Space, it seems, is no longer the final frontier that it used to be. The emergence of small satellites – broadly, instruments with a mass ranging from 1 to 500 kg – has, in large part, levelled the playing field in the space industry over the past two decades. Agile start-up companies, established manufacturers and even university research groups are all now in a position to compete with the big-budget missions of government space agencies – opening up commercial and scientific opportunities in applications as diverse as remote sensing, environmental protection, asset tracking and logistics, and machine-to-machine communication for the “Internet of Things”.
The upward trajectory is clear to see: the evolution of small-satellite technologies will continue apace, squeezing more and more functionality into ever-decreasing payloads while further lowering the barriers to entry for new-entrants to the space industry. All of which translates into relentless downward pressure on the capital/operational spend of satellite developers and their engineering teams – not least when it comes to the exacting test programmes needed to qualify satellite systems for launch and, ultimately, long-term operation in orbit.
Vacuum versatility
With this in mind, US start-up Rydberg Vacuum Sciences (RVS) is busy establishing itself as a “go-to” equipment provider in the emerging test-and-measurement ecosystem serving the small-satellite community. More precisely, RVS is targeting a specialist niche in the preflight qualification workflow for small satellites and their constituent systems: the provision of affordable, off-the-shelf thermal vacuum bake-out and thermal vacuum cycling products.
“I see RVS as a direct response to the democratization of the satellite launch industry,” explains Joshua Gurian, founder and president of the Seattle-based test-and-measurement specialist. “Right now, we’re seeing more orders from private-sector entrants to the space industry, though it’s worth noting that the long-term goal is also to make our ‘drop-in-place’ test solutions accessible to burgeoning small-satellite R&D initiatives within North American universities and further afield.”
That twin-track approach is already evident. Last year, for example, RVS supplied two thermal vacuum test systems to AST&Science, which is developing a space-based cellular broadband network (SpaceMobile) to provide 4G/5G connectivity to smartphones anywhere on the planet. “We’ve shipped to AST&Science facilities in Texas and Israel, where they’re testing fold-out solar panels for their SpaceMobile satellite constellation,” says Gurian. “Another three test systems are on their way to the Space Dynamics Laboratory at Utah State University, which is looking to increase its small-satellite testing capacity for both in-house and for-hire projects.”
Passing the test
Joshua Gurian: “I see RVS as a direct response to the democratization of the satellite launch industry”. (Courtesy: RVS)
For satellite developers big and small, there are no short-cuts into orbit. Consider the thermal vacuum test programme for any small-satellite project: it’s an exhaustive undertaking that requires granular evaluation at the component, subsystem and system level. A thermal vacuum cycling test, for example, will see the craft’s hardware and instrumentation put through its paces and subjected to a “step-and-repeat” programme of extreme hot and cold temperatures in a high-vacuum environment, while a thermal balance test aims to demonstrate the effectiveness of the craft’s thermal control systems for maintaining the temperature of key systems within predefined limits. There’s also a vacuum bake-out requirement, in which the satellite hardware is heated to high temperature under high vacuum to quantify levels of material outgassing (the products of which can adversely affect the performance of on-board imaging systems, thermal radiators, solar cells and the like).
“Although the detail of the vacuum test programme is generally dictated by the satellite launch provider,” notes Gurian, “we have a lot of technical domain knowledge here at RVS to support our research and industry customers.” Equally, the RVS emphasis on off-the-shelf vacuum systems provides thermal testing at a palatable price-point for any developer seeking to launch inexpensive small satellites. “Ease-of-use is paramount,” Gurian adds. “With a footprint of just 0.6×1.2 m, installing an RVS thermal vacuum system is as simple as unpacking the crate and connecting the utilities.”
Modelling vs real-world measurement
As part of the prelaunch test programme, a satellite developer will typically generate a model of the temperature extremes the craft is likely to experience once it’s in orbit and traversing from day to night on the dark side of the Earth. Trouble is, many satellite subsystems – for example, battery packs and on-board cameras – are not optimized to handle the environmental extremes encountered in orbit. As such, thermal vacuum testing is essential to validate the modelling and to ensure that any localized heating/cooling units are having the desired effect.
A typical thermal vacuum cycling test might look something like this: an engineer first pumps the test chamber down to high vacuum (say 10-6 mbar) before taking the unit under test (UUT) up to Tmax – ramping at roughly 3 °C/min to 100 °C, for example. After which the UUT will undergo a “soak” for typically 4 h (but anywhere from 1–24 h) at Tmax, before cycling down for another extended soak at Tmin (at –100 °C), before a gradual ramp again to Tmax. “The whole step-and-repeat programme is often run more than 10 times over a period of several days, after which the UUT is brought back to room temperature to make sure that everything is still working to specification,” adds Gurian.
For RVS, the task is to provide the vacuum infrastructure to support this test-and-measurement workflow, helping customers to ensure that their small-satellite components/subsystems are fit-for-purpose and guaranteed for long-term survivability in orbit. “The thermal test regime generates lots of data – there are thermocouples slapped all over the UUT,” concludes Gurian. “Those data allow the user to compare the actual thermal performance of the UUT versus the modelled behaviour and to make mission-critical design adjustments ahead of launch.”
The RVS line of small-satellite test systems provides a “drop-in-place” solution for compliance with GSFC-STD-7000 or MIL-STD-1540 test standards. Key specifications include…
Operational performance: atmospheric pressure to high vacuum in <30 min; temperature range –150 °C to +150 °C; controllable ramp rate up to 5 °C/min
A 6U vacuum test volume (370×240×120 mm)
Turbomolecular pump (300 l/s) backed by a frame-integrated dry Roots pump
Temperature-controlled platen with 50×50 mm M6 grid for UUT fixturing and integrated thermal radiation shielding
Two blank ISO-100LF user ports for pass-through of electrical/instrumentation cabling and gas lines as required
Optional accessories include: residual gas analyser (100–300 amu); optical witness sample holder; and temperature-controlled quartz-crystal microbalance.
Standard vacuum test systems ship in 8–10 weeks, with rental options also available for customers requiring a short-term testing capability.
MRI-guided radiotherapy (MRIgRT) systems have the capacity to acquire functional, quantitative images in addition to the anatomical images required for online treatment guidance. This creates the potential to bring two important concepts in modern radiotherapy together: adaptive radiotherapy and biological targeting. Based on frequent anatomical and functional imaging, monitoring the changes that occur in volume, shape as well as biological characteristics, a treatment plan can be updated regularly to accommodate the observed treatment response. For this purpose, quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIB) need to be identified that show changes early during treatment and predict treatment outcome.
The first pilot studies have shown that QIB measurements are feasible on MRIgRT systems. However, the MR parts of these systems differ from regular diagnostic systems. This impacts the performance of QIB measurements and warrants technical validation. To ensure that the results of QIB studies on MRIgRT systems are also valid for diagnostic platforms outside the MRIgRT domain, QIB trials should be designed to establish reproducibility between systems. To identify if changes observed during the course of treatment are significant, the trials should include test-retest acquisition of the QIB prior to the first irradiation.
Within the Elekta MR-Linac Consortium, a working group on MRI biomarkers for response assessment is active in developing trial strategies, acquisition and analysis methods to make QIB research on Elekta Unity possible.
In this webinar, hosted by Prof. Uulke A van der Heide, an overview of the activities within the working group will be presented.
Uulke van der Heide received his training as medical physicist at the department of radiotherapy of the University Medical Center in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and worked there as a medical physicist until 2011. Since then, he has worked as a medical physicist and senior group leader at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. He holds a chair as professor of imaging in radiotherapy at the Leiden University Medical Center.
His research group works on the improvement of target definition in radiotherapy by application of MRI and the development and validation of quantitative imaging methods for tumour characterization for radiotherapy dose painting. He further leads the MR-guided radiotherapy programme at the Netherlands Cancer Institute.
Dynamic light scattering (DLS) is a common technique to determine size and zeta potential of colloidal particles in a suspension. It is used to determine relevant properties of the catalyst inks used to fabricate electrodes of electrochemical energy conversion devices, such as fuel cells and electrolysers. These properties include the surface charge of catalyst and catalyst supports, ink stability, catalyst-ionomer interaction.
In this webinar, Prof. Iryna Zenyuk and Prantik Saha discuss how DLS helps prepare catalyst inks with the high electrochemical performance required for the optimal design of these systems, and thus, helps build a zero-carbon emissions society.
Iryna Zenyuk is associate professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the University of California, Irvine, US. She has a joint appointment as associate professor in the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department and is associate director of the National Fuel Cell Research Center (NFCRC). Prof. Zenyuk holds a PhD from Carnegie Mellon University, US. Her graduate work focused on the fundamental understanding of meso-scale interfacial transport phenomena and electric double layers in fuel cells. As a postdoc in Dr Adam Weber’s group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) from 2014–2015, Prof. Zenyuk investigated water-management in proton-exchange membrane fuel cells (PEFCs) using X-ray CT (computed tomography) and modelling. She joined Tufts University, US, as assistant professor from 2015–2018 and moved to the University of California, Irvine in 2018. Her mission at NFCRC is to accelerate and facilitate the development and deployment of fuel cell technology and fuel cell systems. Prof. Zenyuk has published more than 40 journal articles on electrochemical technologies and given more than 60 invited presentations. Her passion is to enable renewable energy technologies and ensure that society advances toward a zero-emissions electric grid.
Prantik Saha joined Prof. Iryna Zenyuk’s lab at the University of California, Irvine, US, in 2017 as a PhD student researcher. Saha’s thesis focuses on understanding aspects of electrochemical double layer at electrocatalyst-electrolyte interface, for which he developed a new method combining electrochemistry and electrokinetics. He uses dynamic light scattering (DLS) occasionally for his thesis research. Along with research in zero-carbon energy systems, he is passionate about networking activities at the professional level to develop the business of these technologies. Saha received his BSc in physics from the University of Calcutta, India, and MS in physics from Tufts University, US.
Graphene is the ultimate two-dimensional material consisting of a single layer of sp2 hybridized carbon. A facile, inexpensive, solid-state method for generating, patterning and electronic tuning of laser-converted graphene will be discussed. Briefly, graphite can be converted into graphene oxide (GO) sheets, which readily disperse in water, and can then be reduced by various methods. Due to its unique ability to be solution-processed and patterned, GO can be laser-reduced to graphene directly onto various substrates without masks, templates, post-processing or transfer techniques.
This work paves the way for the fabrication of inexpensive electrochemical energy-storage devices that combine the energy density of batteries and the power density of capacitors. Additionally, due to its unique graphitic domain size and abundant functional groups, carbon nanodots (CNDs) will be shown to have the ability to patch defects in a graphene lattice, demonstrating an unprecedented fast response for potential AC-line filtering applications. This study paves the way for the development of miniaturized graphene-based supercapacitors that demonstrate outstanding electrochemical performance.
Dr Richard B Kaner received a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania, US, in 1984, working with Prof. Alan MacDiarmid (Nobel Laureate 2000, deceased). After postdoctoral research at the University of California, Berkeley, US, he joined the University of California, Los Angeles, US, in 1987, earned tenure in 1991, became a full professor in 1993, a distinguished professor in 2012, and was appointed to the Dr Myung Ki Hong Endowed Chair in Materials Innovation in 2017.
Richard has published more than 425 papers in top peer-reviewed journals and holds 47 US patents. According to the most recent Clarivate Analytics/Thomson-Reuters rankings, he is among the world’s most highly cited authors. He has received awards from the Dreyfus, Fulbright, Guggenheim, Packard, and Sloan Foundations along with the Materials Research Society Medal, the Royal Society of Chemistry Centenary Prize, the Chemical Pioneer Award from the American Institute of Chemistry, and the American Chemical Society’s Buck-Whitney Research Award, Tolman Medal, and Award in the Chemistry of Materials for his work on refractory materials including new synthetic routes to ceramics, intercalation compounds, superhard metals, graphene, and conducting polymers. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Physical Society, European Academy of Sciences, Materials Research Society, and Royal Society of Chemistry.
I love museums. Art museums, history museums, museums dedicated to illusions or Communism or ceramics or seafaring – I’ve spent happy afternoons in all of these and many more besides. But there is one exception, and although it feels like sacrilege to write it, that exception is science museums. Apart from a couple of work trips and a visit to Berlin’s Deutsches Technikmuseum (which, with its halls full of steam trains and printing presses, is more about the history of technology than science per se), I have not voluntarily set foot inside a science museum for at least 10 years.
It’s not that I don’t like science. I do. It also isn’t that science-related things feel too much like work; if they did, I wouldn’t visit science labs on holiday. And it certainly isn’t that I already know everything about the exhibits. In fact, my lack of enthusiasm for science museums was a complete mystery to me until I read Michael John Gorman’s bookIdea Colliders: the Future of Science Museums. In the opening chapter, Gorman, who is the founding director of Science Gallery at Trinity College Dublin and BIOTOPIA Naturkundesmuseum Bayern, makes a crucial observation. Most science museums, he notes, “limit our engagement with science to a form of ritualized play”.
While theme-park-like science centres full of interactive exhibits are, Gorman writes, “generally quite successful in stimulating the curiosity and interest of children”, the downside is that “the playful brand of hands-on science they purveyed sometimes struggled to engage older teenagers and adults to the same degree”. Simply put, if you’re over 14, you probably aren’t the target audience for your local science museum, so you shouldn’t feel surprised (or in my case guilty) if it’s not your cup of tea.
At this point, I can imagine a certain type of physicist reader – one who is dismayed by science illiteracy among the general public; believes that “dumbing down” in museums, schools and TV documentaries is largely to blame for it; and probably never cared much for hands-on exhibits in the first place – nodding in agreement. Gorman, however, is not advocating a return to the text-heavy exhibits of 50 years ago. He also holds little truck with the instructional approach that some physicists might prefer. While setting up Science Gallery, Gorman declined a Trinity College physicist’s request that a panel of distinguished scientists should vet all material for accuracy, and gave short shrift to the same unnamed physicist’s demand that event planners should focus on the questions “What significant scientific information is this event intended to convey?” and “How does it serve to promote science?”
Rather than presenting visitors with a set of promotional scientific facts, Gorman decided that Science Gallery should do three things. First, it should connect people from different communities. Second, it should foster participation in ways that go beyond mere interactivity to involve members of the public in actual science. Finally, it should generate surprise by capturing the imaginations of visitors and media organizations alike.
To this end, Gorman set up an advisory board made up of a rotating cast of “creative individuals” drawn from art, design, technology and media as well as science. The ideas they generated included an exhibit called Selfmade, in which a biologist and an artist teamed up to create cheese using bacteria samples from public figures. While Selfmade lasted, visitors to Science Gallery’s Community BioLab could sniff (though not taste) the various human cheeses on display and contribute to the project by making their own. Naturally, the project kicked off with a wine and human cheese evening, complete with a sign proclaiming “Don’t worry, the wine is normal.”
Another exhibit, I Wanna Deliver a Dolphin, was based on a tongue-in-cheek proposal (made by a Japanese designer, Ai Hasegawa) that an environmentally conscious woman might wish to give birth to an endangered species rather than increase the human population. This provocative idea served as an entry point for visitors to explore the ethical, psychological and biological barriers to interspecies gestation, and come to their own conclusions about whether such an act would be possible or desirable.
To help visitors interpret these non-traditional exhibits, Science Gallery recruited mediators – generally university students in science, engineering or humanities – to engage members of the public in conversations inspired by the artworks or other objects on show. Gorman is full of praise for these mediators, but his remarks on the “many positive and sometimes amusing comments” they received in the museum’s visitors’ book – including “the mediators are hot!” – may raise a few eyebrows. In the age of #MeToo, is it really still amusing for young people to get leched over in their workplace?
Barriers sometimes arise not from superficial things like monolingual signage, but from a museum’s content
Apart from this solitary sour note, Gorman’s ideas about how to make science museums more welcoming are a major strength of the book. In one thought-provoking passage, he notes that barriers sometimes arise not from superficial things like monolingual signage, but from a museum’s content – either because it doesn’t speak to the concerns of minoritized groups, or because it conveys “a colonialist and exclusionary narrative”. While many museums try to promote inclusion through visits by disadvantaged schools, Gorman notes that these otherwise laudable efforts can backfire if students feel they were “dragged to the museum” by their teachers and never engage with the content on their own.
Toward the end of Idea Colliders, Gorman explores the subject of “fake news” and conspiracist thinking. Some defenders of science have suggested that to combat misinformation, scientists (and by extension science museums) should gloss over internal debates in public, and instead adopt a “united front” strategy that treats science as a set of indisputable facts.
Gorman, unsurprisingly, thinks this approach will fail. Trust needs to be earned, and insights from social science suggest that individuals are trusted when they are viewed not only as competent and reliable (scientists generally do well at this), but also as empathetic and having integrity (in the sense of shared intentions and words that align with deeds). To build that kind of trust, Gorman thinks that science museums should embrace uncertainty (where it exists) and demonstrate empathy by engaging visitors on subjects that matter to them. It’s a laudable goal, and if I ever get a (post-pandemic) free afternoon in Dublin or Munich, I might just break my science-museum duck and find out if he’s achieved it.
Black holes may defy the famous “no-hair” theorem by leaking residual gravitational ripples that could one day be observed by gravitational-wave detectors. Such an observation would provide evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model, according to several new lines of research.
Conventionally, black holes can be described by only three properties: their mass, their spin and their charge. Therefore, some physicists say that black holes resemble a bald head with no hair. So, if two black holes have the same mass, spin and electric charge, then in theory they should be identical.
Over the years, scientists have looked for ways around the no-hair theorem via various loopholes, one of which is the possible existence of scalar fields that could interact with a black hole. We know of one scalar field that exists, namely the Higgs field, for which the force carrier is the Higgs boson. The Higgs field, however, is unstable and decays rapidly, but other scalar fields associated with everything from dark matter and dark energy, to various strands of string theory and modified gravity, have also been posited.
The Aretakis charge
In 2011, Stefanos Aretakis, now at the University of Toronto, and colleagues, showed how a scalar field could leave a trace of its existence in the form of a perturbation on a simplified model of a non-rotating, extreme black hole (one that possesses either the maximum electric charge or spin that a black hole of its mass can have). This would give the black hole hair that they called the Aretakis charge, and it would differ from black hole to black hole.
Now, Lior Burko of Theiss Research in California, Gaurav Khanna of the University of Massachusetts and the University of Rhode Island, and Subir Sabharwal of the University of Massachusetts have shown that extreme rotating black holes could have a gravitational equivalent of the Aretakis charge. They describe their finding in Physical Review D.
“What Aretakis found through his mathematical analysis is that there is a trace of the [scalar] field left on the horizon, says Khanna. “This is the so-called Aretakis charge, and what we found is that there is a similar charge associated with the gravitational field.”
This gravitational hair originates from perturbations in the curvature of space-time at a black hole’s event horizon and is dependent upon how the black hole was formed. Since there will be differences in the exact details of how each black hole forms, it means that this gravitational hair will be different from one black hole to another, distinguishing them even when their mass, spin and charge are the same.
Hair support
Jamie Bamber, of the University of Oxford, describes the findings as looking “robust”, and that, in principle, “such a mechanism for supporting hair is feasible.” However, Bamber points out that extreme black holes are probably quite rare, if they even exist at all.
Khanna acknowledges this but tells Physics World of the caveat that he “expects our result would hold true for black holes that are ‘near extreme”’.
Bamber, working with his Oxford colleagues Katy Clough and Pedro Ferreira, as well Lam Hui and Macarena Lagos of Columbia University in New York, has recently published a preprint on arXiv exploring a different avenue for finding black hole hair resulting from the scalar fields associated with some models of dark matter.
Black hole wig
In their model, when a cloud of dark matter accretes onto an ordinary (non-extreme) black hole, the scalar field associated with the dark matter also grows around the black hole, at a rate that is dependent upon characteristics such as the black hole’s mass and spin, or the angular momentum of the dark matter cloud. However, the scalar field would not last forever; once all the dark matter accretes, the field – and its associated hair – would disappear. Given its temporary nature, this hair is referred to as a “wig”.
What both models have in common is the possibility that their hair could be detected by gravitational-wave detectors.
“It’s something that we could measure from far away,” says Khanna. How far away remains uncertain at this point, and Khanna’s group is planning to analyse the possibilities soon.
Monochromatic waves
In the dark-matter accretion model, the gravitational-wave signal is expected to be too weak for our current generation of detectors to observe. However, if future detectors with greater sensitivity were to detect this hair, they would measure a signal that “looks like a series of monochromatic waves, with frequencies set by the scalar-field mass,” says Bamber. “These could show up as peaks on a spectrum of the gravitational-wave background.”
There is also the possibility that gravitational hair could be spotted during a black-hole merger. “The imprint of such clouds on a binary merger is something we are actively working on,” says Bamber. Theoretical work has shown that during the in-spiral phase as the two black holes get closer and closer, and the ring-down phase following the merger when the gravitational waves decrease, the imprint of the hair would be negligible. However, the hair could be evident during the moment where the gravitational waves are strongest.
If gravitational hair could be detected, it would provide precious insight into physics beyond the Standard Model, involving new particles associated with the scalar fields. In the case of Bamber’s model, it could provide further information about the nature of dark matter; in Burko and Khanna’s work, it would also tell us more about the history of individual black holes, which would be important for cosmologists trying to explain the origin of the supermassive black hole at the centre of most large galaxies.
Immersing GelMA hydrogels with and without nanoparticles in simulated body fluid for three days reveals how the nanoparticles induce mineralization. (A, F) SEM micrographs (scale bar: 100 µm); (B-D, G-I) energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) mapping showing silica, calcium and phosphorous ions in the hydrogel matrix (scale bar: 30 µm); (E, J) EDS spectra. (Courtesy: Biofabrication 10.1088/1758-5090/abdc86)
Tissue engineering offers the potential to improve treatment of injured or diseased bone, by using stem cell-laden biomaterials that promote tissue repair, for example. Three-dimensional bioprinting of such biomaterials can fabricate complex scaffolds that mimic bone in composition and can be customized to a patient’s particular bone defect. Developing the optimal bioink to fabricate these living implantable constructs, however, remains highly challenging.
Researchers in Portugal have now developed a nanocomposite bioink containing bioactive materials that instruct stem cells to change into bone cells. They demonstrated successful printing of their bioink into stem cell-laden constructs, reporting their findings in Biofabrication.
The distinctive feature of this new bioink is that it contains both the organic and inorganic constituents of bone. “In nature, the building blocks of bone tissue include organic biomolecular and inorganic nanostructured functional elements,” explains senior author João Mano, leader of the COMPASS research group at the University of Aveiro. “The nanocomposite bioink recapitulates these components.”
For the organic component, the team chose gelatin methacrylate (GelMA) – a collagen derivative used for 3D bioprinting that exhibits adjustable mechanical properties and biocompatibility. The gelatin also contains functional groups that can attach to cells, such as stem cells.
For the inorganic part, the researchers used mesoporous silica nanoparticles functionalized with calcium, phosphate and dexamethasone (MSNCaPDex). Calcium and phosphate ions positively influence bone matrix deposition and mineralization, as well as encouraging osteogenic differentiation (where the stem cells develop into bone cells). Dexamethasone, meanwhile, also induces such osteogenic differentiation. They completed their bioactive bioink by loading the GelMA/nanoparticle combination with human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hBM-MSCs).
Proving printability
In a first proof-of-concept step, Mano and colleagues demonstrated that they could print stable 3D constructs using GelMA. They employed 3D extrusion bioprinting to create small discs from 10% solutions of GelMA prepared at 37 °C and then cooled to increase viscosity. They found that incubating the GelMA on ice for 5 min, then printing at a pressure of 65 kPa and speed of 10 mm/s created 3D constructs with highly defined shapes.
Mesoporous silica nanoparticles are functionalized with calcium and phosphate ions and loaded with dexamethasone to create bioactive nanoparticles. These are combined with GelMA and stem cells to form a nanocomposite bioink. The team 3D bioprinted the bioink into disc-shaped 3D constructs. (Courtesy: Biofabrication 10.1088/1758-5090/abdc86)
After optimizing the GelMA printing process, the researchers added MSNCaPDex (0.5%) to create the nanocomposite bioink. The bioactive nanoparticles should release calcium, phosphate and silicate ions, all of which are involved in bone repair. To test this, they assessed the bioactivity of printed GelMA discs with and without nanoparticles, after three days in simulated body fluid.
In the nanocomposite hydrogel discs, energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) mapping clearly showed the presence of silica, calcium and bone-like calcium phosphate apatite. Conversely, only traces of calcium and phosphorous were seen in plain GelMA discs, with no structures resembling apatite. FTIR spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction confirmed the mineralization activity of the nanocomposite hydrogel.
“The existence of deposited hydroxyapatite in the bioink is highly valuable since it is a key component of native living bone tissues,” says Mano. “Its presence is known to have a positive influence on bone regeneration, particularly upon constructs implanted in vivo, since it allows the establishment of a bone–implant interface where de novo deposited bone binds to hydroxyapatite, hence improving osteointegration.”
Next, the researchers assessed the viability of the stem cells after bioprinting. They observed that the stem cells remained viable after two weeks of culture, with stable metabolic activity and DNA content for 21 days. These results show that neither 3D bioprinting nor encapsulation in GelMA affected the cells’ viability.
Bone generation
The other function of the bioactive nanoparticles is to induce the stem cells to differentiate into bone cells. To assess this property after bioprinting, the team examined the behaviour of stem cells within GelMA incubated in basal medium (negative control), GelMA in osteogenic medium (positive control) and GelMA/MSNCaPDex in basal medium.
The researchers evaluated two biomarkers involved in bone formation: bone morphogenetic protein (BMP-2) and osteocalcin. After 14 days, BPM-2 levels were significantly higher for stem cells in the nanocomposite hydrogel than in either control. After 21 days, the BMP-2 level in the positive control was similar to that of the bioprinted nanocomposite. The positive control and nanocomposite hydrogels exhibited similar levels of osteocalcin, both higher than that of the negative control.
“Owing to the intrinsic bioactivity and bioinstructive features of ion/drug-loaded silica nanoparticles, their inclusion in GelMA enabled a guided differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells towards osteoblasts, the cells that naturally build bone, without requiring further synthetic supplementation that is usually necessary for this process,” Mano tells Physics World.
The researchers are now exploring the fabrication of more morphologically complex constructs using this new bioink. “We are also using more advanced 3D bioprinting technologies such as suspension bioprinting using a viscoelastic supporting bath,” says Mano. “This allows truly freeform bioprinting and the manufacture of higher-order nanocomposite bioink-based constructs.”
We could be on the cusp of the greatest single expansion of our known chemical universe in history. That’s thanks to a new accelerator in Michigan is going to double the number of known isotopes. This short video introduces the $750m Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB), which will come online at Michigan State University in 2022.
“We’re going to double the number of known isotopes,” says Artemis Spyrou, an experimental nuclear physicist at the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (NSCL) in the US. “It’s crazy. We know more than 3000 isotopes at the moment. And we going to double that.”
It’s a bold mission statement, akin to the greatest single expansion of our known chemical universe in history. But that’s the lofty goal that Spyrou and others like her hope to achieve when their next-generation particle accelerator – the $730m Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB) – comes online at Michigan State University in 2022.
FRIB is just one example of a “big-science” facility – a term coined in the 1930s by the US nuclear physicist Ernest Lawrence at the University of California, Berkeley. Rather than having his team members working independently, Lawrence pooled his fellow physicists, encouraging them to collaborate and specialize. It was a philosophy that allowed the lab to build ever-bigger and more complex machines, eventually leading to the discovery of the antiproton and antineutron, as well as the creation of 15 chemical elements, none of which exist in any appreciable quantities on Earth.
At the heart of Lawrence’s work was the cyclotron – a type of particle accelerator for which he was awarded the 1939 Nobel Prize for Physics. Particles enter in the centre of the device, before being spun out in a spiral with the aid of an electromagnet, passing through two semi-circular electrodes. By alternating the voltage across the electrodes, the particles get attracted and repelled in a push-and-pull effect that accelerates them until they eventually leave the machine, where they are used for experiments.
Big science, big thinking
Lawrence’s first cyclotron was a mere 10 cm in diameter and made from basic laboratory items. By 1932 he had designed a 69 cm machine and by 1939 his entire research team could sit on the housing of a 152 cm cyclotron, which would be used to discover the elements neptunium and plutonium. After the Second World War, even bigger machines – synchrotrons – were created from the cyclotron concept, in which particles are accelerated by being sent round and round a large, circular ring.
In the US, federal funding agencies don’t generally build infrastructure
David Morrissey, National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory
While the big-science spotlight might today be on particle physics – and especially the upgrade to CERN’s Large Hadron Collider – nuclear physics has plenty of big facilities too. The EU-funded Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research (FAIR) at Darmstadt in Germany, for example, is a heavy-ion research ring 1.1 km in circumference, which will (when it opens) have cost €1.3bn to build. Pushing the boundaries of science can no longer be done on a shoestring.
Indeed, new facilities are often so big and expensive that labs almost always have to enter partnerships with governments, with negotiations sometimes spanning decades before construction starts. In the case of FRIB, it was first conceived in the 2000s and has been more than a decade in the making, despite Michigan State University having had an accelerator facility on site since the 1960s. Funding comes from the US Department of Energy’s Office of Science (DOE-SC), the university and the Michigan state government.
“In the US, federal funding agencies don’t generally build infrastructure,” points out David Morrissey, a nuclear chemist at NSCL. “They prefer to build instruments and fund the science. So the university contributed the money for the infrastructure, and it is very good at buildings.” Now about 95% complete, FRIB was officially designated a DOE-SC scientific user facility in September 2020, with more than 1400 scientists from around the world poised to conduct research at the site.
But with such a high price tag – plus annual running costs of $100m – the scientists and engineers constructing FRIB have had to spend carefully. “We have to be absolutely clear how the money is spent to show it is used effectively and not just squandered in any way,” Morrissey says. “We’ve survived by being innovative and doing things that other people can’t.” And that means firing beams that don’t exist anywhere else on Earth.
Accelerating knowledge
Construction began in 2014, but experiments have continued throughout that time at NSCL’s two existing cyclotrons, which provide nuclear physicists with ion beams thanks to funding from the National Science Foundation. When I visited FRIB in 2019, I discovered a vast and impressive maze of metal stairwells and poured concrete, leading to giant machines humming with power.
Once FRIB comes online early in 2022, the two older machines will be decommissioned and the lab will switch to a superconducting linear accelerator, in which the radio-frequency modules that speed up particles are placed in a line, rather than a ring. “The difference will be a 1000-fold increase in beam intensity,” says Paul Mantica, FRIB’s project manager. “Currently we’re running about half a kilowatt of beam power on the target on average. When we run FRIB, it’ll be 400 kilowatts on the target.”
The linear accelerator will be able to create beams of essentially all known stable isotopes, with the isotopes having first been separated from mined substances either by weight or through chemistry before stripping them of electrons. Physicists can then fire trillions of ions of any particular type per second at targets of heavier nuclei. Usually, the ions will miss the nuclei. But if they hit, both the target nucleus and ion will break apart.
Mass testing FRIB staff processed and tested 324 superconducting radio-frequency (SRF) resonators of four different types and then assembled them into 46 cold-mass strings of six different cryomodule types. At peak, FRIB staff tested one SRF cavity per day and delivered one and a half cryomodules per month. (Courtesy: Michigan State University)
Amid the chaos of flying particles, two nuclei will very occasionally collide, fusing to form an unstable isotope. Nuclear physicists will isolate the isotope using a “separator” – essentially a sequence of magnets that can be configured so that everything else is deflected out of the way. The pure, unstable isotope can then be studied and characterized through spectroscopy.
The FRIB targets themselves are placed on a carbon wheel that will be spinning at 5000 revolutions a minute to prevent the beam’s intense heat from burning it. The beam will then pass through four sets of the most advanced separators in the world to remove the unwanted reaction products. Indeed, it’s the sum of these different parts – accelerator, separator and instruments – that makes FRIB stand out from the crowd.
Researchers at FRIB are planning to use the facility to carry out three different types of experiments. One will be to study beams that travel at half the speed of light, with the high energy overcoming the inherent repulsion between the ions and target nuclei, enabling (as mentioned above) new isotopes to be created. Another will be to stop the beam in a given gas, allowing scientists to “weigh” isotopes or do laser spectroscopy on them.
“The third area is taking those stopped beams and re-accelerating them, producing energies more appropriate for astrophysics reactions,” says Mantica. “You have a gas target, the beam will then hit that target, and simulate events that happen in novae, in stars.”
Underground, overground
With lots of researchers expected to use the facility, FRIB is designed to operate at more than 90% availability, running 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The facility is also modular, allowing electromagnets, sensors or other parts to be removed and replaced quickly and remotely. In fact, as Mantica explains, “Our goal is not to access the accelerator unless we have to. As it’s superconductive, we have to keep it particle-free. Any vacuum connections we do are performed in a cleanroom.”
Most users won’t even see the machines responsible for their experiments, given that the 500 m accelerator is located more than 10 m underground. In fact, getting heavy ions to half the speed of light is an arduous process, requiring four different types of accelerating structures. A radio-frequency quadrupole structure will be used to accelerate the beam before it reaches the first section of the linear accelerator, which will use “quarter-wave” resonators. After passing through a “charge stripper”, which increases the charge state of the beam and increases the accelerator’s efficiency and reduces costs, the beam enters the second and third sections with “half-wave” resonators.
To oversee them all, the device has some 19,000 electrical cables, with around 360 amplifiers controlling the accelerating superconducting resonators. Operation requires radio waves at frequencies of 80.5 MHz and 322 MHz. In fact, the facility had to obtain a radio-station licence in case of radio-frequency leaks, although in the end that proved unnecessary as FRIB has been designed so well that no waves will ever get out.
We’ve built FRIB for 100% helium recovery. Any helium used goes into a purifier and gets recycled back into the system
Paul Mantica, FRIB project manager
The superconducting resonators are made of pure niobium, cooled in 46 different cryomodules filled with liquid helium to keep the accelerator a few degrees above absolute zero (which allows it to be superconducting). Given that helium is such a precious resource, the facility takes its stewardship of this vital material seriously, with the gas stored in seven, vast 110,000 litre tanks on the roof. “We’ve built FRIB for 100% helium recovery,” Mantica says. “Any helium used goes into a purifier and gets recycled back into the system.”
Indeed, almost everything at FRIB is designed to go unwasted. This includes the beam, the majority of which will travel through its target. “About 300 kilowatts go wholly unreacted,” Mantica adds. “So we have a beam dump, a drum of titanium filled with water.” The beam goes through the titanium, interacts with water and makes even more rare isotopes – longer-lived isotopes that the community is interested in that can be harvested.
The heart of stars
FRIB is certainly an impressive facility, but the real benefit will come from the experimental results it generates. For Spyrou, the opportunities are tantalizing. “When you go just a few steps away from nuclei we’ve measured already, you find surprises all the time,” she says. “We have seen nuclei where, instead of all the neutrons being packed together in the nucleus, they are in a halo: one or more neutrons flying far away from the central nucleus. These are the kinds of things you discover far from stability.”
When you go just a few steps away from nuclei we’ve measured already, you find surprises all the time
Artemis Spyrou, National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory
These halo nuclei make the radius of the nucleus far larger than would be predicted by simple nuclear models, although they are relatively short-lived, with half-lives measured in milliseconds. “Lithium-11 [which has four more neutrons than its most common isotope] has the size equivalent of a lead nucleus,” Spyrou says. “There are really basic properties of nuclei that we would never discover if we didn’t have facilities like here, and who knows what we’re going to discover.”
1 FRIB targets isotopes new and old FRIB will generate isotopes that have predicted but previously undetected ratios of protons to neutrons. It will provide researchers with more than 1000 new isotopes never before produced on Earth. (Courtesy: Facility for Rare Isotope Beams)
Typically, all known isotopes are represented on the chart of nuclides: a plot with the number of neutrons as its x axis, protons as its y axis (figure 1). All the known, stable isotopes form a long, snaking diagonal line: any isotope above the line has too few neutrons to be stable (it’s “proton rich”), while any isotope below the line has too many to be stable (it’s “neutron rich”). Many of the expected proton-rich isotopes have been discovered, but the area of potential neutron-rich nuclides has barely been scratched.
“Physics is just crawling in a limited area [of the chart],” says Witold Nazarewicz, FRIB’s chief scientist. “And that’s the role of FRIB. We’re going to probe reaction mechanisms experimentally. With rare isotope beams, we can probe more neutron-rich nuclei, which can then guide future experiments.”
As an astrophysicist, Spyrou is especially interested in the opportunity to explore the nuclear processes in the heart of stars – something so complex that not even the world’s most advanced supercomputers can model with any real accuracy. “We’ll finally be able to make the nuclei that are actually there, in a star, right now!” she enthuses. Her particular interest is in collisions, particularly the “r process” – a set of nuclear reactions that are responsible for about half of all nuclei heavier than iron.
The r process involves heavy seed nuclei capturing neutrons so fast that the nuclei don’t have time to radioactively decay. “It’s kind of a big mess, because neutron captures are tricky – even experimentally we can’t measure that, so there are entire areas we don’t know anything about,” Spyrou says. “But here [at FRIB] we can measure all the properties of those nuclei, and then extrapolate and say ‘OK, the process probably looks like this based on what we know today.’ How heavy is each nucleus? How long does it live for? We’ll actually be able to measure this and put it into a model that describes a neutron-star collision.”
Given the thousands of possible isotopes produced – and the multitude of possible reactions that could produce them – this means experimentalists and theorists at the facility have to operate hand in hand. “I work closely with a modeller,” Spyrou says. “And they’ll say that, out of the 10,000 reactions that are happening in a neutron-star merger, these 20 are the most important ones. As an experimentalist, I’ll then go and see what a facility like this can provide: what can my equipment measure?”
Heavens above Researchers will use FRIB to study nuclear reactions that occur at the heart of stars – indeed, theorists at the lab have already used computer models to find that the innermost regions of supernovae can forge carbon atoms over 10 times faster than previously thought via the triple-alpha process (Nature588 57). (Courtesy: NASA/CXC/SAO)
If the new measurements agree with theoretical predictions, it confirms that the researchers’ models work well. But if experiment and theory don’t tally, then both experimentalists and theorists have to figure out where the differences are coming from. “This is how new physics is discovered,” Spyrou says.
Those not involved in nuclear physics might well wonder if these rare isotopes – and the potential uncertainties of models that can only be seen through countless experiments – are really worth building a billion-dollar facility to study, especially when finite resources could be spent on applied technologies. For the FRIB team, however, real-world applications – for example, in medicine, energy, security and materials – are an important part of its research programme.
Indeed, Morrissey argues that big-science facilities are a good investment, citing the use of fluorine-18 in medicine. An isotope of fluorine with one neutron less than the element’s stable form (fluorine-19), it decays to create positrons, which can annihilate electrons to create light. Fluorine-18 has proved vital in positron emission tomography (PET) scanners, but its development relied on someone figuring out how to make fluorine-18 as a nuclear-physics target that they could then do chemistry on. “You don’t know before you start the experiment if someone will have a need [for what we create],” Morrissey says.
Spyrou agrees that nuclear physics is worth spending money on. “In 1944 scientists discovered americium-241,” she says. “Then someone else came along and realized you could use it to make a smoke detector. And when technetium-99m was discovered in 1938, they didn’t realize it was going to be used for medicine; now every hospital has it.” The same will be true for FRIB, she believes. “I don’t know how FRIB’s discoveries will be important. But I do know they will be.”
Researchers in Germany have performed a quantum gate operation between two quantum bits (qubits) in different laboratories. This marks a step towards distributed quantum logic, whereby system designers could build modular quantum computers, spreading qubits between different devices while allowing them to behave as one computer. Distributed systems would avoid crosstalk between qubits, which degrades quantum computations.
Adding qubits to a quantum computer is far trickier than adding bits to a classical one, as each qubit (which may be a trapped ion, a superconducting circuit, a diamond nitrogen–vacancy centre or many other physical manifestations of a quantum state) must be able to undergo the necessary logical interactions while also being protected from noise – which can destroy quantum information.
A significant noise source is interference between multiple qubits: “Let’s say there are three or four qubits in one device and you want to do a gate between just two of them,” explains Severin Daiss of the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching; “As they are all in one device you can still have crosstalk of those two qubits with the other qubits that should not participate in the calculation.” The more qubits are added to a single device, the more severe the crosstalk problem becomes. Other factors that cause problems in specific platforms are the difficulty of addressing specific qubits in large registers, restricted space, and problems with heat removal from large cryogenic samples.
Multiple devices
One possible way to scale up a quantum computer without scaling up the attendant problems would be to spread the qubits between multiple devices. However, this would require integrating the quantum logical operations performed on each device: “If you just calculate one result with one module and send the state to another module, you’re still not increasing the computational space that you have,” explains Daiss. “Quantum gate teleportation” – the construction of quantum gates whose output is conditional on the state of an input gate elsewhere – has therefore become an active field of research. Such gates have been demonstrated between ions in the same trap and superconducting circuits in a single cryostat, and one with photonic qubits, albeit with a tiny success rate.
In the new research, Daiss and colleagues led by Gerhard Rempe unveil a radically different, conceptually-simpler gate that is based on the interaction of a single photon with modules in two different laboratories. In each laboratory, they set up an optical cavity containing a single rubidium atom and they link the two systems using a 60::m optical fibre. To implement the gate, they send a photon as a “flying qubit” along the fibre and reflect it successively from the two cavities, thereby entangling its polarization with the rubidium energy levels. A measurement of the photon is then combined with a conditional feedback on the qubit to realize a CNOT gate – one of the key components of quantum logic.
Heralded quantum gate
The protocol produces a “heralded” quantum gate in which the detection of the photon signals a successful gate operation. In future, this could prove crucial to producing a reliable quantum computer as such a confirmation that each successive gate has worked is important if multiple gates are connected in sequence. Other platforms could theoretically produce quantum gates using the researchers’ protocol, says Daiss, if the qubit could be coupled sufficiently strongly to a cavity or resonator. For instance, this has already been achieved with trapped ions or superconducting qubits.
In future, says Daiss, a next step would be to connect together modules comprising more than one qubit and producing computers with more than one module: “We could go in either direction, and both directions will benefit from the work we’re doing at the moment,” he concludes.
Ronald Hanson of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands believes the paper marks an important step forward: “They just have this one photon scattering off one side, going to the other side and then you measure it. Conceptually it’s super simple, and they show that it works.” he says. “So it’s the fact that it’s heralded, and its efficiency – I think that’s the real novelty of the work.”