ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2026 Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
August 24–27, 2026
Dallas, TX|Hilton Anatole
Latest Magazine Issues
Jun 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
July 2026
Nuclear Technology
June 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
May 2026
Latest News
Antares achieves zero-power criticality at INL
Leveraging more than $140 million in private capital fundraising, over 322,000 square feet of operational manufacturing space, and multifaceted partnerships with the Departments of Energy and Defense, reactor start-up Antares has become the first company involved in the Reactor Pilot Program to achieve zero-power fueled criticality—a full month ahead of the July 4 deadline set by President Trump’s Executive Order 14301.
This milestone, announced yesterday, was achieved with the company’s Mark-0: a sodium heat-pipe-cooled, TRISO-fueled microreactor. The Mark-0 is a forerunner to the company’s flagship design, which it calls the R1. For Antares, this development represents a key validation of its reactor physics, control systems, and supply chain.
D. R. Harding, M. D. Wittman, N. P. Redden, D. H. Edgell, J. Ulreich
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 76 | Number 7 | October 2020 | Pages 814-830
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.1080/15361055.2020.1812990
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Shadowgraphy and X-ray phase contrast (XPC) imaging are two techniques that are used for characterizing the deuterium-tritium ice layer in inertial confinement fusion targets. Each technique has limitations that affect how accurately they can characterize small crystalline defects and measure the ice thickness nonuniformities that may be only a few micrometers in height. The concern is that shadowgraphy may be overly sensitive to the shape and depth of defects in the ice surface and insufficiently sensitive to the shape of longer wavelength roughness, while XPC may be too insensitive to defects in the ice surface.
Multiple ice layers with different thicknesses (40 to 63 μm), thickness uniformities (peak-to-valley variations that range from < 2 to 12 μm), and crystal defects were analyzed using shadowgraphy and XPC techniques. The results from each method agree when the ice layer is uniformly thick and the crystal lacks defects. That agreement worsens as the number of defects in the surface of the ice layer increases, and the roughness (that is determined from a shadowgram image of the target’s limb) becomes greater than can be justified by the number of defects that are seen in the target’s front and rear surfaces. The XPC technique is considerably less sensitive to surface defects, in part because of the poorer dynamic range and image resolution compared to shadowgraphy. Localized regions of the ice layer that are thicker or thinner than the average thickness of the layer are reported by shadowgraphy to be smaller in height and footprint (by up to 30%) than by XPC. As a result, the two techniques report different ice layer thicknesses that can vary by up to 10%. Shadowgraphy, which results from two caustics that trace different paths through the target, and in theory, image the same ice/vapor surface (but reflect from either the vapor or ice side of the interface), did not consistently characterize the size or shape of ice features to be the same magnitude. The XPC technique provides the best assessment of low-mode (l < 7) roughness in the ice layer. Shadowgraphy results using the strongest caustic is best for detecting the presence of grooves in the ice, although not for quantifying the size of them. If multiple grooves are present, it is best to discard and reform the ice layer.