BEE-spoke-data/govdocs1-by-extension huggingface dataset:
# Presentation: 076843

## Beams Week in Review

- Pretty Good Week
- Initial Luminosity record – 2.64 E31 all-time best!
- Integrated Luminosity for the week – 2nd best of Run II
- Limited studies
- Shot Lattice is proving itself

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Beams Week in Review

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Beams Week in Review

- Room to Improve
- Efficiency to low beta
- Lost weekend, again
- Rapid turnaround

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Initial Luminosity

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Protons to Collision

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Pbars to Collision

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Store Summary

| Store # | Initial Luminosity | Duration | Termination | comments |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1569 | 19.50 E30 | 9.57 hours | CAMAC crate power supply | small vertical emittance |
| 1574 | 19.73 E30 | 16.67 hours | intentional |  |
| 1576 | 20.75 E30 | 17.33 hours | intentional |  |
| 1580 | 21.99 E30 | 19.90 hours | intentional | short-lived record |
| 1583 | 26.40 E30 | 4.53 hours | RF glitch | Tevatron record, high losses early in store |
| 1594 | 23.70 E30 | 6+ hours | in progress |  |

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Peak Luminosity

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Integrated Luminosity

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Tevatron Summary

- Stable proton intensity
- RF glitch Friday
- Ad hoc studies while Pbar stack was being built
- Orbit data up ramp and through squeeze
- E48 bumper magnet timing
- Longitudinal damper at 150 GeV
- Tunes, coupling at 980 GeV

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Tevatron Summary

- Longitudinal Damper at 150 GeV – mode 10

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Pbar Summary

- Shot lattice put into operation
- Minimal impact on shot set up time
- Optimize emittances
- Sunday’s shot w/o expert presence
- Try to stack to bigger stacks

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Pbar Summary – Shot Lattice

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Pbar Summary – Shot Lattice

- All Experimenters Meeting

## MI Summary

- Low Emittance (8 GeV) proton Coalescing
- Pbar feedforward compensation
- 150 GeV Longitudinal emittance

- All Experimenters Meeting

## MI Summary

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Schedule for this Week

- Collider operation
- Limited-focus studies
- Tevatron orbit smoothing at 980 GeV
- Tune drift measurements
- Parasitic shot set-up
- Pbar revert to stacking lattice
- Pbar cooling
- MI pbar feedforward compensation
- MI 8 GeV coalescing
- 4-hour access on Tuesday

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Schedule for this Week

- All Experimenters Meeting

## Changing of the Guard

- Dave Johnson takes over 1 August
- Thanks for your
- patience
- cooperation
- competence
- communication
- confidence

- All Experimenters Meeting
# Presentation: 778707

## Teratogenic risk from Tazarotenic acid in semen

**831 ng drug in semen which is about 1/ 5,000th of a single 4.5 mg capsule**
**This is about 1/6,000 of the highest **_**oral**_** dose that was not teratogenic in animals.**
**However, human may be **_**more**_** sensitive than animals. So instead of 1/6000 this may be only 1/600 to 1/16 human teratogenic dose based on data from other retinoids. Plus, the vaginal route may produce greater exposure to the fetus than the oral route. So this safety margin may be reduced even more.**
# Presentation: 568224

## Fuel Constant Sets

**By default the equations in FFI calculate the biomass of DWM, litter, duff and vegetation using a standard set of fuel constants. If desired, FFI allows users to modify the constants used to calculate the biomass of components measured with these protocols:**
**Surface Fuels** - fine woody debris, coarse woody debris, duff and litter.
**Surface Fuels Alaska Duff/litter** – litter, live moss, dead moss, upper duff, lower duff, lichen
**Surface Fuel-Vegetation** – vegetation biomass

## Fuel Constant Sets

- Fine woody debris

- B = (11.64 n **d****2** **s** **a** c) / Nl

- B = biomass
- n = piece count
**d****2**** = quadratic mean diameter**
**s = specific gravity**
**a = non-horizontal correction**
- c = slope correction
- N = number of transects
- l = transect length

## Fuel Constant Sets

- Coarse woody debris

- B = (11.64 d2 **s** a c) / Nl

- B = biomass
- d = diameter
**s = specific gravity (by decay class)**
- a = non-horizontal correction
- c = slope correction
- N = number of transects
- l = transect length

## Fuel Constant Sets

- Duff, litter, moss, lichen

- B = d **BD**

- B = biomass
- d = component depth
**BD = bulk density**

## Fuel Constant Sets

- Vegetation

- B = c h **BD**

- B = biomass
- c = % cover/100
- h = height
**BD = bulk density**

## Fuel Constant Sets

| Source | DC1 | DC2 | DC3 | DC4 | DC5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Busse | 0.41 | 0.31 | 0.24 | 0.16 | 0.12 |
| Harmon | 0.41 | 0.41 | 0.37 | 0.17 | 0.17 |
| Tinker | 0.41 | 0.32 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.13 |
| Nalder | 0.45 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.44 | 0.44 |
| FPL w/ Waddell | 0.41 | 0.34 | 0.29 | 0.18 | 0.14 |
| FPL | 0.41 |  |  |  |  |
| VanWagtendonk | 0.58 |  |  |  |  |
| Brown | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 |
| Fahey | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.23 |

**Lodgepole Pine CWD Specific Gravity by Decay Class**

## Fuel Constant Sets

- Type	 		Duff Bulk Density		Std. Dev.
- _	__	__	__(tons/ac/in)__	__	__	__	__	_
- Loblolly			6.80			2.97
- Slash Pine			6.88			2.52
- Shortleaf Pine		6.05			2.06
- Pine and Hardwoods	5.90			2.44
- _Hardwood__	__	__	__4.84__	__	__	__2.73__	__	_

*Data from Ottmar and Andreu*

- So for loblolly pine, about 68% of the time duff bulk density will measure between 3.83 and 9.77 tons/ac/in.
- (_+_ 1 Std. Dev.)
# Presentation: 149137

## EMSL Update: Reviews, Action Plan & Progress 

- BER Advisory Committee
- Fall 2005

## Outline

- Routine review of BER facilities to ensure proper and effective operation
- BERAC & SC Office of Project Assessment conducted reviews of EMSL
- Outcomes
- Responses
- Accomplishments
- Paths forward

## Two-headed reviewMay 2005

- BERAC (Michelle Broido, Chair)
- Relationship, Science, Structure, User Model, Prioritization, Capital Equipment, non-BER funding
- SC Office of Project Assessment (Daniel Lehman)
- Management, Oversight, Resources, non-BER funding, Self assessment

## Results

- BERAC review of EMSL science found:
- “The science conducted in the EMSL is of very high quality, and a significant amount is, indeed, cutting edge. It is appropriate for BER to support this Laboratory that is a national resource.”
- Need for reinvigorated User & Scientific advisory committees
- BERAC and OPA found:
- Lack of a shared vision for EMSL
- Need for prioritization/decision making plan
- Need for standardized user access protocol
- OPA found:
- Need for enhanced managerial resources
- Need for improved communications among all parties
- Need for improved financial reporting systems
- Need to understand the impact of non-BER funding within EMSL
- Need for extensive benchmarking

## Responses

- Charged by Ray Orbach with resolving identified issues within six months (i.e., by close of 2005)
- EMSL brought on additional administrative and managerial staff
- EMSL developed a formal Action Plan
- Implemented project management process
- Approved and monitored by PNSO & BER

## Responses (continued)

- BER, PNSO, PNNL and EMSL became much better acquainted
- Weekly conference calls, monthly visits
- November 2005 BER/PNSO Progress Assessment visit
- EMSL quarterly visits to Germantown
- EMSL Action Plan was added to Dr. Decker’s “Watch List”
- Monthly briefings by PNSO/BER on progress

## Path forward

- Shared vision/mission is in place
- EMSL valued as a National Scientific User Facility
- BER, PNSO, PNNL & EMSL are well connected and aligned
- Numerous plans & documents revised, updated and/or created
- Action Plan will be complete on time (12/31/2005)
- Next step is implementation
- BER will revisit EMSL this spring to evaluate implementation
# Presentation: 786803

## Brookhaven National Laboratory		A brief overview

- 			P.D. Bond

## Long Island and Brookhaven

**Long Island and Brookhaven**

## Brookhaven National Laboratory

- Budget  $450 M
- Total staff		2800
- Scientists	  	     530
- Users/Contractors  	   4000
- 6 Nobel Prizes associated with BNL

## Slide 4

## Slide 5

## BNL Programs

- User Facilities
- RHIC/AGS Complex
- NSLS
- Other
- Research
- Physics
- Chemistry
- Biology
- Medicine
- Applied programs

## Nuclear Physics

- RHIC HI
- RHIC Spin
- LEGS
- Solar Neutrinos
- Theory
- NNDC

## Slide 8

## Particle Physics

- ATLAS @ LHC and BNL
- D0 @ FNAL
- RSVP @ AGS
- Accelerator Test Facility (with BES)
- Theory
- QCDOC (with NP and Sci Comp)
- Future plans (neutrinos, LSST, etc)

## Some special BNL facilities

- Superconducting Magnet Division
- Instrumentation Division

## NSLS X-ray and VUV Beamlines

**NSLS X-ray and VUV Beamlines**

## User Community

**User Community**

**50% Growth in last decade**
**Strong growth in life sciences**
**Largest group is Mat/Chem Sciences**

- Users by Field of Research

## Basic Energy Studies

- Center for Functional Nanomaterials
- Rational design of catalysts
- Strongly correlated and complex systems
- Interface of life and physical sciences

## Imaging the Brain (PET, fMRI)

- What are causes/results of addiction
- Alcohol
- Cocaine
- Obesity
- Smoking
- How do Alzheimer’s and Parkinsonism impact the brain
- Effects of multiple sclerosis

## Applied Research

- Environmental Studies
- FACE
- Aerosols
- Innovative cleanup methods
- Energy Research
- Efficient Oil burners
- Nuclear plant risk assessments
- Non-proliferation studies

## Computing

- 		That’s what you’re here for
-  			so  get to work –
- 		glad to have you at BNL
# Presentation: 792565

## Genetic Evaluation of Mixed Breed Populations

## Goals

**Compare methods to evaluate mixed breed data**
**All breeds and crossbreds together**
**Crossbreds in breed of sire file**
**Compute national evaluations and examine changes**
**PTA’s of purebreds and crossbreds**
**Display results without confusion**

## Options for Reporting PTA

**Genetic base**
**Each breed on its own base**
**Other breeds on Holstein base**
**All breeds on mixed breed base**
**Heterosis and inbreeding**
**PTA can include or exclude heterosis**
**EFI and rank differ with mate breed**

## Options for Implementation

**Within breed of sire model**
**Further testing but fewer issues**
**May 2006 could be possible**
**All breed model**
**Traits in Net Merit need same base**
**Type and calving ease separate**
**November 2006 more likely**

## All- vs Within-Breed EvaluationsCorrelations of PTA

|  | 99% REL bulls | Recent bulls | Recent cows |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Holstein | >.999 | .994 | .989 |
| Jersey |   .997 | .988 | .972 |
| Brown Swiss |   .990 | .960 | .942 |
| Guernsey |   .991 | .988 | .969 |
| Ayrshire |   .990 | .963 | .943 |
| Milking Shorthorn |   .997 | .986 | .947 |

## Breed Effects and HeterosisTransmitting ability differences from Holstein

|  | Milk | Fat | Pro | SCS | PL | DPR |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Jersey | -3378 | - 35 | - 54 | +0.15 | +1.6 | +2.3 |
| Brown Sw | -2235 | - 43 | - 37 | - 0.03 | +0.8 | +0.1 |
| Guernsey | -3128 | - 39 | - 71 | +0.06 | - 2.0 | +1.0 |
| Ayrshire | -2713 | - 70 | - 67 | - 0.07 | +0.6 | +0.9 |
| M.Shorthrn | -3441 | -118 | - 97 | - 0.09 | +1.2 | +2.1 |
| Heterosis | + 700 | + 35 | +26 | +0.02 | +0.3 | +1.8 |

- Heterosis and DPR estimates are from previous research

## Recent Sires of Crossbred CowsSires born since 1997

|  | Sire | Daughters |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Name | breed | Pure | Cross |
| Advent | JE | 698 | 73 |
| Golden | JE | 421 | 42 |
| Eagle | BS | 234 | 35 |
| Brendon-P | JE | 207 | 29 |
| Big Time | JE | 522 | 28 |

## Conclusions

**Conclusions**

## Conclusions

**All breed model accounts for:**
**Heterosis**
**Unknown parent groups by breed**
**Heterogeneous variance by breed**
**Breed differences well estimated**
**PTA changed more in small breeds**
**Breed of sire model is alternative**
# Presentation: 517418

## Status of Tasks Emerging from the February Core/Grid Workshop

- David Malon
*malon@anl.gov*
- Second ATLAS Core/Grid Workshop
- 6 May 2002

## First US ATLAS Core/Grid Workshop

- Motivation was to bring US ATLAS core and grid software developers together
- Ensure coherence between core (control framework, data management) and grid middleware
- Input specification and output registration are two examples

## Discussions leading to tasks

- Discussed how to get virtual data into Phase II of Data Challenge 1
- Walked through much of what needs to happen to make this possible
- Since this is what we did in the last portion of the workshop, many of our tasks are strongly related to this

## Sample tasks

- Build a small transformation catalog
- Sufficient to describe DC1 event generation
- Appropriately parameterized
- Get transformation parameters into job options
- Emit EDG JDL
- LFN generation from transformation parameters
- LFNoutstream specification
- Background:  find out what’s real, what isn’t, in the way of EDG Testbed1 services
- ...

## Task status

- Build transformation catalog
- Get transformation parameters into job options
- Status:  See Pavel’s talk on Sasha Vaniachine’s prototyping for Phase I DC1
- Emit EDG JDL, with job options in input sandbox
- Status:  No progress(?)

## Task status

- What’s available and what works in EDG Testbed1 release
- Status:
- Jerry Gieraltowski joined ATLAS EDG validation team to gain early access
- Some of our February questions have been answered in principle (e.g., how to find the particular file instance identified by the WP1 scheduler corresponding to an input LFN)

## Task status

- Initiate file vs. object replication discussions
- Status:  proposed and initiated by Ed Frank, no responses reported to date
- Reconcile database architecture and grid and hybrid event store ideas
- Status:  several discussions to date; see later talks
- Initiate discussions to coordinate GriPhyN/PPDG/EDG request planner, scheduler
- Status:  Discussions underway (Ruth, Mike, Jenny, Mirco, ...)

## Task status

- Initiate further discussions to specify Event Collection Services
- Status:  In ATLAS database architecture, user interacts with event collection services to specify input
- identification of corresponding LFNs and selection of physical file instances is transparent to user
- Queryable event collections are expected to be a product of LHC-wide common project on persistence

## Task status

- Coordinate ATLAS PPDG/GriPhyN/iVDGL plans
- Status:  see Rob’s and Torre’s material
# Presentation: 004607

## Slow Spill start up after 2004 Shutdown

**MODE: Commission with slip-stacking SY120 mixed mode cycles at**   **low intensity **
- Prior to beam:
- determine minimum cycle time for MI corrector supplies with rms current trip limit set to 12 amps (selected correctors)
- Verify Beamline power supply ramps  (main & trim) timing and level
- Assume MI flattop orbit has been smoothed and desired positions have been set for stacking
- Turn on time bumps and re-establish orbit positions for slow spill cycle (no extraction)
- Verify orbits in beamline for
- stacking (kicker)  to AP0 dump
- and slow spill (septa) to SY absorber
- Beam pipe at F17 c-magnet raised by 1/4 inch -> new vertical trajectory required
- New vertical trims at F18
- Re-establish QXR operation
- Septa alignment MI52
- Loss reduction and orbit control in MI and beamline and TeV  (tune-up)
- Beam tests with bucker system (commission bucker system)
- Commission resonant BPM

- Dave Johnson

- 10/29/2004
# Presentation: 490091

## FFMP ImprovementsOB8.3 and OB9

**FFMP Improvements****OB8.3 and OB9**

- Ernie Wells
- National Flash Flood Services Program Leader
- Hydrologic Services Division
- Office of Climate, Water and Weather Services

*CBRFC SH Call*
*May 29, 2008*

## Outline

- FFMP Improvements
- (QPE/QPF Improvements)

- High resolution rain rate and precipitation accumulation grids
- spatial resolution 1/4 HRAP mesh length  (~1x1 km)
- Update frequency configurable up to 5 minute intervals
- DHR used to create radar rain rate estimates
- Gages are **NOT** used in this version of EMPE, however the MPE gage-radar bias table can be used in rain rate and accumulation estimation
- Dual Polarization DPR **NOT** used in this version of EMPE

**High-resolution Precipitation Estimation (HPE) (AWIPS OB8.3)**

## Outline

**High-resolution Precipitation Nowcaster (HPN) (AWIPS OB9.0)**
- An extrapolative forecast of the reflectivity field valid for the next hour, updated every 15 minutes on an HRAP grid. Additional fields for AWIPS display include:
- 1-hour radar precipitation accumulation forecast (with and without bias correction)
- Instantaneous rain rate forecasts at 15 minute intervals out through 1-hour (with and without bias correction)
**RFC MPE Mean Field Bias to WFO (AWIPS OB8.2)**
- WFO operators can select which RFC bias message to receive and which bias message to send to the RPG
**NMQ/Q2 infusion into NCEP (no targeted build)**
**Probabilistic QPE (no targeted build)**

- FFMP Improvements
- (QPE/QPF Improvements)

## Outline

**Ingest gridded data (QPE, QPF, and guidance)**

- FFMP Improvements
- OB8.3 Improvements

## Outline

- FFMP Improvements
- OB8.3 Improvements

**Attribute Inclusion in the Basin Trend Table**

## Outline

- FFMP Improvements
- OB8.3 Improvements

**Split Window QPF**

## Outline

- FFMP Improvements
- OB8.3 Improvements

**On the fly CWA coverage**

## Outline

- FFMP Improvements
- OB8.3 Improvements

**Enhanced Basin Trend**

## Outline

**Site Controlled Time Window Maximum**
**Uses purge value from AWIPS Intelligent Purger**
**Increase in number of monitor sites**
**From 3 to 5**
**Localization containment**
**Separate from SCAN**
**Enhanced Displaced Real-Time (DRT)**

- FFMP Improvements
- OB8.3 Improvements

## Outline

**Fixed Duration Basin Trend Graphs**

- FFMP Improvements
- OB9 Improvements

## Outline

**Fixed Duration Basin Trend Graphs**

- FFMP Improvements
- OB9 Improvements

## Outline

**FFG Updating**

- FFMP Improvements
- OB9 Improvements

## Outline

- Improving Flash Flood Services
- WarnGen OB8.3

- FFMP Basin names in WarnGen

## FFMP ImprovementsOB8.3 and OB9

**FFMP Improvements****OB8.3 and OB9**

- Thank you!
- Any Questions?

*CBRFC SH Call*
*May 29, 2008*
# Presentation: 075698

## American College of Radiology

*Pamela A. Wilcox, RN, MBA*
*Assistant Executive Director*

**October 31, 2005**

## Who we are:	

- Over 30,000 members
- Radiologists
- Radiation oncologists
- Nuclear medicine physicians
- Interventional radiologist
- Medical physicists

## Mission Statement	

- The mission of the American College of radiology is to serve patients and society by maximizing the value of radiology, radiation oncology, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine and medical physics by:  Advancing the science of radiology; improving the quality of patient care; positively influencing the socioeconomics of the practice of radiology; providing continuing education for radiology and allied health professions and conducting research for the future of radiology.

## Practice Guidelines & Technical Standards

- Based on the principle that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques
- Educational tools designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate radiologic care for patients
- They are not inflexible rules or requirements of practice
- Not intended to establish a legal standard of care

## Accreditation Programs

- Mammography
- Breast US and biopsy
- Stereotactic breast biopsy
- CT
- MRI
- Nuclear medicine
- PET
- Ultrasound
- Radiation Oncology

- 12,975
- 	  479
- 435
- 770
- 3812
- 474
- 136
- 2104
- 149

## Appropriateness CriteriaTM

- Evidence-based guidelines to assist referring physicians and other providers in making the most appropriate imaging or treatment decision.
- Right exam for the right reason

## Other products from Quality & Safety

- Quality Control manuals
- RADPEERTM
- BIRADSTM
- Whitepaper on MRI Safety

- New Initiatives

## Dose from CT Accreditation

- Data from over 820 units
- Compared to reference values
- Adult head 			60 mGy
- Adult abdomen		35 mGy
- Pediatric Abdomen	25 mGy

## Dose Reduction Program

**Educate radiologists and radiologic technologists about ways to achieve diagnostic quality images with the lowest dose possible**
**Educate referring physicians and the public about choosing the right exam for the right reason with the lowest possible radiation exposure.  **
**Linking dose to the ACR Appropriateness Criteria**

## National Radiology Data Registry (NRDR)

## FDA and Stakeholder Collaboration

**Share data**
**Coordinate dissemination of new data/guidance**
**Facilitate international cooperation**
**Collaborative guidance rather than standards that may have unintended consequences in rapidly evolving technology and applications**

- American College of Radiology
- 1891 Preston White Drive
- Reston, VA 20191
- 703-715-3495
- _[www.acr.org](http://www.acr.org/)_
# Presentation: 916908

## Extending the SUSY Les Houches Accord

- P. Skands (Fermilab)

- SUSY EuroGDR, November 2005, Barcelona

## SUSY Les Houches Accord

- Writeup in **JHEP 0407:036,2004**

_**Les Houches**_  Lots of people, _lots_ of discussions

_**SUSY**_  Lots of models, lots of tools, lots of conventions

_**Accord**_  Lots of models, lots of tools, ONE convention

## SUSY Les Houches Accord

**... ****+ F77 I/O Library by T. Hahn**

****
****
****
****

** **
****
****
****
****
****
****

****

****
****
****

****
****
****
****
****
****

****
****
****
****

**FITTINO, SFITTER**

**FITTERS**

****

****

## The SLHA Conventions

_**Experimental boundary conditions**_
- “SM” gauge couplings and Yukawas (measured)
-  “MSSM” couplings and Yukawas (not the same, since different field content  different quantum corrections)

_**Superpotential**_** ****(at scale Q (normally M****GUT****) in DRbar)**

_**SUSY Breaking Terms**_** ****(at scale Q in DRbar)**

## How to Generalise?MSSM

## How to Generalise?MSSM

_**Work out physical Spectrum**_
- Pole masses,
- Imaginary sneutrinos ... (codes 1000017, 1000018,1000019?)
- EW scale Lagrangian parameters
- Need to specify all Lagrangian couplings
- + effective vertices?
- EW scale mixings
- CPV+RPV+FLV  basically, every state with same colour, spin, and EM charge can mix! _**OK, so we do that.**_

## Charged colour-singlet fermions 

- How to Generalise?Mixing

- Flavour basis
- e+			= e+ flavour eigenstate
- mu+		= mu+	-”-
- tau+		= tau+	-”-
- -i ~w+		= charged wino
- ~h2+		= charged higgsino (up-type)

- Mass basis (PDG codes), ordered to reduce to “normal” case:
- -11 (e+)		= state that has biggest component of 	e+
- -13 (mu+)	=                     -”-			mu+
- -15 (tau+)	=                     -”-                     		tau+
- 1000027 (chi1+)= lightest chargino-like state
- 1000037 (chi2+)= heaviest chargino-like state

## How to Generalise?NMSSM

- Cf. NMHDecay,
- Ellwanger, Gunion, Hugonie
- (talk by Ellwanger here)

_**Superpotential**_** ****(at scale Q (normally M****GUT****) in DRbar)**
**	****	****	****	****	****	****(usually with ****μ****MSSM****=0)**

**NMSSM**

_**SUSY Breaking Terms**_** ****(at scale Q in DRbar)**

_**Physical Spectrum**_
- 3 H0 (PDG: 25,35,45), 2 A0 (PDG: 36, 46), 5χ0 (New: 1000045)
- Enlarged mixing

- See also MicrOmegas & CalcHEP
- + Interface to Pythia basically ready

## Cross Sections & Theory Errors

- Theory Errors
- Introduce (unphysical) input variables corresponding to variations within theoretical uncertainty -> range of spectra. (Similar in spririt to error PDF's)
- Calculation of observables from spectrum  		+/- errors on computed variables
- Cross Sections used by fit programs
-  Templated in SPheno. Collecting experiences now.

- Fittino, Sfitter

## Outlook

- ‘Conceptual Design Report’ for SLHA2 to be included in Les Houches Proceedings (deadline Dec 1 ‘05)
- Detailed Writeup to follow in 2006.

## Conclusions

- Tough conditions call for good tools! We will be ready for NMSSM, CPV, RPV, FLV, ...

- Then all we need is a signal ...
# Presentation: 027754

##                             	     Common Measures              Quarterly Technical Performance Reports

-   VETS Competitive Grant Training Conference
- August 4 - 7, 2008
*“**Partnering for Success”*

## General Requirements

- All data is entered Non-Cumulatively.
- Within the spreadsheet, when a number appears with a red line through it, the data is incorrect.
- All data is required and will be used to assess overall grantee performance.
- All shaded areas within the spreadsheet will be automatically calculated either from within the spreadsheet or from data input within the TABs. (Please do not alter the spreadsheet).
- Training and Supportive Services are reported in a Non-Duplicative count.
- Tabs are used to calculate Exiter information, Entered Employment data, retention data, and wages.

## General Requirements (cont.)

- “Demographics” data sheet automatically calculates the data into the “Common Measures TPR” grayed-out areas. You must fill in “demographics” sheet data for workbook to automatically calculate performance.  This sheet also links to the “Demographics Summary” sheet.
- Participant Number and Name on demographics sheet/Tabs should not be easily recognizable.  Example: Participant Name (Allen, T.).  Participant # 44503.  Do Not Use SSNs as participant number.
- Drop-Down menus are used in Demographics sheet for easy tracking.

## Spreadsheet Exercises

- Please refer to a copy of the Common Measure Quarterly Technical Performance Report.

## Questions and Answers

- Please come forward with any issues or questions and answers.
# Presentation: 305877

## Jets: Re-packaging and new jet-algorithms

- J.P. Wellisch, Jet/MET meeting, 10 Oct 2001

## Re-packaging

- Too much code in one package makes parallel development quite difficult
- No particular reason to package for example calibrations with jet-algorithms or specific ways to define input collections

## Jet algorithms

- ‘Heavy ion’ algorithm as reported last time
- A look at the CMS run II suggestions, in particular for cone algorithms
- Attributes of algorithms
- Recombination schemes
- Seed-less jets

## Attributes of a jet algorithm

- Fully specified, including eventual splitting and merging, etc..
- Collinear and infrared safe
- Detector independent
- Order independent, I.e. work on detectors, particles, partons, etc..
- Lorentz invariant
- Insensitive to detail of the final state
- Straightforward implementation

## More attributed of an ideal algorithm

- Minimum biases
- Stable against pile-up
- CPU effective
- Good reconstruction efficiency
- Easy to calibrate
- Easy to use

## Recombination schemes

- Snow-mass scheme
- E_t weighting of eta, phi
- E-scheme (RUN-II suggestion)
- 4-vector summing
- RUN-I schemes
- Mixed use of both

## Seed-less cone jets

- Take all possible seed candidates, and allow cones around them to float until they are stable
- Only then sort out, which are actual jets, and which are duplicates
- Infrared safe
- Very CPU expensive

## Almost seed-less cone-jets (approximates RUN-II suggested algo)

- Take all candidates above seed threshold
- Take all directions that are 4-vector sums of these directions, to make it collinear safe
- ‘Float’ the jets to stability
- Skip, if initial direction outside the jet-cone
- Merge/split based on overlap and closeness to jet-center

## This is the MidPointConeAlgorithm

- Designed (under the aspect to try to use STL algorithms in an analysis situation to simplify the code)
- Coded, using 4-vector recombination
- Testing delayed (by lumbago) but first tests have been run successfully.
- Documentation to be written.
- (Note that we also have an E_SchemeJet now)
# Presentation: 738309

## Rocky Mountain Area Transmission StudyRecommendations 

## Benefits of Transmission Expansion

** ****Improved reliability **
** ****Market power mitigation**
** ****Reduced production costs**
** ****Reduced and more stable market clearing prices**
** ****Fuel diversity benefits**
** ****Economic development benefit to states with new investment**

** ****Reduced production costs**
** ****Reduced and more stable market clearing prices**

**Subset of benefits analyzed in RMATS Phase I**

## Recommendations

**Pursue transmission expansion in Recommendations 1 and 2**
- Governors convene meetings of their PSCs and beneficiaries of each recommended expansion
- Potential sponsors conduct detailed studies of priority expansions
- Project sponsors work with regulators on financing and regulatory issues
- As project develops, siting work would begin, including triggering of WGA Transmission Permitting Protocol
**Implement institutional improvements**

## Recommendation 1

- Montana Upgrade

- Wyoming to Colorado Upgrade

- Bridger West Upgrade

## Recommendation 2

- Montana Upgrade

- Wyoming to Colorado Upgrade

- Bridger West Upgrade

## Recommendation 2

- Need two of five 500 kV
- export paths shown

## Economic Screening Analysis

- Capital Investment
-     Transmission

- _Recommendation 1_

- _Recommendation 2_

- $16 million
-           _+ $970 million_
- $986 million

- $16 million
-         + $970 million
- _+3,295 million*_
- $4,281 million

- $6,600 million
-    _+ $5,700 million_
- $12,300 million

-           $6,600 million

- Annual Net Savings(compared to reference cases)

**$61-$531 million**

**$516-$986 million**

** Average Capital Cost of 4 Options Studied*

**Economic Screening Analysis**

-    Resources

## Critical Factors Examined 

- Future natural gas prices
- Hydro conditions
- Aggressive demand side management
- Potential carbon emission constraints

## Institutional Improvements

- PSCs develop multi-state transmission expansion pricing principles
- Engage the Wyoming Infrastructure Authority in financing discussions
- Better link load-serving entity resource plans to regional transmission plans
- Integrate RMATS export recommendation with planning in other parts of the Western Interconnection
- Governors and regulators consider the formulation of an RTO with features appropriate to the region
- Transmission owners develop conditional firm or priority non-firm transmission products that quantify curtailment risks and allow greater use of existing wires
- Maintain RMATS planning capacity

## Elements of Success

- Success of Phase I is due to the leadership of Western Governors and the significant contributions from the participants
- Phase II will depend on interested parties stepping forward with commitments to sponsor projects and forming partnerships which may include public and private entities, regulators and policy makers
# Presentation: 160865

## Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Systems Technology

**ACCOMPLISHMENTS**
-   This technology is a spin-off of a 1993 Phase II SBIR contract  	NAS3-27546 titled “Regenerative Solid Oxide Fuel Cell 	Technology Development”
-   Technology Management, Inc. (TMI) has applied federal, 	state, and private funds to develop an SOFC system which 	can be highly competitive in niche and growth markets
-   Features of TMI’s current fuel cell and regenerative fuel 	cell systems include: multiple fuel compatibility, low power 	modules, integrated fuel reformer, multi-module design, 	and compactness
**COMMERCIALIZATION**
-   NASA SBIRs totaling $800K
-   DOE Hydrogen Program, Phase I, II & III – $780K
-   National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), 	Advanced Technology Program (ATP) – $2.8M
-   NASA Glenn Garrett Morgan Commercialization Initiative to 	design, build, and commission a SOFC prototype – $60K
-   US Air Force, Dual Use Science & Technology Program – $1.6M
-   Ohio Department of Development, Technology Action Fund – $1M

***Technology Management, Inc.***
***Cleveland, OH***

**S****mall**
**B****usiness**
**I****nnovation **
**R****esearch**

**GOVERNMENT/SCIENCE APPLICATIONS**
-  	TMI won a 2002 Technology Assistance Competition from 	the NASA Glenn Garrett Morgan Commercialization 			Initiative Technology Program to design, build and 			commission a complete pre-commercial prototype of its 		solid oxide fuel cell for stationary and mobile applications

- Glenn Research Center
- Power and On-Board Propulsion
- 3-106

**Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Systems Technology**

***1kW SOFC Pre-commercial Prototype System***

- 1993 Phase II, NAS3-27546 rev. 05/03   NASA Contact – Mark Hoberecht
- Company Contact – Benson P. Lee

- In “fuel cell mode” the solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) converts fuel into electricity, heat, and water
- In reverse “electrolyzer mode,” electricity and heat convert water into hydrogen and oxygen

**INNOVATION**
# Presentation: 295221

## Draft Joint Timeline for Prostate SPORE NBN Pilot & caBIG 

**Submit NBN Pilot Specimen & Clinical CDEs to caDSR (Jul 15)**

**Initiate IPBS Prospective & Retrospective Studies (Sept 1)**

- Draft Joint Timeline for Prostate SPORE NBN Pilot & caBIG

**NCI Selects Contractor for Prostate SPORE Biospecimen Coordination**
** ****System RFP (mid to late September)**

**Finalize Specimen & Clinical CDEs with Prostate SPORE clinicians (Mar 1 – Apr 15)**

**Release of caBIG Adopter RFP to Prostate SPOREs (Feb 18)**

**Complete caTISSUE Annotations Specifications ( Mar 15)**

**Prostate SPORE institutions apply  for caBIG Adopter RFP: caTISSUE Adopter (Mar 18)**

**Select caTISSUE Adopters (Apr 14) **

**Complete caTISSUE Prototype (Jun 30)**

- Prostate SPORE NBN Pilot

- caBIG

**Finalize NBN Pilot Informatics Executive Summary and distribute to Prostate SPORE PI’s (Apr 15)**

**Organ Systems Branch Completes IPBS Proposal Review  (Mar 15)**

**Organ Systems Branch Funds IPBS biomarker validation activities  (Jul 1)**

**Organ Systems Branch Distributes draft MTAs, Informed Consent Forms, & SOPs to Prostate SPOREs (Apr 30)**

**NCICB/caBIG**

**Organ Systems Branch, NCI**

**Office of the Director, NCI**

**Finalize Use Cases with Prostate SPORE clinicians (Mar 1 – Apr 15)**

**Debrief Prostate SPORE Informatics Representatives & PIs about Biospecimen Coordination System RFP (Apr 1)**

**Annual SPORE Workshop  (Jul 9-12)**

**Annual caBIG Meeting (Apr 12-13) **

**TBPTW Meeting (May 4-5)**

**NCI Releases Prostate SPORE Biospecimen Coordination System RFP (mid to late March)**

**Finalize MTAs, Informed Consent Forms, & SOPs  (August 31)**

**Prostate SPOREs begin mapping individual systems to **
**common CDE set (Sept 1)**

**Q1**

**Q2**

**Q3**

**Q4**

**2005**

**Complete caTISSUE Alpha Release (Oct 15)**

**Complete caTISSUE Annotations Module Alpha****(Oct 31)**
# Presentation: 818464

## Power Trading Model Between India & NepalbyIndiaA K MishraSudeshna Basu MallickNepalR P GhimireG B KharelS K Pradhan

## Growth of Installed Generating Capacity (MW) in INDIA

**107973**

**79470**

**63290**

**42585**

**28448**

**16604**

**9027**

**4653**

**2695**

**1362**

**Growth of Installed Generating Capacity (MW) in INDIA**

**112058**

## Installed Capacity as on 01.04.2004

## Actual Power Supply Position (2003-04)

## Source: 16th Electric Power Survey,CEA

*Source: 16**th** Electric Power Survey,CEA*

## 10th Plan Capacity Addition Target

| Sector | Hydro | Thermal | Nuclear | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| State | 4481 | 6676 | 0 | 11157
(27.2%) |
| Private | 1170 | 5951 | 0 | 7121
(17.3%) |
| Central | 8742 | 12790 | 1300 | 22832
(55.5%) |
| Total | 14393
(35%) | 25417
(61.8%) | 1300
(3.2%) | 41110 |

## Capacity Addition Required during 11th Plan  (2007-12) (67,440 MW)- TENTATIVE*

**Capacity Addition Required during 11th Plan  (2007-12) (67,440 MW)- TENTATIVE***

- * Excluding  addition from Non-conventional Sources

## Growth of Installed Capacity of Power Projects in Nepal

## Actual Power Supply Position In Nepal

## Assumptions for the Trade Model

- Total Generation Considered for India
- Thermal = 42,000 MU
- Nuclear = 1400MU
- Hydro = 5,200 MU
- Import = 400 MU
- Total = 49,000MU
- Demand = 55,000MU

## Assumptions for the Trade Model

- Total Generation Considered for India
- Thermal = 42,000 MU
- Nuclear = 1400MU
- Hydro = 5,200 MU
- Import = 400 MU
- Total = 49,000MU
- Demand = 55,000MU

## Assumptions for the Trade Modelcontd

- Total Generation Considered for Nepal
- Thermal = 1 MU
- Hydro (NEA) = 5000MU
- Hydro (Private) = 5000 MU
- Import = 10 MU
- Total = 10011 MU
- Demand = 2000 MU
- Transmission Capacity = 8000 MU

## The Model

- India

- Nepal

- S1

- S7

- S6

- S5

- S8

- S4

- S3

- S2

- TNI

- 5200 MU

-  1400 MU

- 400 MU

- 42000 MU

- 10 MU

- 5000 MU

- 1 MU

- 5000 MU

- 8000 MU

## Solution of the Trade Model

## Conclusions

- The entire deficit of around 6000 MU is being met by supply from Nepal
- Nepal Electricity should supply in its full capacity.
- Private hydro producers in Nepal to generate 2960 MU
- India to produce at full capacity as per the given capacity upper bounds

## Suggestions for next workshop

- Topics
- Renewable Energy pricing models
- System Planning Models
- Econometric methods of load forecasting
- More numerical examples on the various modeling techniques to be taught clearly showing every step
- Suggested venue
- Thimpu (Bhutan)
- There should be few case studies on the relevant models

## Contd..

- All participant countries should be well informed in advance about-
- The detailed workshop agenda
- Specific data to be brought by the participants

## Thanking You all

- Best Wishes
- and
- Safe Return Home
# Presentation: 451795

## Planning - Other Issues

- Evaluate not only best model, but also alternative sources of information (degradation of model results)
- Source characterization
- Convert on-scene measurements to source rates

## Planning Considerations

- What could happen - how to mitigate
- Important MET Considerations
- Other locations - other than urban
- First Responder considerations
- Define the problem
- How to manage uncertainties - tailoring the results
- Training
- Operational center considerations

## Planning - Scenario #1

- Coupling
- 5-min non-steady state
- Urban Morphology
- Urban Dispersion
- CFD
- Sewer System
- Metro
- Wet/dry Deposition
- Range
- Indoor Air Exchange/Model
- Complex Terrain Effects
- Range of MET Conditions/Scale
- Population Density/Census Data
- Cross-Media Model (food chain effects)

- H - M
- H (5-min)
- H
- H
- L
- L
- L
- H
- H (10m - 30Km)
- H
- H
- H
- H

## Planning - Scenario #2

- Coupling
- 5-min non-steady state
- Urban Morphology
- Urban Dispersion
- CFD
- Sewer System
- Metro
- Wet/dry Deposition
- Range
- Indoor Air Exchange/Model
- Complex Terrain Effects
- Range of MET Conditions/Scale
- Population Density/Census Data
- Cross-Media Model (food chain effects)

- H
- H (5-min)
- H
- H
- H
- H
- H
- H
- H (100 Km)
- H
- H
- H
- H
- H

## Planning - Scenario #2

- Source Characterization
- Plume Rise
- Blast Effects

- HHH

## Planning - Scenario #3

- Coupling
- 5-min non-steady state
- Urban Morphology
- Urban Dispersion
- CFD
- Sewer System
- Metro
- Wet/dry Deposition
- Range
- Indoor Air Exchange/Model
- Complex Terrain Effects
- Range of MET Conditions/Scale
- Population Density/Census Data
- Cross-Media Model (food chain effects)

- H
- H (5-min)
- No
- No
- No
- No
- No
- H
- H (1 Km to 1000 Km)
- No
- H
- H (meso-scale effects)
- H
- H

## Planning - Scenario #3

- Source Characterization
- Plume Rise
- Blast Effects
- Down-range Radiation
- UV Effects
- Resuspension
- Mechanism of Release
- Rain-out
- Decay Rates
- Cloudshine

- HHNo
- H
- No
- No
- No
- H
- H
- H

## Planning - Scenario #4

- Coupling
- 5-min non-steady state
- Urban Morphology
- Urban Dispersion
- CFD
- Sewer System
- Metro
- Wet/dry Deposition
- Range
- Indoor Air Exchange/Model
- Complex Terrain Effects
- Range of MET Conditions/Scale
- Population Density/Census Data
- Cross-Media Model (food chain effects)

- H
- H (5-min)
- H
- H
- No
- No
- No
- H
- H (100 Km)
- H
- H
- H
- H
- H

## Planning - Scenario #4

- Source Characterization
- Plume Rise
- Blast Effects
- Down-range Radiation
- UV Effects
- Resuspension
- Mechanism of Release
- Rain-out
- Decay Rates
- Cloudshine

- HNoNo
- No
- H
- H
- H - Line Source
- No
- No
- No
# Presentation: 873060

## FRC/BC Schedule

| 05-Oct-00 Schedule |  |  |  |  | 30-Mar-01 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Task |  | day | Start | Finish | Status |
| Prototype |  | 214 | 08/01/00 | 05/25/01 |  |
|  | FPGA coding | 66 | 08/01/00 | 10/31/00 |  |
|  | Order components | 44 | 09/15/00 | 11/15/01 |  |
|  | Layout | 45 | 11/01/00 | 01/02/01 |  |
|  | Fabrication | 28 | 01/03/01 | 02/09/01 | 03/08/01 |
|  | Evaluation | 75 | 02/12/01 | 05/25/01 | ! ! ! |
| Preproduction |  | 141 | 02/12/01 | 09/05/01 |  |
|  | FPGA coding | 75 | 02/12/01 | 05/25/01 |  |
|  | Order comps (final) | 44 | 03/05/01 | 05/03/01 | ??? |
|  | Layout | 30 | 04/16/01 | 05/25/01 |  |
|  | Fabrication | 28 | 05/28/01 | 07/04/01 |  |
|  | Evaluation | 45 | 07/05/01 | 09/05/01 |  |
| Production |  | 73 | 09/06/01 | 12/17/01 |  |
|  | Fabrication | 28 | 09/06/01 | 10/15/01 |  |
|  | Evaluation | 45 | 10/16/01 | 12/17/01 |  |
| Mechanics (stiffening) |  | 74 | 11/01/00 | 02/12/01 | ??? |
| CPU Code Develop |  | 180 | 11/27/00 | 08/03/01 | ! ! ! |
|  | Basic utilities | 60 | 11/27/00 | 02/16/01 | after |
|  | Prototype code | 90 | 11/27/00 | 03/30/01 | PCI code |
|  | Final accept test | 90 | 04/02/01 | 08/03/01 |  |

- STT Meeting: 30-Mar-01

- H.Evans

## Current Status

**Received prototype (bare) FRC & BC boards on 08-Mar-01**
**Populating FRC in steps:**
**at each step test functionality of components**
**Power****	****	****	****	****ok**
**Clock distrib****	****	****	****ok**
**Resets****	****	****	****	****ok**
**PCI FPGAs****	****	****	****~done**
**TRDF,SCLF,BM FPGAs****	****	****soon**
**PCI Tests**
**modify BU’s PCI device driver to work with FRC**
**currently can read and write to configuration and memory space**
**single write mode**
**BC Assembly/Testing**
**need to build another interface board**
**(to interface to the interface board we just bought)**

- STT Meeting: 30-Mar-01

- H.Evans

## FRC/BC Costs

**Minimal Changes from Oct-00**
**FRC: use 2 10K30’s instead of all 10K50’s**
**BC: DPRAM went from $52 to $91 / chip**
**Total Includes**
**all BCs for everyone**
**Total Does not Include**
**CPUs ****	****	****(paid for by FSU + French)**
**VTMs ****	****	****(paid for by BU)**
**Motherboard, SCL mezz, Link Tx’s**
**estimate for FRC/BC fab/assemb not final**

|  |  | unit costs |  | unit |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Item | No | Oct-00 | Mar-01 | MRI | Spent |
| FRC DB | 10 | $1783 | $1564 | $5400 | $12464 |
| BC DB | 80 | $731 | $896 |  |  |
| Crate | 8 | $4690 | $4690 | $10000 | $38670 |
| Backplane | 8 | ? | ? |  | $0 |
| Cooling | 8 | ? | ? |  | $0 |
| Test Stand | 1 | $15000 | $15000 | $15000 | $395 |
| CPU, etc | 8 | $2850 | ($3165) | $5000 | ($24016) |
| Engineer | 1 | $161250 | $161250 | $161250 | yes |
| Student | 1 | $41005 | $41005 | $41005 | yes |
| Total |  | $365735 | $349621 | $374900 | $51529 |

**board costs updated: 03-Apr-01**

- STT Meeting: 30-Mar-01

- H.Evans

## Cost Details

**FRC**

**BC**

- STT Meeting: 30-Mar-01

- H.Evans
# Presentation: 682497

## CLASS Users’ Conference  Boulder Node – Facility UpdateJohn Kinsfather - NGDC

-     August 7, 2006
- NIST – Boulder, CO

## CLASS Data/Network Requirements
CLASS Storage Architecture
Boulder CLASS Facility Status

**CLASS Storage Architecture**
**Boulder CLASS Facility Status**

- Outline

## Slide 3

## Network Architecture

-  NSOF (OSDPD), Asheville (NCDC),
-            **Boulder (NGDC)**,  Fairmont (GST)
-  Boulder and Asheville will be fully redundant
-  OC-3’s for now, then OC-48 and beyond
-  Cisco/**Juniper** routers & Cisco firewalls
-  VPN over **NOAA-Net** MPLS (Sprint Service)
-  National Lambda Rail (NLR) for future
-          very high-bandwidth  – dedicated lambdas

## Network Requirements

|                 Ingest Rates |          Mbps | Network Service |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 45 | T-3 |  |
| 1.0 TB/day | 93 |  |  |
|      1.6 TB/day | 155 | OC-3 | CLASS 2006 |
| 10.0 TB/day | 926 |  |  |
|  | 2,500 | OC-48 |  |
| 100.0 TB/day | 9,260 |  |  |

## CLASS Storage Architecture

- ADIC Shared File System & Hierarchical
-       Storage Management (StorNext)
- Servers: SGI(IRIX), IBM(AIX), Dell(RH LINUX)
- RAID: Data Direct Networks SATA disk
- Tape – LTO2 (.2-.4TB), LTO3 (.4-.8TB), LTO4 (.8-1.6TB)
- Tape robotics – ADIC, IBM or STK

## CLASS Boulder Facilities 08/2006

- 1,000 sq ft secure monitored space
-  		- Card controlled limited access & logging
- 		- Electrical, Temperature & humidity monitoring
- 		- Air sampling
- 		- Under floor water detection
- Ecaro inert gas first response fire suppression system
- GSA mandated fire sprinkler system at highest temp.
- 60 tons overhead cooling – 2x30 ton Liebert CRACs
- 40 KVA Emergency Generator power to APC UPS,
- 		expand to 80KVA in FY07

## CLASS Boulder Facilities 08/2006

- 3 Dell 2850 PowerEdge - Red Hat 4.0
- 1 Dell 850 PowerEdge - MS Win Server 2003
- 7 IBM p520 dual-cpu - IBM AIX 5.3
- 4 IBM p550 quad-cpu - IBM AIX 5.3
- APC ISX power management console
- IBM 7310-CR3 management console
**Fractional T-3 for testing (OC-3 October 1)**

## Slide 9

## CLASS Boulder computer room construction in progress 02/2006

## CLASS Boulder computer room  - location for robotic tape library

## CLASS Boulder – ECARO gas fire suppression, 30 ton CRAC unit

## CLASS Boulder – APC UPS, equipment racks, 30 ton CRAC unit

## CLASS Boulder Facilities 12/2006

-  ADIC Scalar 100  LTO-2 tape (system backups)
-  ADIC Scalar 10K LTO-2 tape library  (archive)
-  SGI Origin 350 servers running IRIX OS
-  Data Direct Networks S2A3000 FC SAN – 11 TB
** ****DDN S2A9500 SATA SAN – 384 TB**
-  Brocade Silkworm 48000  4-Gbit SAN switch
-  CISCO 6509E 48 port network switch w/ firewall

##        CLASS Boulder Node

- People making it happen
-  CLASS CPMT & many other CLASS teams
-  NGDC Director’s Office
-  NGDC computer, network, security support staff
-  GST project planning, systems integration
**Planned Operational Date - March 2007**
# Presentation: 912754

## Landing Site Map Compilation for MSLTim Parker, JPLLaurie Barge, USC

## Landing Site Map Compilation for MSL 

***Objective is to produce maps of MSL landing site regions for:**
**	*****Aid to science team selection of final landing site.**
**	*****Aid to NAV team in determining whether TCMs needed en route.**
**	*****Assessment of surface hazards to EDL. **
**	*****Accurate location of surface features for localization after landing.**
**	*****Accurate location of surface features for rover traverse planning.**
***High-quality image map as multi-layer “virtual map” file:**
**	*****Enables rapid inclusion of latest orbiter images and derived data **
**	****  ****products.**
**	****	*****MOLA topography Base map **
**	****	****	****MDIM1 and 2 base maps for MPF and initially for MER.**
**	****	*****Viking MDIM2**
**	****	****	****Supplements MOLA registration at low latitudes**
**	****	*****THEMIS Daytime IR images.**
**	****	****	****Provides uniform illumination and resolution coverage**
**	****	*****THEMIS VIS images.**
**	****	*****MOC images.**
**	****	*****HIRISE images.**
**	****	*****Derived products **
**	****	****	****(e.g., Thermal Inertia, Rock abundance models/counts).**
**	*****Does not require resampling of images of different pixel scales to **
**	****  ****common value, thus preserving original data. **
***New GIS plug-in for Canvas should enable export of fine registration information to users of other GIS applications.**
**	**

## Gusev Crater Landing Site Map:  MER A

**Gusev Crater Landing Site Map:  MER A**

## Gusev Crater Landing Site Hazard Map:  MER A

**Gusev Crater Landing Site Hazard Map:  MER A**

## Gusev Crater Post-Landing Localization Map

**Gusev Crater Post-Landing Localization Map**

## Erebus Crater Localization/Geomorphology Map:  MER B

## Terby Topography

**Terby Topography**

**Galle Crater topography**

**Terby**
**Topography, THEMIS IR,  some VIS**

**Holden/Eberswalde topography**

**Holden/Eberswalde**

**Becquerel topography**

**Becquerel**

**Gale Crater topography**

**Gale Crater**