the treatypresents an unprecedented monitoring challenge: namely,detecting low-yield, clandestine nuclear tests among thousandsof seismically similar events, such as small earthquakes androutine mining explosions, that will be reported daily by themonitoring stations arrayed around the globe.

The Department of Energy is drawing on the expertise andtechnical strengths of its national laboratories to devise toolsand techniques for monitoring this most restrictive of all testbans. For its part, Livermore is home to expertise in nuclear-test-related seismology, geology, engineering, chemistry,instrumentation, and computer science. During the nation’searlier nuclear testing program, Livermore seismologists,geologists, and engineers, many of them now a part of theEarth and Environmental Sciences Directorate, played acritical role in ensuring the containment of the undergroundtests at the Nevada Test Site. In addition, our seismologistshave a long history of treaty monitoring research and, alongwith other Livermore experts, have provided technical supportand advice to U.S. policymakers and treaty negotiators for allof the treaties limiting underground nuclear testing.

During CTBT negotiations in Geneva a few years ago,Livermore made major contributions to the selection of

A

3


Commentary by Wayne Shotts and Lee Younker

international monitoring station sites, the definition of on-site inspection procedures, and even the adoption of nationalmonitoring concepts undergirding the treaty. For the pastfew years, Livermore researchers have been working onseveral projects to help the U.S. National Data Centerprepare for a CTBT. One vital effort focuses on determininghow the regional geology in key parts of the world, such asthe Middle East, will affect seismic signals as they travelunderground from explosions, earthquakes, and othersources to the international monitoring stations. As thearticle describes, fulfilling this task has taken Livermorepeople to remote corners of the world and even teamed themwith colleagues in Russia to calibrate seismic wavepropagation in areas of the former Soviet Union.

The research team’s work supports Livermore’sNonproliferation, Arms Control, and International SecurityDirectorate—in particular, its Proliferation Prevention andArms Control Program. Among this program’sresponsibilities are conducting analyses in support of DOEnuclear arms control policies and guiding the developmentof treaty verification technologies. Indeed, the directoratewas created in part to use Livermore’s core strengths innuclear science and advanced sensors and instrumentation tohelp this nation prevent the spread of nuclear weapons andsupporting technology.

Livermore and the other DOE national securitylaboratories have an essential role to play in providing theanalyses and technologies needed to monitor compliancewith arms control treaties. This role, as never before,demands technological inventiveness from expertsrepresenting a host of mutually supporting disciplines, withthe overriding goal of enhancing national and global security.

*From the text of the CTBT, which can be viewed at http://www.acda.gov/treaties/ctbt.htm.

Meeting the Monitoring Challenges ofthe Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

■ Wayne Shotts is Associate Director, Nonproliferation, Arms Control, and International Security.

■ Lee Younker is acting Associate Director, Earth and Environmental Sciences.

http://www.acda.gov/treaties/ctbt.htm

HE nearly worldwidecondemnation of India’s and

Pakistan’s unexpected nuclear tests inMay was a telling indicator of thedetermination of nearly all nations toput an end to nuclear testing. Thatdetermination is embodied in theComprehensive Test Ban Treaty(CTBT), signed in 1996 following ahalf-century of passionate discussions,various proposals, and internationalresearch to ensure that attempts to evadethe treaty would be detected.

The CTBT forbids all nuclear tests,including those intended for peacefulpurposes, and creates an internationalmonitoring network to search forevidence of clandestine nuclearexplosions. The agreement—signed byPresident Clinton but still to be ratifiedby the U.S. Senate—is of profoundinterest to dozens of scientists atLawrence Livermore. They have workedover the past several years to supportAmerican diplomats in achieving thisinternational agreement backed by soundmonitoring and verification measures.Lawrence Livermore scientists havedeveloped monitoring technologies insupport of nuclear treaties and haveoutstanding credentials in providingtechnological support to treatynegotiations and verification. (See thebox on p. 7.)

The CTBT’s InternationalMonitoring System will consist of a

4


ForensicSeismology Supports theComprehensiveTest Ban Treaty

Some 53 years after the first nuclear

explosion, a team of Livermore researchers

is helping the nation prepare for the

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by developing

methods to detect clandestine nuclear tests.

T

5


Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

importantly, each nation will applyits own criteria for distinguishingbetween compliance andnoncompliance.

The U.S. National Data Centerat Patrick Air Force Base in Floridais the facility responsible forAmerican monitoring of the treaty.The U.S. Department of Energy, inlight of its extensive experience inmaking seismic and othermeasurements of nuclear tests, isproviding data analysis, algorithms, andtechnology needed for the nationalcenter to reach the low monitoringthresholds required to meet the U.S.goals. DOE’s research program focuseson advances in methods to preciselydetect, locate, and characterize eventsin key areas of interest. The programdraws upon the strengths of majoruniversities, private contractors, andDOE laboratories such as LawrenceLivermore, Los Alamos, Sandia,Environmental Measurements, andPacific Northwest.

At Lawrence Livermore, a team ofabout 30 researchers has been helpingto prepare the National Data Center formonitoring compliance with the futureCTBT. Most team members aregeologists, geophysicists, andseismologists from the Earth andEnvironmental Sciences Directorate,while others are from the Computation,Engineering, and Chemistry and

network of automated scientificinstrumentation stations, securecommunications links, and theInternational Data Center based inVienna, Austria. The monitoring stations(many of which already exist) willconsist of 170 seismic stations to recordunderground pressure waves, 60 infrasound stations to record low-frequency sound waves in the air, 11 hydroacoustic stations to recordunderwater sound waves, and 80 radionuclide stations to recordairborne radioactive gases or particles(Figure 1).

Each day, these stations will transmitenormous amounts of data via satellite tothe International Data Center in Vienna,which in turn distributes it to nationaldata centers around the world. Computersat the international center will process theraw data, associate segments of the datastream with specific events, and estimatethe location of those events. Analysts willthen review the processed data and send adaily bulletin to all parties to the treaty.

In turn, national data centers willhave the responsibility to makejudgments about the true nature of anysuspect events. These national centerswill have access to all raw data availableat the international center. They willalso have the right to use their owncomputer analyses, informationaldatabases, and data gathered by theirown technical resources. Most

Figure 1. The CTBT’s InternationalMonitoring System will consist of automatedradionuclide, infrasound, seismic, andhydroacoustic stations. Together, they willmonitor for evidence of clandestine nuclearexplosions.

Radionuclide

Infrasound

Seismic

Hydroacoustic

this work, the primary user for theLivermore research program is the U.S.National Data Center. Livermore is alsoworking closely with representatives ofthe Provisional Technical Secretariat(the international organization createdby the treaty for its implementation) inVienna in establishing the InternationalMonitoring System and data center.

Meeting Monitoring ChallengesZucca points out that under the

current Threshold Test Ban Treaty(banning explosions exceeding 150 kilotons), determining accurateexplosive yield is the critical issue.Most nuclear tests near the thresholdtreaty’s limit generate seismicmagnitudes of about 6 or greater on theRichter scale. Seismic signals fromthese tests travel thousands of milesthrough Earth’s relatively homogeneouscore and mantle and are readily pickedup by far-away seismic stations forrelatively straightforwardcharacterization (Figure 2a).

Under the CTBT, however, thecritical issues will be to determine that anuclear explosion—no matter its size—took place and to pinpoint its locationaccurately. A nation attempting toconceal a test could attempt to minimizethe seismic signals. Such signals from asmall nuclear test could be well below

magnitude 4, with resulting measurablesignals traveling 1,000 miles or less.What’s more, the signals would likelybe confined to Earth’s upper mantle andcrust, an extremely heterogeneousenvironment that distorts, and evenblocks, parts of the signals (Figure 2b).

Accurately locating andcharacterizing signals at these so-calledregional distances pose a significantchallenge, says seismologist BillWalter. “It’s a much harder job becausewe can’t use global models of Earth.We have to calibrate region by region,seismic station by seismic station.”Successfully meeting the regionaldistance challenge, says seismologistMarv Denny, has been the most difficultaspect of the Livermore effort over thepast several years.

Denny says that complicating thetask is the huge number of events that,at first cut, can resemble a small nucleardetonation. Stations will be recording aconstant stream of background noisethat includes earthquakes, lightning,meteors, sonic booms, navy armamenttesting, mining explosions, constructionactivities and other industrialoperations, nuclear reactor operationsand accidents, natural radioactivity, andeven strong wind and ocean waves.

“As we consider the possibility ofsmaller and smaller clandestine tests, the

6



Materials Science directorates. Theteam’s work supports the Laboratory’sNonproliferation, Arms Control, andInternational Security Directorate,which helps prevent the proliferation ofweapons of mass destruction and assistsin U.S. arms control matters.

For the CTBT, Livermore is carryingout field experiments, at sites rangingfrom the deserts of Jordan to the formerSoviet nuclear test site in Kazakhstan,to document how regional geologyaffects the transmission of seismicsignals. At the same time, Livermorespecialists are developing powerfulcomputer algorithms that calculate thedegree to which measurementscollected by seismic and hydroacousticstations are altered by regional geologyand how they compare with previousdata from, say, regional earthquakes andmining operations (activities that canmimic small nuclear explosions).Finally, Livermore experts providetechnical advice and expertise to U.S.negotiators and developed methods forinternational teams to use for on-siteinspections. (See the box on p. 10.)

“Our goal is to achieve a very highlevel of confidence in the nation’sability to detect any clandestine nuclearexplosion,” says Livermore programleader Jay Zucca, a seismologist. Zuccanotes that while DOE is the sponsor of

Core Mantle

Mantle

Basin

Basement

Ocean

Crust

Core Mantle

Mantle

Basin

Basement

Ocean

Crust

(a) (b)

Figure 2. (a) Seismic signals from most nuclear tests under the current Threshold Test BanTreaty (banning nuclear explosions above 150 kilotons) travel thousands of miles throughEarth’s relatively homogeneous lower mantle and core and are detected by far-away seismicstations. (b) Under the CTBT, a nation attempting to conceal a test would presumably detonate amuch less powerful warhead. Signals from such an event would be confined to Earth’s uppermantle and crust, a region that readily distorts the signals.

number of background events, bothnatural and human made, becomesimmense,” says Walter. For example,more than 200,000 earthquakes similarin seismic magnitude to a small nuclearexplosion occur in the world every year.Many of these background events can bedisregarded because of their depth orsimilarity to other events known to benonnuclear. However, many will not beidentified so readily. As a result, theNational Data Center will require a setof tools, largely data-processingsoftware, modeling capability, andreference databases, to perform whatWalter terms “forensic seismology” toseparate a weak potential nuclear testfrom background noise.

One essential tool will be acomprehensive database that includesseismic patterns and the location ofmines and seismically active regions.This database must also includeinformation on how Earth’s crust andmantle affect the travel time andamplitude of seismic signals as theymake their way to international stations.

7



“We want to be sure that data relayedby individual stations are interpreted inlight of their regional settings so thatthe location and nature of an event areproperly determined,” says Zucca.

Building the Knowledge BaseThe DOE is assembling such a

database, called the Knowledge Base,to manage, store, and retrieve vitalinformation about major areas of theworld. “A key Livermore product forthe National Data Center is ourcontribution to the Knowledge Base,”says Zucca. While the Knowledge Baseincludes information from all foursensor technologies, it is dominated byhydroacoustic and seismic data,considered the most essential forinterpreting events in their regionalcontext.

The Livermore team has beenassigned by DOE to focus largely onthe Middle East and North Africa(called MENA) and the western part ofthe former Soviet Union, whichincludes the former Soviet test site at

Novaya Zemlya, near the Arctic Sea(Figure 3). The work has entailedcollecting and organizing largequantities of geological, geophysical,seismological, and human-activities datawithin these areas. The task iscomplicated by the geological diversityof MENA and by the lack of “groundtruth,” that is, seismic data from well-documented earthquakes, mineexplosions, or explosions carried out forseismic calibration purposes.

Obtaining needed ground truth hasprompted several avenues of research.Geologist Jerry Sweeney, for example, isresearching published literature forreports of earthquake aftershock studiesfrom Iran, Algeria, and Armenia. Otherresearchers have deployed temporarystations in areas awaiting the constructionof permanent international stations torecord background seismic activity sothat they can determine how the regionalgeology affects the seismic readings. LastApril, engineer and seismologist DaveHarris traveled to Jordan to set up twotemporary seismic stations in cooperation

Awed by the destructive power of nuclear weapons, scientistsand others began discussing banning further weapons tests shortlyafter Trinity, the first test of a nuclear explosive in 1945. Sincethen, a succession of treaties has slowly narrowed the lawfultesting environments. For example, the Limited Test Ban Treaty,ratified in 1963, banned nuclear explosions in the air, oceans, andspace, while the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, ratified in 1988,limited underground nuclear weapon tests to 150 kilotons.

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed by PresidentClinton and other heads of state on September 24, 1996, at theUnited Nations, following two years of internationalnegotiations. In signing the treaty, President Clinton used thesame pen President John F. Kennedy used to sign the LimitedTest Ban Treaty. Following the signing ceremony, the Presidenttold the United Nations General Assembly that the treaty “pointsus toward a century in which the roles and risks of nuclearweapons can be even further reduced—and eventuallyeliminated.”

As of mid-1998, the treaty has been signed by 149 nationsand ratified by 13 nations. The treaty will not enter into force

The Road to a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

until ratified by the 44 nations named in the treaty that possessnuclear reactors. The U.S. has signed but not ratified the treaty;three other named nations—India, Pakistan, and North Korea—have neither signed nor ratified the treaty.

Under the treaty, each nation undertakes “not to carry out anynuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, andto prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any placeunder its jurisdiction or control.” Each party also undertakes “torefrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating inthe carrying out of any nuclear weapons test explosion or anyother nuclear explosion.”

Other articles of the treaty describe the internationalmonitoring system, on-site inspections, confidence-buildingmeasures, organization of the treaty’s executive council and thetechnical secretariat, and measures to redress violations. (Themain text of the treaty may be viewed at http://www.acda.gov/treaties/ctbt.htm.)

An international organization, the Preparatory Commission inVienna, Austria, was established in November 1996 to create theinternational monitoring and verification regime.

http://www.acda.gov/treaties/ctbt.htm

tests conducted in 1992 (the last year of American nuclear testing) withseveral moderate local earthquakes inthe same year. They also participated ina DOE test at the site in 1993 (calledthe Non-Proliferation Experiment)involving a kiloton of chemicalexplosive. The test revealed thatseismic signals from an undergroundchemical blast closely mimic the signalsthat would be expected from anunderground nuclear test.

Zucca notes that potential treatyviolators might be tempted to detonatea nuclear device in the center of a large

underground cavity, a technique calleddecoupling. The seismic signal fromsuch a test is reduced by a factor of upto 70 through a muffling effect thatreduces the amplitude of the signal. A1-kiloton nuclear explosion, forexample, would produce a magnitudein the range of approximately 2.5 to 3 on the Richter scale when tested in alarge underground cavity. Seismicsignals of the lower magnitude areproduced frequently in a large numberof mine explosions worldwide, andmany thousands of earthquakes are inthis range.

with the Jordanian Natural ResourcesAuthority to record the seismicsignatures of earthquake activity andnearby phosphate mining operations(Figure 4). “These extra stations provideadditional constraint on the locations ofearthquakes in the region and provide uswith higher quality ground truth,”explains Harris.

Aiding the MENA effort is anongoing Livermore study ofearthquakes and undergroundexplosions around the Nevada Test Site.Livermore researchers are comparingseismograms of underground nuclear

8



(a) (b)

Figure 3. Livermore researchers are focusing on (a) the Middle East andNorth Africa and (b) the western part of the former Soviet Union, whichincludes the former Soviet nuclear test site at Novaya Zemlya. Thelocations of seismic, hydroacoustic, infrasound, and radionuclidemonitoring stations for the International Monitoring System (IMS) areshown for both areas. The historic seismic record is plotted using a scaledetermined by the depth of the seismic signal. Past nuclear explosions(many of them for peaceful purposes) are denoted by blue diamonds.(Maps created by Livermore scientist Bill Walter.)

7,000

–7,000

4,0003,0002,0001,0000–1,000–2,000–3,000–4,000

IMS seismic stationsPrimary IMS Auxiliary IMS Array station

Other IMS stations

Hydroacoustic Infrasound Radionuclide

Seismicity (color by depth)> 200 kilometers 50–200 kilometers < 50 kilometers Nuclear explosions (Symbol size scaled by magnitude)

Topography, meters

9



Livermore scientists haveinvestigated the signal effects possiblewith blasts conducted in cavitiesformed from different rock types.Researchers have also attempted togain a more complete understanding ofthe seismic signals caused by routinemining operations. They have joinedwith colleagues from the U.S.Geological Survey and Russianscientists to calibrate seismic wavepropagation in regions of the formerSoviet Union. Livermore scientistshave also monitored different types ofseismic signals from operations inmines located in Wyoming, Colorado,and Nevada.

Determining Underwater Events While seismic network research is

progressing along many fronts, severalLivermore specialists have devotedtheir energies to advancinghydroacoustic monitoring technology.They have combined fundamentalresearch on detecting the propagationof underwater sound waves withcontributions to the Knowledge Base’sstorehouse of underwater signals fromearthquakes, volcanoes, shippingactivity, and chemical explosions frommilitary testing. “A lot of backgroundunderwater events have to be taken intoaccount,” says seismologist PhilHarben, although he notes that they are

not as pervasive as land activities suchas mining.

Aiding Livermore’s understanding ofocean signals is an automated data-acquisition facility on San NicolasIsland off southern California. Datafrom this station permit researchers tocheck computer models and conductresearch on the sensitivities of islandseismic stations and offshorehydrophones to water-borne signals.

The database of nuclear explosionsat sea is limited to a few tests carriedout years ago by the agencies precedingthe DOE. Because data are so limited,Livermore scientists have developed a calculational capability to predict the

Figure 4. Livermore and Jordanian researchers recently establishedtwo temporary seismic stations in Jordan to record the seismicsignatures of background earthquake activity and of explosions fromphosphate mining activities from operations at the Eshidiyahphosphate mine. (a) Map of the area showing the location of thephosphate mine and seismic stations. (b) Outside view of the seismicstation nearest the mine. (c) Inside view of the seismic station.

(b)

(c)

Seismicstation

Phosphatemine

Seismicstation

(a)

When Monitoring Stations Aren’t EnoughUnder the terms of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a

nation suspecting another of conducting a nuclear test mayrequest that the treaty’s 51-member Executive Council conductan on-site inspection to determine the nature of the suspectevent. The requesting nation may introduce evidence acquiredon its own to strengthen its case to the organization. On-siteinspections must be approved within 96 hours of receiving aninspection request because of the need to observe short-livednuclear phenomena that are produced by a nuclear test.

Over the past decade, Lawrence Livermore experts have ledthe U.S. development of on-site inspection technologies andprocedures; many of these procedures were eventuallyincorporated into the text of the treaty. Livermore seismologistJay Zucca serves as the U.S. point of contact for the On-SiteInspection Experts Group that meets regularly in Vienna.

Zucca explains that a clandestine explosion may notnecessarily form a telltale crater. In such a case, an inspectionteam will search for other evidence. For example, the team maydeploy portable seismic equipment to detect very smallaftershocks, collect samples of soil gases and water to look forradioactive materials, or search for an underground explosioncavity or rubble.

Livermore researchers have shown that low-frequencyaftershocks associated with nuclear explosions may also becaused by mining operations. They compared aftershocksfrom the 1993 Non-Proliferation Experiment at the NevadaTest Site (in which 1 kiloton of chemical explosive wasfired in an underground cavity) with those from routineoperations at the Henderson Mine in Colorado. Although the events from both sources are similar, there are subtledifferences in the aftershock signals. They were interested in the Henderson Mine because the caving operation issimilar to the chimney formation following an undergroundnuclear event.

Also as part of the Non-Proliferation Experiment,Livermore experts found that very small amounts of rareradioactive gases such as xenon-133 and argon-37generated in underground nuclear detonations can migratetoward the surface along natural fault lines and earthfissures in a time frame consistent with an on-siteinspection. The technology used in these tests can be anextremely sensitive way to detect nearby undergroundnuclear explosions that do not fracture the surface. (SeeJanuary/February 1997 S&TR, pp. 24–26.)

10



effects of underwater nuclearexplosions. They used this capabilityto provide diplomats with options forhydroacoustic networks. They alsoprovided analyses showing theeconomic advantages of fixedhydroacoustic stations (connected bycable to recording sites on land) overunmoored, floating buoys. On thebasis of this work, a network of sixhydrophones and five islandseismometers was chosen as theinternational system to detect andlocate underwater explosions and, insome cases, explosions in the lowatmosphere.

The network takes advantage of thefact that underwater explosionsgenerate acoustic waves (in thefrequency range of 1 to 100 hertz) thatcan travel completely across an oceanbasin—in some cases, more than

Figure 5. An international monitoring station in Pakistan detected the Indian nuclear test ofMay 11, 1998, about 740 kilometers away. (a) Analysis of the seismogram showed a P-wave-to-S-wave ratio strongly indicative of an explosion and not (b) nearby earthquakes.

Indian nuclear test

Earthquake

Earthquake

Pn Pg Sn Lg

Pn Pg Sn Lg

(a)

(b)

http://www.llnl.gov/str/01.97.html

11



10,000 miles. The acoustic waves travelalong the SOFAR (sound fixing andranging) channel, described by Harbenas “a wave guide for ocean acousticenergy that depends on temperature,density, and depth.” However, wavestraveling in this channel can be blockedor weakened by land masses andregions of shallow or cold water.Livermore modeling of the propertiesof this channel during CTBTnegotiations was important indetermining the global distribution ofhydroacoustic stations.

Refining AlgorithmsA major effort of the National Data

Center will be the automated analysisof data obtained from the internationalcenter, supplemented by data providedby other U.S. resources. Final reviewswill be provided by analysts workingwith Knowledge Base data such asreference seismograms from historicnuclear events conducted in the area ofa suspect event. Key to the automatedprocess will be several algorithms fordetermining the location and nature ofan event. Livermore experts are usingdata gathered for the KnowledgeBase—for example, underground signaltravel times to each internationalstation—to refine the algorithms.

As part of their algorithm work, aninterlaboratory team headed byLivermore seismologist Craig Schultzmade a fundamental advance in the fieldof kriging, a geostatistical estimatingprocess. The advance enables the teamto develop estimates of the level ofconfidence in the regional seismicproperties derived from a fewgeographically isolated observations.Zucca describes the work as one of thekey breakthroughs for the functioning ofthe Knowledge Base. It is likely, hesays, that the approach taken bySchultz’s team for the algorithms will

be adopted by seismologists everywherefor their own applications.

Key algorithms provide discriminants,characteristic features of a waveform(peak-to-peak distance, height, width, orsome ratio). A particularly usefuldiscriminant, for example, is the ratio ofP-wave amplitude to S-wave amplitude.The P (or primary) wave is acompressional wave that is the first toarrive at a station. The S wave or shearwave has a slower propagation speed andarrives behind the P wave. Theseismogram from the Indian nuclear testof May 11, 1998, as recorded by aninternational monitoring system stationin Pakistan about 740 kilometers away,showed a P-to-S ratio stronglycharacteristic of an explosion and not anearthquake (Figure 5).

Zucca points out that the Indian testsuccessfully demonstrated the capabilityof the international network. Based onLivermore’s work at other sites andcurrent examination of events in thisarea, he is confident a potential nuclearexplosion in key areas of interest can bedetected and identified down to much

smaller magnitudes. In other words, saysZucca, the world will soon have stronginternational monitoring and analysiscapabilities to help determineinternational compliance with theComprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

—Arnie Heller

Key Words: Comprehensive Test BanTreaty (CTBT), discriminants, InternationalData Center, Knowledge Base, MENA(Middle East and North Africa) region,National Data Center, Nevada Test Site,SOFAR (sound fixing and ranging) channel,Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT).

Editor’s Note: On p. 4, the image of theglobe is courtesy of Sandia NationalLaboratories, the image of the radionuclidemonitoring devices was provided by PacificNorthwest National Laboratories, and theimage of the infrasound monitor was createdat Los Alamos National Laboratory.

For more information contact Jay Zucca (925) 422-4895([email protected]). Information on DOE’soverall CTBT program may be found atwww.ctbt.rnd.doe.gov.

JOHN J. (JAY) ZUCCA, leader of Livermore’s ComprehensiveTest Ban Treaty Program, joined the Laboratory in 1984. He hasworked primarily for the Laboratory’s Treaty VerificationProgram, concentrating on seismic instrumentation development,on-site inspection, and regional seismology. He was a member ofthe U.S. delegation to the Nuclear Testing Talks (Threshold TestBan Treaty) and a member of the U.S. delegation to the

Conference on Disarmament for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He is currentlya member of the U.S delegation to the Preparatory Commission for the CTBT. Zuccareceived his B.S. from the University of California at Berkeley and his Ph.D. fromStanford University. He completed postdoctoral positions at the U.S. GeologicalSurvey in Menlo Park and the University of Karlsruhe in Germany.

About the Scientist

12


A Short History of theLaboratory at Livermore

On the fortieth anniversary of E. O. Lawrence’sdeath, S&TR explores the history of thelaboratory he founded at Livermore.

several years on either side of the formalopening in 1952. Essentially, it began inAugust 1949, when the Soviet Uniontested its first nuclear weapon. EdwardTeller, a gifted and sometimescontroversial physical scientist highlyregarded by his peers and by the AEC,promptly redoubled his efforts to pushwork on the “Super,” a thermonuclearweapon that derived its energy mainlyfrom the fusion of deuterium, an isotopeof hydrogen.

So-called hydrogen bombs, or H-bombs, were potentially far morepowerful than fission bombs, whichdrew their energy from splitting atoms

13


A Short History of the Laboratory

The laboratory lies on a tract of morethan one square mile in Livermore,California, about 40 miles southeast ofthe university’s Berkeley campus and itsparent laboratory. Although stillmanaged by the university undergovernment contract, it has long sinceoutgrown its origins as a branchlaboratory. Today, it serves as a nationalresource in a broad range of science andengineering research, with nationalsecurity remaining its core mission.

Creating the Laboratory, 1949–52Establishing the laboratory at

Livermore was a process spanning

HE institution now known asLawrence Livermore National

Laboratory formally opened its doors in1952 as a branch of the University ofCalifornia Radiation Laboratory (nowthe Ernest Orlando Lawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory). Managed by theUniversity of California under contractwith the Atomic Energy Commission(AEC), the new laboratory would soonbecome what the well-establishedlaboratory at Los Alamos, NewMexico, and home of the World War IIManhattan Project already was: apremier nuclear weapons designlaboratory for the United States.

T

By spring 1952, the AEC hadreversed its position, a change greatlyfurthered by the emergence inCalifornia of a viable prospect for asecond laboratory. Earlier that year,Ernest Orlando Lawrence—cyclotroninventor, Radiation Laboratory founder,and Nobel Prize winner—had proposedto the AEC establishing a branch of theRadiation Laboratory in Livermore.Acting in response to news of the 1949Soviet test, Lawrence had secured theformer Livermore Naval Air Station forAEC work.

The main project at Livermore was agiant linear accelerator called MTA(ostensibly for Materials TestingAccelerator, a meaningless code name)intended to produce then-scarceplutonium. Figure 1 shows the full-scaleworking model of the machine’s frontend under construction. A team fromLawrence’s laboratory also used the

roomy Livermore site to develop adiagnostic experiment for the 1951George event in Operation Greenhouse,the first Los Alamos test ofthermonuclear principles. In short,Lawrence could back his proposal bypointing to ongoing operations at aproven site. Such arguments comingfrom a widely admired scientist withother large projects to his credit allayedmost AEC doubts.

When Teller accepted a position atLivermore, the last piece fell into place.The AEC and the Regents of theUniversity of California quickly agreedto what would become the secondnuclear weapons laboratory. ThatLawrence himself would remain inBerkeley and have little part in day-to-day operations scarcely lessened hispervasive influence. His former studentand fellow faculty member, HerbertYork, largely organized the branchlaboratory and became its first on-sitedirector.

Organizationally, York reported toLawrence and clearly modeled the newlaboratory on what he had learned fromLawrence about running big scienceprograms at Berkeley. Teller, a dailypresence at the Livermore Laboratory,played a quite distinct but no lesssignificant role. His imprint was, andremained, especially strong on thelaboratory’s choice of programs topursue. The creation and subsequentshaping of the branch laboratory atLivermore and its programs owed muchto all three men (Figure 2).

The Formative Years, 1952–58Like its parent laboratory in

Berkeley and future sister laboratory atLos Alamos, the Livermore branchlaboratory became an AEC facilityunder University of Californiamanagement. Initially, the scope ofProject Whitney, the code nameassigned to work at Livermore, wasquite modest. At the official branchopening on September 2, 1952, the

14



of the heavy elements uranium orplutonium. Fission bombs (atomicbombs, or A-bombs) were developed atLos Alamos during the ManhattanProject. At wartime Los Alamos, Tellerhad been the chief advocate ofthermonuclear weapons development,and he had continued to press his casefrom a postwar position at theUniversity of Chicago, although withoutmuch success. The Soviet A-bombchanged everything.

To Teller (and many others), anAmerican H-bomb seemed the bestresponse to the new Soviet threat.Convinced that not enough was beingdone, he vigorously lobbied a reluctantAEC for a second nuclear weaponslaboratory to compete with the existingLos Alamos laboratory. He also soughtother allies. When the Air Force in late1951 supported a second laboratory, theAEC’s resistance began to crumble.

Figure 1. The first bigproject at the Livermoresite began in 1951, beforethe laboratory itself wasapproved. This photoshows the prototypevacuum chamber for theso-called MaterialsTesting Accelerator underconstruction. Oncedevelopment wascompleted, the full mile-long linear acceleratorwas constructed near St. Louis.

entire staff numbered only 123, manystill working in Berkeley, with aprojected first-year budget of $600,000.Broadly speaking, Livermore wasexpected to support Los Alamos withwork on aspects of designing andtesting thermonuclear weapons.

Weapons, however, never exclusivelypreoccupied Livermore. Research incontrolled fusion soon began. From itsfirst days, Livermore studied suchrelated areas as magnetic fusion. Underthe auspices of the AEC’s ProjectSherwood, several other laboratorieswere also looking for practical methodsof confining a fusion reaction to produceuseful energy. Livermore chose topursue the so-called magnetic mirrorapproach: magnetic fields would confineionized gas or plasma within an open-ended cylindrical cavity. Livermore alsobegan its long fascination with high-powered electronic computing andhands-on experimentation: the firstUNIVAC arrived in 1953, and the Site 300 high-explosive test facility was opened in mid-1955.

Weapons research nonetheless heldcenter stage, although the first efforts ofLivermore’s novice bomb designersproved disappointing. Concepts testedduring 1953 in Nevada and 1954 atBikini had yields so far belowexpectation as to prompt some jeeringobservers to label them “fizzles”(Figure 3). Disappointed butundismayed, the young scientists andengineers quickly broadened theirdesign approaches and soon turnedthings around. The breakthrough forfission designs came in 1955 duringOperation Teapot at the Nevada TestSite and for thermonuclear designsduring Operation Redwing at thePacific Proving Ground. Satisfactorytest results at last allowed theLivermore team to stake a plausibleclaim as weapon designers, if not yet toquiet all doubts.

Livermore’s first weaponassignment, developing the warhead for

15



the Navy’s Regulus II missile, camein 1955. Although Regulus II wentnowhere, the laboratory’s warheaddesign became part of a gravitybomb for carrier-based aircraft.Livermore also joined forces withthe Army to develop nuclearartillery shells. Notwithstandingsuch modest successes, Livermoreremained a relatively marginalplayer in the nuclear weapon fieldthrough the mid-1950s.

Then in June 1957, the Navydecided to entrust the design anddevelopment of warheads for itsnew Polaris missiles to the secondlaboratory. Meeting the Polarischallenge has often been describedas Livermore’s coming of age. Twoother large development projectsalso began officially in 1957. Onewas Project Pluto, an AirForce–backed effort to developnuclear ramjets for unmannedaircraft. The other was ProjectPlowshare, aimed at using peacefulnuclear explosions for civilengineering purposes. Livermoreclearly had turned the corner.

On March 31, 1958, HerbertYork resigned as director of theLivermore laboratory, leaving forWashington to become the firstDirector of Defense Research and

Figure 3. Livermore bomb designers failed theirfirst test. At the Nevada Test Site in 1953, a riskydesign fizzled, yielding this widely displayed photoof a bent tower.

Figure 2. This 1957photograph shows thethree men mostresponsible fororganizing and shapingthe new laboratory atLivermore earlier in thedecade—from left toright, Ernest Lawrence,Edward Teller, andHerbert York.

1958. It lasted almost three years, untilSeptember 1961, during which LRLLivermore saw three directors in rapidsuccession: Edward Teller (April1958–June 1960), Harold Brown (July1960–May 1961), and John Foster(June 1961–September 1965). Despitequestions raised about the future of thelaboratory—no one could be certain thatnuclear testing would ever resume—Livermore continued its rapid growth.Employment increased by a thousandand the annual budget swelled to $78 million by fiscal year 1961.

Although the moratorium barredfurther testing of the Polaris warhead,deployment proceeded. In July 1960,the Navy accepted delivery of the first

16 warheads, and four months later,USS George Washington, the firstPolaris submarine, went to sea on itsfirst patrol with 16 armed missilesaboard. After the moratorium, thePolaris missile system provided theonly full-scale operational test fromlaunch through detonation everconducted for a U.S. nuclear missile.On May 6, 1962, a submerged Polarissubmarine launched a stockpile Polarismissile to explode a thousand milesaway over the open ocean. Figure 4shows a Polaris missile launch.

Polaris designers trusted their workdespite changes from the designs field-tested before the moratorium and theimplementation of substantial warheadupgrades. A major factor in promotingthis trust was computer modeling of theextremely complex physicalphenomena involved in nuclearexplosions. Stimulated by their concernto understand the physics, bombdesigners devised increasingly complexcomputer codes to model the physicalbehavior of nuclear weapons. Thatrequired state-of-the-art computers—themore powerful the better—one reasonthat Livermore has consistentlypioneered the use of large, high-speedcomputers.

Computers also played a major rolein hydrodynamic experiments at Site 300. Located 15 miles fromLivermore across a low range of hills ina rough and thinly peopled corner of theSan Joaquin Valley, the new test facilitywould become a center for nonnuclearexperimentation to study warhead safetyand reliability. Widening efforts tounderstand complex phenomenathrough experiment and computermodeling became a laboratory hallmark.

When the moratorium sharplycurtailed nuclear weapons work, ProjectPluto assumed a larger place in theLivermore laboratory’s activities. It hadbegun in the mid-1950s as a jointproject between the AEC and the AirForce to develop a nuclear ramjet

Engineering. Five months later, onAugust 27, E. O. Lawrence died. Hisflourishing laboratory at Berkeleybecame the Lawrence RadiationLaboratory (LRL) on November 7.Livermore’s status as a branchlaboratory remained unchanged,although it too flourished. Under theleadership of Lawrence, Teller, andYork, it had grown to 3,000 employeeswith an annual budget of $55 million.Edward Teller, the only one of theoriginal founders who remained atLivermore, succeeded York as director.

Moratorium, 1958–61A moratorium on nuclear weapons

testing went into effect on November 1,

16



Figure 4. Polaris missile launched from a submerged submarine. Livermore came of age with itssuccessful development of the warhead for the Polaris missile.

17



engine. Livermore designed and builttwo Pluto test reactors—Tory II-A todemonstrate feasibility and Tory II-C asa realistic flight-engine prototype. Thefirst model breezed through its 1961trials at the Nevada Test Site. Threeyears later, the prototype engine passedits first tests with flying colors(Figure 5). But the Department ofDefense concluded that it had no needfor nuclear ramjets and canceled ProjectPluto one week later.

Expansion and Change, 1961–71Events of the 1960s contributed to

reshaping Livermore’s environment.The public became increasinglyconcerned about what PresidentEisenhower in his 1961 farewell addressnamed the military–industrial complex;the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test BanTreaty ended atmospheric testing; andlater in the decade, protests against thewar in Vietnam increased dramatically.As the decade progressed, thelaboratory became the object ofgrowing criticism from the Universityof California community and fromoutside as well. It was also the scene ofactive demonstrations. Livermorenonetheless sustained its steady growthunder the directorships of John Fosterand Michael May (October1965–August 1971), adding anotherthousand to the workforce and$50 million to the budget.

During the 1960s, Livermore’snuclear weapons design work focusedon strategic missiles. To improve theNavy’s submarine-launched ballisticmissile systems, the laboratorydeveloped warheads for the second-generation Polaris and its successor,Poseidon. While the Air Forcecontinued to rely heavily on LosAlamos for developing bombs and somemissile warheads, it increasing assignedwarhead development for itsintercontinental ballistic missiles,notably Minuteman, to Livermore. Bythe end of the decade, most warheads in

the nation’s strategic nuclear weaponsstockpile were Livermore designs.

Plowshare and the quest for peacefulnuclear explosions became one ofLivermore’s major programs in the1960s. Initially, the program focusedon large-scale earth-moving, or nuclear

excavation, with the long-term goal ofusing nuclear explosions to excavate anew Atlantic–Pacific canal throughCentral America (Figure 6).Development problems, the 1963 testban treaty, and growing doubts aboutthe economic advantages of nuclear

Route 1 Tehuantepec Mexico

Route 8 Nicaragua

Route 16 San Blas, Panama

Route 25 Atrato-Truando

Colombia

Route 17 Caledonia Bay

(Sasardi-Morti) Panama

Mexico

Belize

Honduras

Nicaragua

Costa Rica

Caribbean Sea

Pacific Ocean

Panama

Colombia

Panama Canal

Figure 5. Project Plutoaimed at developing aramjet engine for the AirForce. Tory II-C, depictedhere, was a prototypeflight engine testedsuccessfully in 1964.

Figure 6. Project Plowshare sought to use peaceful nuclear explosions for civil engineeringpurposes. One proposal envisioned the nuclear excavation of a new Atlantic–Pacific canal inCentral America. Some of the routes considered are shown in this map.

One of Plowshare’s major legacieswas Livermore’s biomedical researchprogram, created largely in response toconcerns about fallout and otherradioactive hazards. Fallout hadbecome a major public issue in themid-1950s with the advent ofthermonuclear weapons testing.Plowshare focused interest in thesubject because nuclear explosions inpopulated areas for a variety of routineengineering tasks seemed to pose muchmore direct threats. The BiomedicalDivision was established in 1963 toinvestigate the effects of radionuclideson living systems. Ironically, it became

itself a center of controversy when itsfirst director, John Gofman, differedpublicly with the AEC on the hazards ofradioactive fallout.

The Mature Laboratory, 1971–88In June 1971, Livermore and

Berkeley parted company. Respondingin part to campus protest, the LawrenceRadiation Laboratory divided into theLawrence Berkeley Laboratory and theLawrence Livermore Laboratory. InDecember, Roger Batzel became theLaboratory’s sixth director, beginning atenure of unprecedented length andextraordinary growth. From 1971 until1988, when Batzel retired from thedirectorship, the Laboratory’s budgetrose steadily, from $129 million to $896 million, while its workforceclimbed from 5,300 to 8,200.

Meanwhile, the Laboratory’s federalpatron underwent metamorphosis. TheAEC split into the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) and the EnergyResearch and DevelopmentAdministration (ERDA) in January1975. ERDA proved short-lived,becoming within three years part of anew Department of Energy.Livermore’s management remainedwith the University of California, andthe Laboratory’s growing statusreceived validation of a sort in the 1980congressional decision to make it anational laboratory. Henceforth, itwould be known as LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory.

During the 1970s, Livermoreweapons designers lost their near-monopoly on warheads forintercontinental ballistic missiles.Although Livermore was assigned theAir Force’s MX/Peacekeeper missilewarhead, Los Alamos was designated todevelop the warhead for Trident, thethird generation of submarine-launchedballistic missiles. By the 1960s, theArmy was becoming LLNL’s mostconsistent client, often for politicallycontroversial systems. In 1968, work on

18



over conventional explosives as well asthe lack of public acceptance of suchwork stifled that plan by the end of thedecade.

A reoriented Plowshare programcentered on underground engineering,using nuclear explosions to stimulatethe flow of natural gas from tight rockformations. Ambiguous experimentalresults and the environmentallegislation of the late 1960s provedobstacles too great to overcome. Likenuclear excavation, undergroundengineering began to look more costlythan it was worth, and Plowshare fadedaway in the early 1970s.

Figure 7. For a decade and a half, the Nova laser has allowed scientists at Livermore to conductlaboratory experiments on laser fusion and weapon physics. This photo shows an external viewof the Nova target chamber, a 15-foot-diameter sphere where the system’s 10 laser beamsconverge to heat the tiny experimental package in the center.

19



the warhead for the Spartan missileembroiled Livermore in the heateddebate over antiballistic missilesystems. Work in the late 1970s andinto the 1980s on the ground-launchedcruise missile and enhanced radiationwarheads for such tactical weaponsystems as the Lance missile andnuclear artillery raised questions aboutnuclear war fighting and policy.

Livermore entered still morecontroversial waters in the 1980s, whenLaboratory studies suggested thefeasibility of nuclear-powered x-raylasers. Theoretically, such lasers coulddestroy ballistic missiles in flight andmight thus become the backbone of areliable defense, as Edward Teller andothers vigorously argued. In 1983,President Reagan launched his so-called Star Wars program, the StrategicDefense Initiative, that committed theUnited States to developing thetechnology for such a defensive system.Although only one of many institutionsstudying directed-energy weapons andother potential antimissile andantisatellite weaponry under theprogram’s aegis, Livermore remainedclosely identified with Star Wars, evenafter the end of the Cold War.

Magnetic fusion research atLivermore began to produce results bythe mid-1970s. An experimentalmagnetic mirror machine (2XII-B)created a stably confined plasma attemperatures, densities, and timesapproximating those a power plantmight need. Although not the mostfavored approach in the fusion researchcommunity, the magnetic mirror thenstood second only to the tokamakconcept of power generation throughfusion. The AEC approved a large-scale scientific feasibility test of themagnetic mirror approach, the so-calledMirror Fusion Test Facility, butchanging priorities scuttled the$350-million experiment, canceled in1987 before ever operating and sold forscrap a decade later.

The invention of the laser offeredanother avenue toward the goal ofcontrolled fusion. Beginning in theearly 1970s, the Laboratory developed aseries of neodymium-glass lasers, eachmore powerful than its predecessor,culminating in 1984 with the Novasystem. For a decade and a half, Novahas provided unrivaled facilities topursue the goal of practical laser fusion.For Livermore, high-power lasers hadan additional advantage: thethermonuclear microexplosions theycould generate allowed scientists tostudy weapon physics in the laboratoryunder controlled conditions (Figure 7).Nova’s successor, the National IgnitionFacility now under construction,promises to greatly expand both areasof research.

Lasers also offered a powerful newtool for isotope separation. Preciselytuned light can ionize a specific isotopein a mixture of vaporized isotopes,allowing it to be easily separated fromthe rest. Livermore’s development of theprocess for atomic vapor laser isotopeseparation, more commonly known byits acronym, AVLIS, promised toprovide a safe, cost-effective, andenvironmentally responsible means ofproducing uranium-235. The AVLISprocess is currently undergoingcommercialization.

Biomedical research at Livermoreexpanded greatly during the 1970s and1980s. Carcinogenic and mutagenicchemicals were included withradionuclides as subjects of study, andthe research program increasinglyfocused on understanding basicbiological processes at every level fromcell to organism. Livermore-devisedinstruments, notably the flowcytometer, made the Laboratory aworld center for analytic cytology(Figure 8). When the Department ofEnergy, the AEC’s successor, decidedto support a massive effort to map thehuman genome and establish thesequence of every gene on humanchromosomes, Livermore was wellplaced to develop the automatedtechniques that would make the projectfeasible.

Environmental researchcomplemented biological studies.Precise sampling techniques andsophisticated computer modeling haveallowed Livermore to play a growingrole in environmental assessment, whileother research has contributed to makecleanup techniques more effective.

Project Plowshare had includedstudies of several techniques for usingnuclear explosions to extract oil orminerals from underground depositstoo costly to reach by other means.

Figure 8. Ademonstration modelof Livermore’sminiature flowcytometer. Thepattern created bylaser light reflectedfrom a cell passingthrough the laserbeam of thisinstrument revealsthe cell’s size andinternal structure.

Although merely paper studies, theyassumed new importance when the oilembargo of the early 1970s generatedpublic concerns about the nation’sdependence on foreign sources ofenergy. Nonnuclear energy became amajor subject of Livermore study. Insitu retorting of oil shale and coalgasification assumed a prominent partin Livermore’s newly initiated andwide-ranging energy research program.Once again, however, changingnational priorities brought the efforts toa standstill.

Era of Transition, 1988–PresentAs an institution created to sustain

and promote American science andtechnology for the Cold War, LawrenceLivermore faced a new world when theCold War ended. Few foresaw that endas imminent when John Nuckollsbecame Livermore’s seventh director in1988. Average annual employment

hovered around 8,000 into the early1990s. The budget Nuckolls inherited in1988, just under $900 million, rose toover $1 billion in fiscal year 1991. Bothbudget and workforce had declinedsignificantly from those peak levels byApril 1994, when Bruce Tartersucceeded Nuckolls as director.

In the immediate post–Cold Warworld, Livermore confronted acongressionally mandated moratoriumon nuclear weapons testing, a vanishingStrategic Defense Initiative, andshrinking Department of Defense andDOE budgets. In response to thechanging nature of perceived threats tonational security, the Laboratory formeda new multidisciplinary directorate in1992—Nonproliferation, Arms Control,and International Security.

Dismantling retired nuclear weaponsand ensuring the safety and reliability ofthe remaining U.S. nuclear stockpilewithout nuclear testing displaced

designing new weapons as the majornational need of applied weaponsexperience and expertise. Testing ornot, the Laboratory was still obliged tohelp preserve a viable nuclear weaponsstockpile. As a key participant (alongwith Los Alamos and Sandia) in DOE’sStockpile Stewardship Program,Livermore is making major investmentsin advanced computation andnonnuclear testing. It is part of theAccelerated Strategic ComputingInitiative to increase massively parallelcomputational power for virtualanalysis of the aging stockpile verifiedby past nuclear test data and nonnuclearexperiments. The National IgnitionFacility is a keystone experimentalfacility in the Stockpile StewardshipProgram, offering a means to obtainvitally needed data, maintaincompetence in weapon physics, andpursue inertial confinement fusion.Groundbreaking for this advanced laserprogram took place in 1997 (Figure 9).

After a period of uncertainty andreevaluation, Livermore has reaffirmedits central role as “a premiere applied-science national security laboratory.”As further stated in the Laboratory’srecently published strategic plan,Creating the Laboratory’s Future, theLivermore’s “primary mission is toensure that the nation’s nuclearweapons remain safe, secure, andreliable and to prevent the spread anduse of nuclear weapons worldwide.”

—Bart Hacker

For further information contact Bart Hacker (202) 357-2250([email protected]).

Editor’s Note: Bart Hacker recently left thestaff of S&TR to become the curator ofArmed Forces History at the SmithsonianInstitution in Washington, D.C. He did theresearch for this article while serving asLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryHistorian, 1992–1996.

20



Figure 9. On May 29, 1997, Secretary of Energy Federico Peña (center) joined LaboratoryDirector Bruce Tarter and Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher in breaking ground for the NationalIgnition Facility.


HE concept for x-ray lasers goes back to the 1970s, whenphysicists realized that laser beams amplified with ions

would have much higher energies than beams amplified usinggases. Nuclear explosions were even envisioned as a powersupply for these high-energy lasers. That vision became areality at the time of the Strategic Defense Initiative of the1980s, when x-ray laser beams initiated by nuclear explosiveswere generated underground at the Nevada Test Site.Livermore’s Novette, the precursor of the Nova laser, was usedfor the first laboratory demonstration of an x-ray laser in 1984.

Since then, Nova, Livermore’s largest laser, has set thestandard for x-ray laser research and been the benchmarkagainst which x-ray laser research has been measured. Novauses a very-high-energy pulse of light about a nanosecond (abillionth of a second) long to cause lasing at x-ray frequencies.Because these high-energy pulses heat the system’s glassamplifiers, Nova must be allowed to cool between shots. Novacan thus be fired only about six times a day.

In contrast, a team at Livermore has developed a small“tabletop” x-ray laser that can be fired every three or fourminutes. By using two pulses—one of about a nanosecondand another in the trillionth-of-a-second (picosecond) range—their laser uses far less energy and does not require thecooling-off period.

Scientists had theorized for years that an x-ray laser beamcould be created using an extremely short, picosecond pulse,which would require less energy. But very short pulsesoverheated the glass amplifiers, destroying them. Laserchirped-pulse amplification, developed in the late 1980s, getsaround that problem by expanding a very short pulse before ittravels through the amplifiers and then compressing it to itsoriginal duration before the laser beam is focused on a target.1If chirped-pulse amplification is combined with lowerenergies, the pulses do not overheat the glass amplifiers, sothe system can be fired many times a day.

The development team for this new laser includes JimDunn, the experimentalist, and theoreticians Al Osterheld andSlava Shlyaptsev, a visiting scientist from Russia’s LebedevInstitute. All are physicists in the Physics and Space

Technology Directorate. Together, they have produced one ofonly a handful of tabletop x-ray lasers in the world (Figure 1).

X-ray lasers produce “soft” x rays, which is to say theirwavelengths are a bit longer than those used in medical xrays. Soft x rays cannot penetrate a piece of paper, but theyare ideal for probing and imaging high-energy-densityionized gases, known as plasmas. X-ray lasers are aninvaluable tool for studying the expansion of high-densityplasmas, particularly laser-produced plasmas, making themuseful for Livermore’s fusion and physics programs. Basicresearch using x-ray lasers as a diagnostic tool can fine-tunethe equations of state of a variety of materials, includingthose used in nuclear weapons and under investigation by theStockpile Stewardship Program. These lasers also haveapplications for the materials science community, both insideand outside the Laboratory, by supplying detailed informationabout the atomic structure of new and existing materials.

Notes Osterheld, “Plasmas do not behave nicely. To verifythe modeling codes for plasmas, we need lots ofexperiments.” With an experiment every three or fourminutes on the tabletop x-ray laser, large quantities of datacan be produced quickly. The team’s goal is to refine theprocess and reduce the size and cost of the equipment so thatsomeday an x-ray laser might be a routine piece of equipmentin plasma physics research laboratories.

The X-Ray LaserFrom Undergroundto Tabletop

T

Research Highlights

Figure 1. Jim Dunn makes adjustments to the tabletop x-ray laser’starget chamber.

Tabletop X-Ray Laser22


Figure 2. Rendering of Livermore’s COMET (compact multipulse terawatt) tabletop x-ray laser showing the laser system and target chamber. The inset shows laser beams hitting the stepped target and producing a plasma, which in turn generates an x-ray laser beam.

Achieving a Stable Lasing PlasmaIn x-ray lasers, a pulse of light strikes a target, stripping its

atoms of electrons to form ions and pumping energy into theions (“exciting” or “amplifying” them). As each excited iondecays from the higher energy state, it emits a photon. Manymillions of these photons at the same wavelength, amplifiedin step, create the x-ray laser beam. The highly ionizedmaterial in which excitation occurs is a plasma (which shouldnot be confused with the plasma that the x-ray laser beam islater used to probe).

X-ray lasers are specifically designed to produce a lasingplasma with as high a fraction of usable ions as possible tomaximize the stability and hence the output energy of thelaser. If the target is made of titanium, which has 22 electrons,the ionization process strips off 12 electrons, leaving 10,which makes the ions like a neon atom in electronconfiguration. Neonlike ions in a plasma are very stable,closed-shell ions. They maintain their stability even whenfaced with temporal, spatial, and other changes. Dunn,Osterheld, and Shlyaptsev have also studied palladiumtargets. When palladium atoms are stripped of 18 electrons,

their ions become like a nickel atom, which is also closed-shell and stable.

A One-Two PunchIn Livermore’s Nova laser, a high-energy, kilojoule pulse

lasting a nanosecond or slightly less must accomplish threethings: produce an initial line-focus plasma, ionize it, andexcite the ions. Because the excitation, or heating, ishappening relatively slowly compared to other plasmabehavior, this process is called quasi-steady-state excitation.

The tabletop x-ray laser is configured differently fromNova (Figure 2). It uses the compact multipulse terawatt(COMET) laser driver to produce two pulses. First, a low-energy, nanosecond pulse of only 5 joules strikes a polishedpalladium or titanium target to produce the plasma and ionizeit. The pulse must accomplish less than the Nova pulse, so lessenergy is needed.

Then a 5-joule, picosecond pulse, created by chirped-pulseamplification, arrives at the target a split second later to excitethe ions. Although the picosecond pulse uses 100 times lessenergy than a Nova pulse, its power is ten times higher

Target chamber

Pulse compressor in vacuum chamber

Long-pulse beam

Main amplifiers

COMET laser

100-femtosecond oscillator/ pulse stretcher/regenerative amplifier

Plasma

Target

X-ray laser

Beam

because the pulse is one thousand times shorter. And its powerdensity, which adds the length of the target to the powerequation, is also very high.

The brief, picosecond, “transient” plasma excitation plays amajor role in the laser’s effectiveness. During the ionizationprocess, the plasma expands rapidly. In the quasi-steady-stateapproach used with Nova, excitation occurs while the plasmais continuing to expand and be heated so that much of thedeposited energy is lost from the lasing process. With thetransient scheme, excitation happens so fast that more ions inthe plasma can contribute to the lasing.

For plasma research purposes, the tabletop x-ray laseralmost has it all—low energy requirements, high power, arepetition rate of a shot every four minutes, and a shortwavelength. (Keep in mind that the shorter the wavelength ofthe laser, the more effectively it can penetrate high-densityplasmas.)

Two Plasmas in One ChamberTo date, the Livermore team has studied neonlike titanium

and nickel-like palladium transient schemes. It has producedthe first transient-gain, nickel-like, x-ray lasing at14.7 nanometers with a laser pump of less than 10 joules(Figure 3).2 The team is looking at various ways to maximizethe laser’s output, including using different target designs anddelaying the arrival of the picosecond pulse to match thepropagation of the x-ray laser in the gain region.

Within the next year, the team plans to have a secondplasma in the target chamber. The first one will be for lasing,while the second will be studied and probed. The very-short-pulse x-ray laser probe will act as a strobe to “freeze” theaction of the second plasma, resulting in clearer images ofplasmas than any yet produced. And with an experiment everythree or four minutes, there can be lots of excellent images.

—Katie Walter

Key Words: chirped-pulse amplification, plasmas, soft x rays,tabletop x-ray laser.

References1. For more information on chirped-pulse amplification, see Science

& Technology Review, “Crossing the Petawatt Threshold,”December 1996, pp. 4–11.

2. J. Dunn, A. L. Osterheld, R. Shepherd, W. E. White, V. N. Shlyaptsev, and R. E. Stewart, “Demonstration of X-RayAmplification in Transient Gain Nickel-like Palladium Scheme,”Physical Review Letters 80(13), 2825–2828 (1998).

For further information contact Jim Dunn (925) 423-1557 ([email protected]) or Al Osterheld (925) 423-7432 ([email protected]).

23


Tabletop X-Ray Laser

Nickel-like x-ray laser

14.7 nanometers

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

012.5 15.0

Wavelength, nanometers17.5

X-r

ay in

tens

ity

Figure 3. A line outof the emissionspectrum from an x-ray laserexperiment showsthat the 14.7-nanometer x-raylaser line is ordersof magnitudebrighter than anyother emission line.

http://www.llnl.gov/str/12.96.html

24


Research Highlights

LTHOUGH the recent prediction of a nearcollision between Earth and asteroid XF11 turned

out to be inaccurate, hazards from asteroids and other near-Earth objects are out there. After all, just a few years ago, theShoemaker–Levy comet hurtled onto Jupiter, leaving Earth-sized scars on the planet’s face, and a similar event is believedto have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs on Earth. The fewnervous moments we Earthlings had over XF11 serve as areality check on the hazards that await from space.

Scientists and engineers at Lawrence Livermore have beenengineering small, agile satellites that can help deal withpotential space calamities. Called microsatellites (microsats,for short), they are an outgrowth of research performed for theLaboratory’s Clementine satellite program, which mapped themoon and then discovered the first evidence that water mayexist there. The microsatellites are envisioned as operatingautonomously in orbit to serve a variety of future space-exploration needs in addition to probing near-Earth asteroids.Microsatellites would be able to strike or probe the potentiallyhazardous objects that threaten Earth. In addition, they mightbe handy rescue vehicles used to inspect disabled satellitesand relay observations about them to ground stations; theymight also dock with and repair satellites. Microsatellitescould also be part of a control system that protects anddefends U.S. assets in space.

The capability for such uses will come through integratinga complex array of advanced technologies in the microsatellitevehicle. Sensors, guidance and navigation controls, avionics,and power and propulsion systems—all must performprecisely and in concert so the vehicles can find, track, lockonto, and rendezvous with their targets, even though thosetargets are also on the move. The rigorous ground testing ofmicrosatellites’ integrated technologies is essential; these testsproduce data needed for effective flight testing.

The best ground-testing environment is one that mimics, asmuch as possible, the free-floating environment of a spaceflight. Finding a way to emulate such an environment was oneof the important tasks facing microsatellite developers.

A

Down-to-Earth Testingof Microsatellites

Inspired by a GameTraditionally, space vehicles have been ground tested on a

stationary hemispherical air bearing, a device that floats a testvehicle with high-pressure air. The air bearing provides thevehicle with three angular degrees of freedom. The stationaryair bearing is useful for testing the stability of a space vehiclein orbit. But because microsats will be performing precisionmaneuvers in space that involve translation—that is, parallel,sideways motions—its testing must also account for lineardynamics.

Clementine II program leader Arno Ledebuhr, engineeringgroup leader Larry Ng, and mechanical engineers JeffRobinson and Bill Taylor came up with the idea for a dynamicair-bearing device that provides five degrees of freedom (threerotational, or angular, and two translational, or linear, motions).Their inspiration came from the game of air hockey, whichuses air pushed out of a table to float hockey pucks. In thedynamic air bearing, this configuration is inverted—the air ispushed out of the pucks. Three such air pucks are used tosupport a traditional air bearing on a fixture that also includesan air supply—from high-pressure nitrogen tanks (Figure 1). Asthe air pucks release the high-pressure air, the whole device islifted off the surface on which it has been sitting. Because thethree air pucks, equally distributed on a 19-centimeter-radiuscircle, can support a total weight of more than 150 kilograms, itcapably floats itself (5 kilograms) and a microsat test vehicle(25 kilograms). It thus allows the test vehicle to move linearlyas if in a near-zero-gravity space environment.

Figure 1. The dynamicair-bearing device pushes high-pressure nitrogen out of air pucks tocreate a gravity-free environment in whichspace vehicles can maneuver with five degrees of freedom.

25


Ground Testing Microsatellites

Scaling Down Space ManeuversThe Livermore team is using the

dynamic air-bearing device in a seriesof experiments called AGILE, for air-table guided-intercept and line-of-sight experiments. These experimentswill evaluate a vehicle’s ability to“divert,” that is, maneuver in spacewhile keeping track of a movingtarget (such as an incoming asteroid)and then close in to intercept it. Theobjective of these experiments is toquantify the distances by which themicrosats miss intercepting the target,thus allowing microsat developers to identify hardware andsoftware deficiencies.

For a vehicle to accomplish an interception, its sensorsand measurement, navigation, and control systems mustwork together to continually calculate vehicle speed andposition in relation to the target. They must calculate thepoint at which the target can be intercepted and get thevehicle to that point at precisely the same time as the target. Because both the vehicle and target are moving, theline of sight to the target continually changes, and therefore,vehicle acceleration and position must be constantlyadjusted. Further complicating these calculations are themany other factors that can affect maneuvering precision,such as changing vehicle mass due to fuel expenditure,vehicle acceleration capability, and minor misalignment ofhardware components.

The interception experiments use a test vehicle that canmove with five degrees of freedom. The vehicle sits on thedynamic air bearing, which in turn is borne on two large,smooth glass plates resting side by side on a table. The glassplates form a rectangular test table approximately 1.5 by7.2 meters. A laser projects a target onto a wall-mountedtarget board parallel to the long side of the glass test table. A precision measurement system, consisting of a laser and acamera, accurately measures and records the test vehicle’sposition (Figure 2).

The intercept geometry, comprising the vehicle positions,target positions, and the changing line of sight between them,is scaled for the indoor table experiment to preserve theintercept geometry of an actual flight. For example, for asuccessful interception, the line-of-sight rate must approachzero; that is, the vehicle and target must both arrive at thesame point at the same time. To preserve that line-of-sightrequirement in the test, the test maneuvering distance is scaleddown in relation to the target that is projected on the screen.The target location and interception point are predetermined,and these values, used in conjunction with the precisemeasurements of vehicle position (from the laser measurementsystem), allow experimenters to determine the ability of theonboard guidance and control software to maneuver thevehicle to the point of interception.

Taking Testing to the Next StepsThe current rectangular, indoor dynamic air-bearing test

setup is useful for a variety of experiments. However, theshort length of the current glass test surface limitsmaneuvering distance, thus prohibiting replication of the exact

Figure 2. The dynamic air-bearing device floats a microsatellite abovea glass surface to test the microsatellite’s ability to accurately trackand maneuver to its target.

frequency and duration of engine acceleration in actual flightmaneuvers. Making the test surface larger and square(10 meters by 10 meters) will enable the performance of agreater range of rendezvous and docking maneuvers,including practicing the circumnavigation of a satellite anddetermining its spin axis and rotation rate.

To eliminate some of the indoor setup’s limitations, anoutdoor version of the device is being developed. In thisversion, the test vehicle “floats” on a smooth rail 100 to200 meters long and “views” a tilted board on which anincoming target is projected (Figure 3). The rail air-bearingsystem can move in only one linear direction, but because ofits larger scale, it provides an improved replication of flightmaneuvers and a more accurate tracking of vehicle position.Both improvements lead to a more precise reconstruction ofline-of-sight angles, which is key to correctly predicting thepoint at which the microsat maneuvers to its target.

The air-bearing team’s work on ground testing techniquescontinues. To date, a 17-meter-long rail has been used to“fly” the newest generation of the microsat vehicle. Longerrange outdoor docking experiments that incorporate both anonboard Star Tracker camera, which uses stars to calculate theorientation of the microsats, and a global positioning systemreceiver are in the planning stages.

—Gloria Wilt

Key Words: AGILE (air-table guided-intercept and line-of-sightexperiments), dynamic air-bearing table, dynamic air-bearing rail,ground testing, microsat, microsatellite, spacecraft interceptor, space vehicle.

For further information contact Arno Ledebuhr (925) 423-1184 ([email protected]).

26


Figure 3. To improvereplication of flightmaneuvers and providemore accurate tracking ofvehicle position,Livermore scientists aredesigning a large, outdoorversion of the dynamic airbearing. The larger scalemeans more precisereconstruction of line-of-sight angles, which in turnmeans improvedpredictions of how tomaneuver the test vehicleto meet with its target.

Ground Testing Microsatellites

27


Each month in this space we report on the patents issued to and/orthe awards received by Laboratory employees. Our goal is toshowcase the distinguished scientific and technical achievements ofour employees as well as to indicate the scale and scope of thework done at the Laboratory.

Patents and Awards

Patent issued to

Simon J. CohenLynn G. Seppala

Troy W. Barbee, Jr.Gary W. Johnson

Richard W. Pekala

Jim J. ChangErnest P. DragonBruce E. Warner

Joseph W. BalchAnthony V. CarranoJames C. DavidsonJackson C. Koo

William McLean IIMehdi BaloochWigbert J. Siekhaus

Patent title, number, and date of issue

Critical Illumination Condenser for X-Ray Lithography

U.S. Patent 5,737,137April 7, 1998

Nanostructure MultilayerDielectric Materials for Capacitorsand Insulators

U.S. Patent 5,742,471April 21, 1998

Organic Carbon Aerogels from the Sol-Gel Polymerization ofPhenolic-Furfural Mixtures

U.S. Patent 5,744,510April 28, 1998

Apparatus for PrecisionMicromachining with Lasers

U.S. Patent 5,744,780April 28, 1998

Hybrid Slab-microchannel GelElectrophoresis System

U.S. Patent 5,746,901May 5, 1998

Laser Ablated Hard Coating for Microtools

U.S. Patent 5,747,120May 5, 1998

Summary of disclosure

A critical illumination condenser system, adapted for use inextreme ultraviolet (EUV) projection lithography based on a ringfield imaging system and a laser-produced plasma source. Thesystem uses three spherical mirrors and is capable of illuminatingthe extent of the mask plane by scanning the primary mirror or thelaser plasma source. The angles of radiation incident upon eachmirror of the critical illumination condenser vary by less than 8 degrees. For example, the imaging system in which the criticalillumination condenser is used has a 200-micrometer source andrequires a magnification of 26.

A capacitor formed of at least two metal conductors having amultilayer dielectric and opposite dielectric–conductor interfacelayers in between. The multilayer dielectric includes manyalternating layers of amorphous zirconium oxide (ZrO2) andalumina (Al2O3). The dielectric–conductor interface layers areengineered for increased voltage breakdown and extended servicelife. The local interfacial work function is increased to reducecharge injection and thus increase breakdown voltage.

A high-surface-area foam made from sol-gel polymerization of aphenolic-furfural mixture in dilute solution leading to a highly cross-linked network that is supercritically dried. These porous materialshave cell/pore sizes less than or equal to 1,000 angstroms. Thephenolic-furfural aerogel can be pyrolyzed in an inert atmosphereat 1,050°C to produce carbon aerogels. This new aerogel may beused for thermal insulation, chromatographic packing, waterfiltration, ion exchange, and carbon electrodes for energy storagedevices, such as batteries and double-layer capacitors.

A new material-processing apparatus using a short-pulse, high-repetition-rate visible laser for precision micromachining. It uses anear-diffraction-limited laser; a high-speed, precision two-axis tilt-mirror for steering the laser beam; an optical system for eitherfocusing or imaging the laser beam on the part; and a part holder.The system is useful for precision drilling, cutting, milling, andpolishing of metals and ceramics and has broad application inmanufacturing precision components.

A system that permits the fabrication of isolated microchannels forbiomolecule separations without imposing the constraint of atotally sealed system. It incorporates a microslab portion of theseparation medium above the microchannels, thus substantiallyreducing the possibility of nonuniform field distribution andbreakdown due to uncontrollable leakage. The microslab of thesieving matrix is built into the system by using plastic spacermaterials and is used to uniformly couple the top plate with thebottom microchannel plate.

A method for depositing wear-resistant coatings composed oflaser-ablated hard-carbon films by pulsed laser ablation usingvisible light on instruments such as microscope tips andmicrosurgical tools. Hard carbon (known as diamondlike carbon)films produced in this way enhance the abrasion resistance, wearcharacteristics, and lifetimes of microtools without affecting theirsharpness or size.

Patents

(continued on page 28)

28


Patent issued to

Robert T. TaylorKenneth J. JacksonAlfred G. DubaChing-I Chen

Alan F. JankowskiDaniel M. MakowieckiGlenn D. RambachErik Randlich

Thomas E. McEwan

Patents and Awards

Patent title, number, and date of issue

In Situ Thermally EnhancedBiodegradation of PetroleumFuel Hydrocarbons andHalogenated Organic Solvents

U.S. Patent 5,753,122May 19, 1998

Hybrid Deposition of ThinFilm Solid Oxide Fuel Cellsand Electrolyzers

U.S. Patent 5,753,385May 19, 1998

Ultra-wideband Horn Antennawith Abrupt Radiator

U.S. Patent 5,754,144May 19, 1998

Summary of disclosure

An in situ thermally enhanced microbial remediation strategy andmethod for biodegradation of toxic petroleum fuel hydrocarbon andhalogenated organic solvent contaminants. It uses nonpathogenic,thermophilic bacteria for the thermal biodegradation of toxic andcarcinogenic contaminants from fuel leaks and past solvent-cleaningpractices. The method makes use of preexisting heated conditionsand delivery/recovery wells created by thermal treatmentapproaches, such as dynamic underground steam–electrical heating.

A method using vapor deposition techniques to synthesize the basiccomponents of a solid-oxide fuel cell, namely, the electrolyte layer,the two electrodes, and the electrolyte–electrode interfaces, andthereby produce a thin-film solid-oxide fuel cell. Reactive depositionof any ion-conducting oxide forms the electrolyte. The electrolyte isformed by reactive deposition of any conducting oxide by planarmagnetron sputtering. The electrodes are formed from ceramicpowders sputter-coated with an appropriate metal and sintered to aporous compact. The electrolyte–electrode interface is formed bychemical vapor deposition of zirconia compounds onto the porouselectrodes to provide a dense smooth surface on which to continuethe growth of the defect-free electrolyte, whereby one or moremultiple cells may be fabricated.

An ultrawideband horn antenna that transmits and receives impulsewaveforms from short-range radars and impulse time-of-flightsystems. The antenna reduces or eliminates various sources ofclose-in radar clutter, including pulse dispersion and ringing, sidelobeclutter, and feedline coupling into the antenna. Low-frequency cutoffassociated with a horn is extended by configuring the radiator driveimpedance to approach a short circuit at low frequencies.

(continued from page 27)

Laboratory physicist Ben Santer is one of this year’s winners ofthe John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Award. An atmosphericscientist in the Laboratory’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosisand Intercomparison, Santer received the fellowship in recognition ofhis “originality, creativity, self-direction, and capacity to contributeimportantly to society, particularly in atmospheric sciences.” Theaward, popularly called a Genius Award, is accompanied by astipend of $270,000, paid over five years.

A Livermore employee since 1992, Santer was thrust into thepublic spotlight in 1995 as the lead author of one chapter of a UnitedNations report. The chapter’s conclusion that “the balance ofevidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”provoked considerable scientific and political debate. The focus ofSanter’s research is to understand the nature and causes of globalclimate change using sophisticated computer models.

Santer is also a recipient of a 1998 Norbert Gerbier/MUMMAward for a paper entitled “A Search for Human Influences on theThermal Structure of the Atmosphere,” which appeared in the July1996 Nature. The award was presented to Santer and his 12 co-authors at a ceremony in Geneva, Switzerland, in late June 1998.

The Laboratory’s Molten Salt Oxidation (MSO) demonstrationproject has received the Northern California Section of the AmericanInstitute of Chemical Engineers’ Project of the Year Award. Peter

Hsu and Martyn Adamson developed the process, which is beingdemonstrated in a pilot-scale recycle system that is part of Livermore’sintegrated MSO demonstration system. The award is for “an intelligentlyconceived and directed project or program of research in NorthernCalifornia that offers to extend chemical engineering practice through thedevelopment of new theory or empirical knowledge.”

Two groups of Laboratory researchers were recently honored with1998 Excellence in Technology Transfer awards from the FederalLaboratory Consortium. A multidisciplinary team from the Laboratory’sCenter for Healthcare Technologies led by J. Patrick Fitch won for thedevelopment and transfer of an opto-acoustic recanalization techniquefor breaking up stroke-causing blood clots in the brain to EndoVasix, Inc.,of Belmont, California, which will commercialize the system and completethe path from laboratory concept to patient care.

A second group, led by Stephen Vernon, won for developing andtransferring to Veeco Instruments, Inc., of Plainview, New York, a newapproach for fabricating low-defect-density, thin-film, multilayer coatingsusing an ion-beam sputter deposition process. This chip-coatingtechnology has been incorporated in Veeco’s IBD-350 machine, whichproduces advanced computer chips with a 300,000-fold reduction indefects compared to chips made with other commercial systems.

The FLC handed out 31 excellence awards, 9 of which went to DOElaboratories.

Awards


Forensic Seismology Supports theComprehensive Test Ban Treaty

A team of Lawrence Livermore scientists has worked todevelop and refine monitoring technologies for theComprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The treaty, still tobe ratified by the United States, forbids all nuclear tests(including those intended for peaceful purposes) and createsan international monitoring network to search for evidence ofclandestine nuclear explosions. Livermore’s efforts are partof a Department of Energy program focusing on advancedmethods to precisely detect, locate, and characterize events inkey areas of the world that could be clandestine nuclear tests.Livermore scientists have contributed significantly to theKnowledge Base, a database for managing, storing, andretrieving vital data—especially seismic, hydroacoustic,infrasound, and radionuclide information—from monitoringstations. Personnel at the U.S. National Data Center at PatrickAir Force Base in Florida, the nation’s future test ban treatymonitoring facility, will use these data in cooperation withthe CTBT’s International Data Center in Vienna, Austria, tolocate and identify possible CTBT violations.Contact: Jay Zucca (925) 422-4895 ([email protected]).

A Short History of the Laboratory atLivermore

What is today Lawrence Livermore National Laboratoryopened officially in September 1952, less than six years beforethe death of its namesake Ernest Orlando Lawrence, inventorof the cyclotron and winner of a Nobel Prize. A branch of theUniversity of California Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, thelaboratory at Livermore was founded by the Atomic EnergyCommission at the urging of Lawrence (the RadiationLaboratory’s founder), Edward Teller, and other top U.S.scientists in response to the first Soviet Union nuclear weapontest in August 1949. Its first mission was to join Los Alamosin the development of thermonuclear weapons.

The laboratory at Livermore separated from its Berkeleyparent in 1971 and became a DOE national laboratory in1980. Throughout its history, its national security mission hasremained constant. That mission has grown to include avariety of basic and applied scientific research anddevelopment in the national interest. During its more thanfour decades of change and growth, Lawrence Livermore hasremained true to its dedication to the finest scientificachievement for the security of the nation.Contact: Bart Hacker (202) 357-2250 ([email protected]).

Abstracts

U.S. Government Printing Office: 1998/683-051-60055

Livermore WinsSeven R&D 100

Awards

In October, S&TR willreport the details aboutthe winning inventions

and the inventors.

Coming Next

Month

University of C

aliforniaS

cience & Technology R

eviewLaw

rence Livermore N

ational LaboratoryP.O

. Box 808, L-664

Livermore, C

alifornia 94551Printed on recycled paper.

Nonprofit O

rg.U

. S. P

ostage

PAID

Albuquerque, N

MP

ermit N

o. 853

unearthing secret nuclear tests - s&tr | december … · unearthing secret nuclear tests ... or...

Documents