# Eclipse avoidance in TianQin orbit selection

Bobing Ye  Xuefeng Zhang<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Yanwei Ding  Yunhe Meng
TianQin Research Center for Gravitational Physics and School of Physics and
Astronomy,
Sun Yat-sen University (Zhuhai Campus), Zhuhai 519082, P.R. China

###### Abstract

In future geocentric space-based gravitational-wave observatory missions,
eclipses due to passing through the Moon’s and Earth’s shadows can negatively
impact the sciencecraft’s thermal stability and steady power supply. The
occurrence should be reduced as much as possible in orbit design. In regard to
TianQin’s circular high orbits, we tackle the combined challenges of avoiding
eclipses and stabilizing the nearly equilateral-triangle constellation. Two
strategies are proposed, including initial phase selection and orbit resizing
to 1:8 synodic resonance with the Moon, where the latter involves slightly
raising TianQin’s preliminary orbital radius of $1\times 10^{5}$ km to $\sim
100900$ km. As the result, we have identified pure-gravity target orbits with
a permitted initial phase range of $\sim 15^{\circ}$, which can maintain
eclipse-free during the 3+3 month observation windows throughout a 5-year
mission started in 2034, and meanwhile fulfil the constellation stability
requirements. Thereby the eclipse issue for TianQin can be largely resolved.

††preprint: APS/123-QED

##  I  Introduction

TianQin is a future space-based gravitational-wave (GW) observatory mission
[1] featuring circular high Earth orbits of a $10^{5}$ km radius, and a
constellation plane nearly vertical to the ecliptic and facing the white-dwarf
binary RX J0806.3+1527 (hereafter J0806) as a reference source. The mission
engenders rich science prospects for GW physics and astronomy [2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9]. The geocentric concept has benefits in launch cost, transfer
duration, communication, telemetry, guidance and navigation, etc. One major
challenge is the varying sunlight direction relative to the orbital plane (the
beta angle), which affects the sciencecraft’s thermal stability and the
interferometric laser links (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1:  Illustration of the Sun, the Moon, and TianQin’s orbits in an
Earth-centered reference frame (not to scale). The lunar orbital plane is
tilted from the ecliptic plane by $\sim 5^{\circ}$.

To deal with the issue, a preliminary 3+3 month operation scheme was suggested
[1], in which one puts the GW observation on hold (for 3 months, to be
optimized) when, twice a year, the Sun shines across the orbital plane from
sideways. Moreover, a LISA-like passive thermal design concept adapted for the
TianQin satellites was proposed [10, 11] as a potential candidate. Similar to
other space observatories such as Gaia [12], Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) [13], and James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) [14], it adopts a
flat-top sun-shield to keep critical devices protected in the shade (see Fig.
1), and shifts the thermal flux variation to a half-year period. The design
implications are currently being evaluated [15, 16]. Other recent progresses
of TianQin can be seen in [17].

Related to the thermal issue, eclipses due to the Moon and the Earth’s
temporary blocking of sunlight has raised concerns for TianQin as well as for
other geocentric concepts [18]. First, passing through the shadows causes
thermal disturbance to the sciencecraft, and in turn, to the sensitive science
payloads mounted inside, where a core temperature stability of $\sim 10^{-5}$
K/Hz1/2 in the mHz frequency band is typically needed [1, 19]. Second,
eclipses interrupt the steady power output from the solar panels, which may
also degrade the science payload performance. Concerning the hardware, it may
be difficult and costly to design instruments to directly cope with the
changing thermal environment during eclipses. Therefore, to ensure
uninterrupted observations, it would be desirable that the satellites simply
undergo _no eclipses_ at least during the 3+3 month observation windows within
the 5-year mission lifetime. Here the 3+3 month observation windows correspond
to when the sunlight direction makes an angle of $<45^{\circ}$ with the normal
of the constellation plane (08 Jun to 06 Sep, 07 Dec to 07 Mar).

The problem of eclipse avoidance should be handled together with the
constellation stability requirements in orbit design. Due to lunisolar
gravitational perturbations and initial orbit errors, the constellation will
drift away from the nominal equilateral triangle. The preliminary TianQin
requirements on the constellation stability include the arm-length variations
within $\pm 0.5\%$, the relative line-of-sight velocities between satellites
within $\pm 10$ m/s, and the breathing angle variations within $\pm
0.2^{\circ}$ for 5 years [20]. Therefore the challenges are two-fold: to
minimize shadow events for all three satellites, and at the same time, to
maintain the required level of the constellation stability.

The eclipse issue has been briefly discussed in other geocentric mission
concepts [18]. For instance, gLISA in geostationary orbits schedules switch-
offs for 45 days during each Earth eclipse season in spring and fall [21]. In
one-year period, Earth eclipses for LAGRANGE can last maximally 4 hours, and
Moon eclipses 3 hours [22]. As for OMEGA, there can be long ($\sim 4$ hours),
mostly penumbral, eclipses [23]. TianQin differs from these missions in both
the orbital radius and orientation, and hence the eclipsing properties differ
as well. Despite the issue having been pointed out quite early on, a remedy
through orbit design appears to have not been well studied so far for
geocentric concepts. Note that the heliocentric orbits of LISA [19] are not
subject to Earth and Moon eclipses since they are positioned quite far away
($\sim 5\times 10^{7}$ km, $\sim 20^{\circ}$ trailing angle from the Earth).

The practice of eclipse evasion is often conducted in space observatories,
particularly those orbiting around the Sun-Earth Lagrange point L2, in order
to protect sensitive instruments on-board. For examples, Herschel Space
Observatory, Planck Space Observatory, Gaia Space Observatory, Wilkinson
Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) have all
taken eclipses into account in their orbit design [24, 25, 26, 27].
Specifically for Gaia, it has performed one eclipse avoidance manoeuvre
through the mission control 6 years after the launch [28]. Another related
example can be seen in Chang’e 4’s relay satellite Queqiao near the Earth-Moon
L2 point, which has adopted a halo orbit with carefully chosen amplitudes and
phases in order to avoid eclipses and lunar occultation of the Earth [29, 30,
31, 32, 33]. Useful eclipse avoidance strategies can also be found in the
design of near rectilinear halo orbits [34, 35, 36, 37, 38] and geostationary
orbits [39, 40].

This is the fourth paper of our concept study series on TianQin’s orbit and
constellation [20, 41, 42]. The first paper [20] demonstrates the optimization
of TianQin’s orbits and shows that the 5-year constellation stability
requirements can be met. The second [41] investigates the impact of orbital
radius and orientation selections on the constellation stability, and the
findings provide support to TianQin’s orbit design. The third [42] examines
the disturbance from the Earth-Moon’s gravity to the intersatellite ranging
measurements and points out that the effect present no showstopper to the
mission. The current paper is structured as follows. In Section II, eclipsing
properties and statistics are discussed for TianQin. In Section III, three
avoidance strategies are described, including avoidance maneuvers, initial
phase selection, and orbit resizing. Sections IV and V present the three-step
optimization method and eclipse-free orbits found for the results. The
concluding remarks are made in Section VI.

##  II  Eclipse Occurrence

At the orbital radius of $10^{5}$ km, the TianQin satellites may experience
eclipses due to the Moon and the Earth (see Fig. 1). The occurrences depend on
their positions relative to the Sun. For TianQin’s orbits, Fig. 2 shows an
example of typical one-year evolution of the Sun-Satellite-Moon (SSM) and Sun-
Satellite-Earth (SSE) angles. The initial orbital parameters are taken from
Table 3 of [20], which were optimized without considering eclipse reduction.
As the figure indicates, an eclipse takes places when the SSM and SSE angles
are below the thresholds determined by the apparent sizes of the Sun ($\sim
0.53^{\circ}$ at 1 AU) and the occulting bodies [43]. In Table 1, the
statistics of predicted events are presented, and the data were obtained from
GMAT [44].

Figure 2:  An example of typical one-year evolution of the Sun-Satellite-Moon and Sun-Satellite-Earth angles for TianQin satellites. The thresholds for the Moon and Earth eclipses are marked, respectively, by red and blue lines, below which an eclipse takes place (e.g., day 154).  Table 1:  The 5-year statistics of eclipse events for the three TianQin satellites before taking eclipse avoidance measures. The duration is in minutes.  Object | Time | Type | Number | Duration (mean)
---|---|---|---|---
Moon |  $\pm 1.4$ days of | Partial111Penumbra only | 17 | 24-70 (47)
| new moons | Annular222Penumbra+antumbra+penumbra | 1 | 57
Earth |  $\pm 5$ days of | Total333Penumbra+umbra+penumbra | 57 | 60-114 (98)
| 04/22 & 10/24 | Partial | 8 | 16-53 (40)

Moon eclipses may occur within 1.4 days before and after the new moon of every
synodic month. The partial eclipses dominates in occurrences, and roughly half
of them happen in the 3+3 month observation windows. The duration averages
about 47 minutes. Furthermore, Fig. 3 marks the intersection areas of the
Moon’s penumbra (shadow cone) with the TianQin’s orbital plane every 0.2 day
over the course of one year. At new moons, the shade sweeps horizontally
through the orbital plane and leaves a trail of elliptical speckles over each
passing. The vertical spreading of the trails is caused by the $\sim
5^{\circ}$ tilt of the Moon’s orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic.

Figure 3:  Intersection areas of the Moon’s penumbra (shadow cone) and
TianQin’s orbital plane (X-Y plane), recorded every 0.2 day for one-year
evolution. The X-axis is parallel to the ecliptic and the blue circle marks
TianQin’s orbit.

The situation of Earth eclipses is similar to that of geostationary orbits
which has two eclipse seasons around the spring and autumnal equinoxes. For
TianQin, the Earth eclipse seasons span $\pm 5$ days about 22 Apr. and 24
Oct., when sunlight aligns with the constellation plane. The eclipses last
roughly 1.5 hours on average. As Fig. 2 indicates, falling in the Earth’s
shadow is unavoidable for the TianQin satellites (see also [45]). But it only
arises well outside the 3+3 month observation windows, and hence the related
issues are less disconcerting. In this study, we will focus on reducing the
Moon eclipses during 3+3 month observation windows within the 5-year mission
lifetime.

##  III  Eclipse Avoidance Strategies

As mentioned earlier, the thermal stability requirement calls for the TianQin
constellation not experiencing Moon eclipses during the 3+3 month observation
windows (08 Jun to 06 Sep, 07 Dec to 07 Mar) throughout the nominal mission
lifetime, and if possible, with extension to 4+4 months or longer. With
TianQin’s orbital plane facing J0806, there can be at least three strategies
to achieve the goal.

1\. _Avoidance maneuvers_. This is to perform a planned maneuver prior to a
predicted eclipse inside an observation window by firing on-board low-level
thrusters during non-GW-observing periods. Propellant consumption is a major
concern as it shortens the mission lifetime. Besides, maneuvering individual
satellites must not undermine the configuration stability of the
constellation. Hence, this is considered as a less favorable resort that may
not be used frequently.

2\. _Initial phase selection_. It takes $\sim 1.8$ hours for the Moon’s shadow
to sweep across the orbital trajectory (see Fig. 3, the blue curve), which is
much shorter than the TianQin’s orbital period ($\sim 3.6$ days). Therefore it
is possible to tune the initial phase angles of the satellites so as to steer
clear of the Moon’s shadow along pure-gravity orbits for an extended period of
time. This also helps to reduce the number of ensuing avoidance maneuvers
needed.

3\. _Orbit resizing_. This can be applied jointly with the second strategy to
achieve an optimal performance. Particularly, by altering the orbit period
(phase rate), one can set the motion of the satellites in a repeated phase
relation with the motion of the Moon’s shadow. Matching with the lunar phases,
i.e., resonance in terms of synodic periods, can lower the possibility of
crossing the Moon’s shadow. Such a resonance can be visualized in the Moon-
centered coordinate system co-rotating with the Sun-Moon vector (see Fig. 4).
To avoid eclipses, the initial phase can be adjusted so that the Moon’s shadow
cone, projecting in the positive $x$-direction, passes through the large gaps
formed by the repeated pattern of the trajectory.

The preliminary TianQin design has picked an orbital radius of $1\times
10^{5}$ km [1]. But the selection did not take into account evading Moon
eclipses. Based on the strategies 2 and 3 above, we propose 1:8 synodic
resonant orbits with regard to the Moon. This means to have the ratio of
TianQin’s orbital period and the synodic month (average 29.53 days)
approximately 1:8. The choice elevates the orbital radius to about
$1.009\times 10^{5}$ km which does not exceed the $1.13\times 10^{5}$ km limit
set by the constellation stability requirements [41]. Conveniently, the small
increase in arm-length by $<1\%$ gives rise to negligible degradation in the
constellation stability performance (deviations from the nominal equilateral
triangle in terms of breathing angle and arm-length variations, and relative
line-of-sight velocities between satellites, see Fig. 5), and bears no impact
on expected science output and instrumentation. Though other options to
mitigate eclipsing may also be considered, here we will attend to executing
the second and third strategies for 1:8 synodic resonant orbits in the
following sections.

Figure 4:  An example of 3-month trajectories of one TianQin satellite in 1:8
synodic resonance with the Moon, visualized in the Moon-centered coordinate
system co-rotating with the Sun-Moon vector. The Moon’s shadow cone, pointing
along the positive $x$-axis, is aligned with a gap formed by the trajectory to
avoid eclipses. For non-resonant orbits such as the $1\times 10^{5}$ km
radius, the trajectory would appear more spread out with narrower gaps.
Figure 5:  The dependence of TianQin’s constellation stability on the orbital
radius (mean semi-major axis) [41]. The blue curve refers to the breathing
angle variations, the yellow curve the arm-length variations, and the green
curve the relative velocities. The upper red dashed line stands for the 5-year
constellation stability requirements, and the lower red dashed line the
requirements for the first 2 years [20]. The 1:8 synodic resonance is marked
by vertical dash-dotted line.

##  IV  Optimization Method

The orbit simulation setup follows our previous work [20, 41]. The force model
includes the main solar system bodies as point masses as well as the Earth’s
non-spherical gravity field, and the propagation assumes pure-gravity orbits
for the drag-free controlled satellites.

The goal of optimizing TianQin’s target orbit selection is to meet the
constellation stability requirements and to be eclipse-free during each
3-month observation window (with possible extensions). The latter is mainly
achieved by adjusting the orbital radii and initial phases within the
stability constraint. The intensive search consists of 3 steps.

_Step 1_. The initial epoch is set on 22 May, 2034 12:00:00 UTC, when the
Earth-Moon vector is nearly perpendicular to the orbital plane. This helps to
lower the eccentricity growth [41] and the impact of initial phase adjustment
on the constellation stability. Other epochs with such a property can also be
used.

_Step 2_. We assume the parameter space of Table 2 for the initial orbital
elements of the three satellites. The search region of the semi-major axis $a$
is extended to 100800-101000 km with $\Delta a=5$ km sampling intervals to
account for the length variation of synodic cycles (about 29.18 to 29.93
days). Since the three satellites are identical and forming an equilateral
triangle, the initial phase of SC1 can be limited to 0-120∘ with a step size
$\Delta\nu_{1}=0.5^{\circ}$.

Table 2:  The search space for the initial orbital elements of the three TianQin satellites (SC1, 2, 3) in the J2000-based Earth-centered ecliptic coordinate system. $\nu_{1}$ denotes the true anomaly of SC1.  $a$ | $e$ | $i$ | $\Omega$ | $\omega$ | $\nu_{1}$ | $\Delta a$ | $\Delta\nu_{1}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
100 800-101 000 km | 0 | $94.7^{\circ}$ | $210.4^{\circ}$ | $0^{\circ}$ | 0-120∘ | 5 km | $0.5^{\circ}$

_Step 3_. Optimize each set of initial elements to stabilize the constellation
using the efficient method of [41] (see Sec. 3), and calculate resulting
eclipse events. Then identify the range of orbital parameters that meets the
eclipse-free condition.

##  V  Results

Following the method above, Fig. 6 shows the widths of the permitted eclipse-
free initial phase ranges ($\nu_{\text{EF}}$, for all three satellites) at
various orbital radii. The plot indicates that $a=100935$ km offers the widest
range of initial phases for one to choose from. Note that a larger phase range
would impose less requirements on initial orbit errors, hence easier to be
realized. In contrast, for $a=10^{5}$ km, the method finds _no orbits_ that
are eclipse-free during the 3+3 month observation windows for 5 years,
starting from May 2034. Thus the 1:8 synodic resonant orbits are shown to
perform much better than the non-resonant $a=10^{5}$ km orbits in avoiding
eclipses.

Figure 6:  Eclipse-free initial phase ranges ($\nu_{\text{EF}}$) vs. orbital
radii (mean semi-major axes).

To examine more closely, a finer search with $\Delta a=1$ km and
$\Delta\nu_{1}=0.1^{\circ}$ was carried out around $a=100935$ km, and the
permitted initial phase ranges are summarized in Table 3. It can be seen that
$a=100935$ km indeed corresponds to the largest $\nu_{\text{EF}}$, reaching
$15.7^{\circ}$. Moreover, the eclipse-free periods can be extended at the cost
of a reduced $\nu_{\text{EF}}$, for instance, to 6 years (May 2034 to May
2040) with $\nu_{\text{EF}}=15.6^{\circ}$, or, to 8 years (May 2034 to May
2042) and 4+4 month observation windows with $\nu_{\text{EF}}=1.7^{\circ}$.

Table 3:  Eclipse avoidance results near $a=100935$ km with sampling intervals $\Delta a=1$ km and $\Delta\nu_{1}=0.1^{\circ}$, where $\nu_{1}$ denotes the permitted initial phases, and $\nu_{\text{EF}}$ the width of $\nu_{1}$.  $a$ | $\nu_{1}$ | $\nu_{\text{EF}}$
---|---|---
100 933 km | 73.6$-$87.8∘ | 14.2∘
100 934 km | 74.0$-$88.9∘ | 14.9∘
100 935 km | 74.3$-$90.0∘ | 15.7∘
100 936 km | 75.8$-$91.1∘ | 15.3∘
100 937 km | 77.2$-$91.8∘ | 14.6∘

To demonstrate constellation stability, we take a set of eclipse-free
optimized orbits with $\bar{a}=100935$ km as an example (see Table 4 and Table
5). Fig. 7 shows that the 5-year evolutions of the arm-lengths, the relative
velocities, and the breathing angles, indeed meet the constellation stability
requirements. Likewise, the orbits with other permitted initial phases in
Table 3 can be optimized to the same level.

Table 4:  The initial elements of a set of optimized TianQin orbits in the J2000-based Earth-centered ecliptic coordinates at the epoch 22 May, 2034 12:00:00 UTC. The subsequent orbital evolution meets the 3+3 month eclipse-free and constellation stability requirements (see Table 5 and Fig. 7).  |  $a$ (km) | $e$ |  $i$ (∘)
---|---|---|---
SC1 | 100 926.158 459 | 0.000 300 | 94.774 822
SC2 | 100 940.789 023 | 0.000 019 | 94.782 183
SC3 | 100 938.056 412 | 0.000 411 | 94.785 623
|  $\Omega$ (∘) |  $\omega$ (∘) |  $\nu$ (∘)
SC1 | 209.433 009 |  000.980 870 |  084.729 131
SC2 | 209.430 454 | 205.692 143 | 359.976 125
SC3 | 209.438 226 |  000.061 831 | 325.619 846
Table 5:  The predicted Moon eclipses from May 2034 to May 2039 for the three TianQin satellites using the orbits of Table 4. The events all take place outside the 3+3 month observation windows (08 Jun to 06 Sep, 07 Dec to 07 Mar) with margins.  Start time (UTC) | Type | Duration | Satellite
---|---|---|---
08 Apr 2035 15:22:31 | Partial | 41 min | SC2
27 Mar 2036 07:47:45 | Partial | 46 min | SC1
25 May 2036 02:56:52 | Partial | 39 min | SC3
24 Mar 2039 03:56:07 | Partial | 35 min | SC2

Figure 7:  Evolution of the optimized TianQin orbits generated from the
initial elements of Table 4. The plots show the 5-year variations of the arm-
lengths, the relative velocities, the breathing angles, and the pointing
deviation from J0806, respectively. The dashed lines correspond to the
constellation stability requirements for the first 2 years [20].

##  VI  Concluding Remarks

With the strategies of tuning the orbital radii and initial phases, Moon
eclipses in the 3+3 month observation windows (08 Jun to 06 Sep, 07 Dec to 07
Mar) for TianQin can be avoided throughout the 5-year mission lifetime without
designated avoidance maneuvers (orbit maintenance still required). Earth
eclipses are unavoidable, but of much less concern as they only occur well
outside the observation windows. As a viable candidate for TianQin, we propose
using synodic resonant orbits at the ratio of approximately 1:8, i.e., the
satellites completing 8 revolutions in one synodic month. The resonance
significantly lowers the possibility of Moon eclipses. Accordingly, the radii
near 100935 km have shown quite favorable performance in avoiding all eclipses
during the observation windows for a 5-year mission starting in 2034. The
permitted range of initial phases is $\sim 15^{\circ}$, granting a broad
margin to orbit control. Note that the optimal radius may vary slightly around
$\sim 100900$ km depending on the initial mission time selected, and that the
eclipse-free periods can be extended at the expense of a reduced range of
permitted initial phases. Our results will facilitate further trade studies in
the orbit design and mission operations. The method presented here can be
applied to other geocentric mission concepts as well.

To help realize the proposed orbits, requirements on the delivery accuracy
should be worked out. As suggested before, the most stringent requirement
comes from the constellation stability, and not from the eclipse avoidance.
The constellation stability performance is most sensitive to initial orbit
errors in the satellites’ radial positions and along-track velocities, and
much less so to other errors, e.g. in cross-track directions, by 1-3 orders of
magnitude. Preliminary estimates show that accuracies of $\sim 5$ m and $\sim
2$ mm/s (radial and along-track) may be needed to guarantee 3-month stability
(e.g., the breathing angle variations within $\pm 0.1^{\circ}$). Thereby,
various schemes, such as inter-satellite links, satellite laser ranging [17],
GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System), Chinese Deep Space Network, VLBI
(Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry), etc., are now being considered to assess
the orbit determination and control capabilities. More discussions are
deferred to future work.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank Yi-Ming Hu, Jian-dong Zhang, Haoying Zheng, Jianwei Mei,
Defeng Gu, Jinxiu Zhang, Liang-Cheng Tu, and Jun Luo for helpful discussions
and comments. Special thanks to Zhuangbin Tan for helping with the parallel
computing, to the anonymous referees for valuable suggestions. The work is
supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2020YFC2201202). XZ is
supported by NSFC 11805287.

## References

  * J. Luo et al. [2016] J. Luo et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 33, 035010 (2016).
  * Hu  _et al._ [2017] Y.-M. Hu, J. Mei, and J. Luo, Natl. Sci. Rev. 4, 683 (2017).
  * Huang  _et al._ [2020] S.-J. Huang, Y.-M. Hu, V. Korol, P.-C. Li, Z.-C. Liang, Y. Lu, H.-T. Wang, S. Yu, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063021 (2020).
  * Liu  _et al._ [2020] S. Liu, Y.-M. Hu, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103027 (2020).
  * Wang  _et al._ [2019] H.-T. Wang, Z. Jiang, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, S.-J. Huang, Y.-F. Wang, W.-F. Feng, Y. Wang, Y.-M. Hu, J. Mei, and J. Luo, Phys. Rev. D 100, 043003 (2019).
  * Feng  _et al._ [2019] W.-F. Feng, H.-T. Wang, X.-C. Hu, Y.-M. Hu, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123002 (2019).
  * Fan  _et al._ [2020] H.-M. Fan, Y.-M. Hu, E. Barausse, A. Sesana, J.-d. Zhang, X. Zhang, T.-G. Zi, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063016 (2020).
  * Shi  _et al._ [2019] C. Shi, J. Bao, H.-T. Wang, J.-d. Zhang, Y.-M. Hu, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, J. Mei, and J. Luo, Phys. Rev. D 100, 044036 (2019).
  * Bao  _et al._ [2019] J. Bao, C. Shi, H. Wang, J.-d. Zhang, Y. Hu, J. Mei, and J. Luo, Phys. Rev. D 100, 084024 (2019).
  * Zhang  _et al._ [2018] X. Zhang, H. Li, and J. Mei, “Thermal stability estimation of TianQin satellites based on LISA-like thermal design concept,” (2018), internal technical report (in Chinese).
  * Zhang [2019] X. Zhang, “TianQin Theoretical Group: Progress on Mission Concept Studies,” (2019), Plenary talk at 2018 Annual Conference of HUST Center for Gravitational Experiments and SYSU TianQin Research Center.
  * [12] https://sci.esa.int/web/gaia .
  * [13] https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ .
  * [14] https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/ .
  * Zheng [2020] H. Zheng,  _Analysis and Control Studies of External Heat Flow of TianQin Spacecraft_ , Master Thesis (in Chinese), Sun Yat-sen University (2020).
  * Chen  _et al._ [2020] H. Chen, C. Ling, X. Zhang, X. Zhao, M. Li, and Y. Ding, “Thermal Environment Analysis for TianQin,” (2020), in preparation.
  * J. Mei et al. [2020] J. Mei et al., Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics , ptaa114 (2020).
  * NAS [2012] “NASA Gravitational-wave mission concept study final report,” (2012), https://pcos.gsfc.nasa.gov/physpag/GW_Study_Rev3_ Aug2012-Final.pdf .
  * LIS [2017] “LISA Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, A proposal in response to the ESA call for L3 mission concepts,” arXiv:1702.00786 (2017).
  * Ye  _et al._ [2019] B. Ye, X. Zhang, M. Zhou, Y. Wang, H. Yuan, D. Gu, Y. Ding, J. Zhang, J. Mei, and J. Luo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 1950121 (2019).
  * Tinto  _et al._ [2015] M. Tinto, D. DeBra, S. Buchman, and S. Tilley, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 86, 014501 (2015).
  * Buchman and the LAGRANGE team [2011] S. Buchman and the LAGRANGE team, “LAGRANGE: LAser GRavitational-wave ANtenna in GEo-orbit,” (2011), https://spacegrav.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj8736/ f/presentations/LAGRANGE_2012.pdf .
  * Hel [2012] “JPL Team X Space-based Gravitational Wave Observatory OMEGA Report,” (2012), https://pcos.gsfc.nasa.gov/studies/gravwave/jpl/ 1281_Omega_Study_Final_Report_V1.45a_v1_CL12-4369.pdf .
  * Hechler and Cobos [2003] M. Hechler and J. Cobos, in  _Libration Point Orbits and Applications - Proceedings of the Conference_ , edited by G. Gómez, M. W. Lo, and J. J. Masdemont (World Scientific, Singapore, 2003) p. 115.
  * Bauske [2009] R. Bauske, in  _Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics_ (2009).
  * Cavaluzzi  _et al._ [2008] J. Cavaluzzi, D. Fink, and S. Coyle, in  _SpaceOps Conference Proceedings_ (Heidelberg, Germany, 2008).
  * Yu and Richon [2019] W. Yu and K. Richon,  _Libration Orbit Eclipse Avoidance Maneuver Study for the James Webb Space Telescope Mission_ , Conference Paper 20190028885, GSFC-E-DAA-TN71102 (2019).
  * [28] https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Operations/
Gaia_s_biggest_operation_since_launch .

  * Tang  _et al._ [2017] Y.-H. Tang, W.-R. Wu, D. Qiao, and X.-Y. Li, Science China Information Sciences 60, 112301 (2017).
  * Gao  _et al._ [2017] S. Gao, W. Zhou, W. Liang, D. Liu, Y. Tang, and W. Yang, Journal of Deep Space Exploration 4(2), 122 (2017).
  * Gao  _et al._ [2019] S. Gao, W. Zhou, L. Zhang, W. Liang, D. Liu, and H. Zhang, Scientia Sinica Technologica 49(2), 156 (2019).
  * Liang  _et al._ [2015] W. Liang, W. Zhou, and J. Zhou, Spacecraft Engineering 24(1), 44 (2015).
  * Liang  _et al._ [2019] W. Liang, L. Liu, Y. Liu, and C. Ma, Journal of Deep Space Exploration 6(1), 52 (2019).
  * Williams  _et al._ [2017] J. Williams, D. E. Lee, R. J. Whitley, K. A. Bokelmann, D. C. Davis, and C. F. Berry, in  _AAS/AIAA Spaceflight Mechanics Meeting_ (San Antonio, Texas, 2017).
  * Zimovan  _et al._ [2017] E. M. Zimovan, K. C. Howell, and D. C. Davis, in  _3rd IAA Conference on Dynamics and Control of Space Systems_ (Moscow, Russia, 2017).
  * Davis  _et al._ [2020] D. C. Davis, F. S. Khoury, K. C. Howell, and D. J. Sweeney, in  _43rd AAS Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference_ (Breckenridge, CO, 2020).
  * McCarthy and Howell [2019] B. P. McCarthy and K. C. Howell, in  _29th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting_ (Hawaii, USA, 2019).
  * Davis  _et al._ [2017] D. C. Davis, S. M. Phillips, K. C. Howell, S. Vutukuri, and B. P. McCarthy, in  _AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference_ (Washington, 2017).
  * Lundgren [1970] C. W. Lundgren, Bell System Technical Journal 49, 1943 (1970).
  * Hart [1992] M. J. Hart, in  _Astrodynamics Conference_ (1992) p. 4671.
  * Tan  _et al._ [2020] Z. Tan, B. Ye, and X. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 29, 2050056 (2020).
  * Zhang  _et al._ [2020] X. Zhang, C. Luo, L. Jiao, B. Ye, H. Yuan, L. Cai, D. Gu, J. Mei, and J. Luo, “Effect of Earth-Moon’s gravity field on TianQin’s range acceleration noise,” (2020), submitted, arXiv:2012.03264 .
  * Montenbruck and Gill [2001] O. Montenbruck and E. Gill,  _Satellite Orbits: Models, Methods and Applications_ (Springer, 2001).
  * [44] http://gmatcentral.org .
  * Chao [1980] C. C. Chao, in  _Astrodynamics Conference_ (Danvers, Massachussetts, 1980).


Transcendental Preprint

Programs Enabling Deep Technology Transfer from National Labs

Yasou Arai1, Farah Fahim2, Ryosuke Furubayashi3, Matthew Garrett5, Shaorui
Li2, Kathleen McDonald6, Aaron Sauers2, Mauricio Suarez${}^{2}\ast$, Koji
Yoshimura4
1High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Japan
2Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, US
3Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (Riken), Japan
4Okayama University, Japan
5SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, US
6CloudArc, US
∗E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
> ABSTRACT
>
>
>
>
> To maximize the technology transfer potential, it is important to create an
> ecosystem for the inventors to adapt the technologies developed for basic
> science to successful commercial ventures. In this white paper we present a
> brief overview of technology transfer programs at high energy physics (HEP)
> laboratories with a focus on the programs at Fermilab and KEK, and identify
> opportunities and recommendations for increasing partnerships and
> commercialization at HEP-centric laboratories.

Submitted to the Proceedings of the US Community Study

on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2021)

###### Contents

  1. 1 Motivation
  2. 2 Example Commercialization Processes of HEP Technologies by Spin-offs or Start-ups
    1. 2.1 Fermilab Commercialization Process
    2. 2.2 KEK Commercialization Process
  3. 3 Recommendations for increasing partnerships and commercialization
    1. 3.1 Aligning Inventor Royalty Distribution Policy Across DOE
    2. 3.2 Engaging with Partnership Intermediaries to Accelerate Commercialization
    3. 3.3 Early Identification of Dual-Use Innovations
    4. 3.4 Increasing Technology Transfer Educational Opportunities Targeted to HEP Researchers
    5. 3.5 Public-Private Partnerships for Accelerating HEP Innovations
    6. 3.6 Extending Other Transaction Authority
    7. 3.7 Establishing an Entrepreneurial Leave Program
  4. A Appendix A: Fermilab Commercialization Process of HEP Technologies by Spin-offs or Start-ups
    1. A.1 IP Royalty
    2. A.2 Technology License
    3. A.3 Process of Requesting a License
    4. A.4 OPTT Process to Secure Authorization
    5. A.5 Educational Programs for FRA Inventors
    6. A.6 Accelerator Programs for FRA Inventors
  5. B Appendix B: KEK Commercialization Process of HEP Technologies by Start-ups
    1. B.1 IP Royalty
    2. B.2 Process of Requesting a License

## Executive Summary

To maximize the technology transfer potential, it is important to create an
ecosystem for the inventors to adapt the technologies developed for basic
science to successful commercial ventures. In this white paper we present a
brief overview of technology transfer programs at high energy physics (HEP)
laboratories with a focus on the programs at Fermilab and KEK. Upon evaluating
the opportunities, seven major recommendations are present for increasing
partnerships and commercialization at HEP-centric laboratories:

  * •

Aligning inventor royalty distribution policy across DOE

  * •

Engaging with partnership intermediaries to accelerate commercialization

  * •

Early identification of dual-use innovations

  * •

Increasing technology transfer educational opportunities targeted to HEP
researchers

  * •

Public-private partnerships for accelerating HEP innovations

  * •

Extending other transaction authority

  * •

Establishing an entrepreneurial leave program

##  1 Motivation

DOE National labs are engaged in cutting edge research for next generation
technologies to enable lofty goals set by experiments for basic science
discovery. The next generation of DOE facilities for Colliders, Neutrinos,
Astrophysics, etc. not only require demonstration of new concepts but also
necessitate at-scale prototyping. While on one hand universities are focused
on surpassing the state-of-art, industry on the other hand is focused on
quality and repeatability.

DOE experiments provide the motivation to go beyond proof of concept and
manufacture at mid-scale, which can eventually lead to establishing a path for
commercial production. Manufacturing for experiments increases the technology
readiness level as well as making the process robust and cost effective. Hence
DOE experiments and applications are a key driver of lab to fab innovation.

In order to maximize the technology transfer potential, it is important to
create an ecosystem where the technology inventors can create and sustain
spin-offs/startups. Adapting the technologies developed for basic science to
successful commercial ventures is a long and arduous process. In this white
paper we evaluate the opportunities that can be made available to foster and
sustain technology transfer.

##  2 Example Commercialization Processes of HEP Technologies by Spin-offs or
Start-ups

###  2.1 Fermilab Commercialization Process

IP created by a Fermilab employee as part of their employment contract is
owned by Fermi Research Alliance (FRA), the management and operating
contractor at Fermilab. The inventor/employee benefits by sharing in the
royalty proceeds from licensing the invention: the inventors get a percentage
(after patent expenses) of the revenue received by FRA.

For a national lab inventor to request a license from a national lab, after
there has been an invention disclosure and the IP has been secured (filed
patent application or asserted copyright) by the Office of Partnerships and
Technology Transfer (OPTT) at Fermilab, the first step is for the inventors to
connect with OPTT to discuss commercialization options. Some inventions are
better suited for established companies. Other inventions are well suited for
a startup. Startups usually reduce risk and uncertainty on a commercial space
that is unclear at the time of the license.

A license requester should be aware of the difference between an “option to
negotiate a license” and a “license”. An option to negotiate a license (or
“Option”) is a promise not to license to another person/entity during a
specific amount of time (usually six months to a year). It is common for an
inventor to first secure an Option with a specific goal (write a business
plan, secure team, etc.) and then obtain a license to the technology.

Various licensing terms may be negotiated, including both exclusive and
nonexclusive license grants. Exclusive licenses may be in certain fields of
use, geographic areas, or according to other terms. Co-exclusive and partially
exclusive licenses, where exclusive rights to commercialize a technology may
be shared by several organizations or restricted by area of use, territory, or
other terms, also may be granted. For example, one company may obtain
exclusive rights to use an invention in the energy industry, while another
exclusively licenses the same invention for application in the food industry.

FRA must perform an encumbrance review to ensure the IP is available for
licensing generally and the requested license specifically. The Laboratory
performs due diligence to ensure the proposed license arrangement does not
impinge on its contractual obligations, such as existing license agreements or
options to license.

More details of the Fermilab commercialization process can be found in
Appendix A.

###  2.2 KEK Commercialization Process

KEK is established as an Inter-University Research Institute, so there are
many programs that enable university researchers’ access to KEK technologies
and expertise. Funding of major projects are coming directly from Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) to KEK. KEK can
afford travel expenses of university researcher, and the researchers can
access most of KEK equipment, facility in principle. KEK (Tsukuba campus) is
located in Tsukuba Science City where 150 national and private
laboratories/universities are accumulated. Thus, many kinds of collaborating
activities exist.

One of such activity is Tsukuba Innovation Arena (TIA, https://www.tia-
nano.jp/page/
dir000002.html). TIA is an open innovation hub operated by 6 public
organizations: the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and
Technology (AIST), the National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS), the
University of Tsukuba, the University of Tokyo, Tohoku University and KEK. To
drive innovation in Japan, these six stellar organizations of TIA collaborate
and compile their resources for R&D (e.g., researchers, facilities, and
intellectual property) and support the creation of knowledge and its
application in industry. TIA also fosters next-generation scientists and
engineers. TIA is supported by Keidanren (Japan Business Federation).

Most technologies developed at KEK are published and accessible to the public,
according to tradition in the high-energy physics fields. However, in recent
days, protection of the technology with patents is required to promote
collaboration with industry.

At first, the inventor has to report any inventions to the Intellectual
Property and Partnership Office “IPPO” at KEK. Then the invention is evaluated
by an Intellectual Property committee. If it is determined that the invention
is part of KEK’s employee’s contract and has commercial potential, then the
right of the IP is transferred from the inventor to KEK.

A non-exclusive license may be obtained by companies for KEK owned patents. If
the patents are obtained in collaboration with a company and shared, exclusive
license is permitted to the company for a limited period.

For the joint patent case, KEK requests non-implementation compensation and/or
payment of cost related to the patent application and maintenance to the
company. It is very hard to get large amount of license fees. Instead of
getting the license fees, we think KEK owned patents are beneficial to get
external funding and promote collaboration with companies. Since 2013, the
government has placed University Research Administrators (URA) at KEK and many
universities. URA attempts to connect inventions by researchers to industry
sectors.

More details of the KEK commercialization process can be found in Appendix B.

##  3 Recommendations for increasing partnerships and commercialization

###  3.1 Aligning Inventor Royalty Distribution Policy Across DOE

Inventor royalty distribution policy varies across the DOE complex. Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
distribute 35% of their net royalties to the inventors. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) distribute
roughly 15%, differing with respect to that which is netted out prior to
dispensation. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) distributes 20% of its
royalties to the inventor(s) [1].

Fermilab’s policy directs 50% of annual net royalties below $10,000, and 25%
of net royalties in excess of $10,000, to the inventor(s). This policy is
favorable to the inventor(s) when expected annual royalties are modest. If,
however, forecasted annual royalties are greater than $10,000, the expected
inventor share in licensing proceeds will approach 25%.

A proposed consistent royalty distribution might entail 34% to the
inventor(s), 33% to the inventor’s division, and 33% to the Laboratory. The
royalty portion distributed to the Laboratory or Division might be used to
support HEP opportunities, consortium investments, rewards programs,
technology maturation to further the technology transfer mission, and
innovation/entrepreneurship educational opportunities for Laboratory staff.

###  3.2 Engaging with Partnership Intermediaries to Accelerate
Commercialization

The majority of US DOE national laboratories that support high-energy physics
facilities are small multi-program or single purpose laboratories that have
limited resources available to support Technology Transfer (TT) and
commercialization activities. The resource allocations for TT staff are
generally proportional to other administrative support functions at these
laboratories. However, commercial impact and viability is unrelated to
laboratory size. Disruptive technologies can be created regardless of lab
funding, program portfolio diversity or technology transfer support staffing.

A Partnership Intermediary (PI) is a non-profit entity with specialized skills
that can assist federal agencies and laboratories in TT and commercialization
functions. The use of a PI is authorized under US Title 15 U.S.C. §3715 and is
defined as “a State or local government, or a nonprofit entity owned in whole
or in part by, chartered by, funded in whole or in part by, or operated in
whole or in part by or on behalf of a State or local government, that assists,
counsels, advises, evaluates, or otherwise cooperates with small business
firms, institutions of higher education” and “educational institutions.”

Pilot programs funded in the past by the Department of Energy Office of
Technology Transitions (OTT) [2] to evaluate how a PI could interface with
high-energy physics funded national laboratories showed some promise in
assessing technologies for market pull, marketing technologies which are
innovated in high-energy physics research areas, and matchmaking technologies
at national labs with entrepreneurs in private industry who are interested in
taking high-energy physics innovations from the laboratory to the market.
These intermediaries can provide support to accelerate innovation and
commercialization from laboratories.

###  3.3 Early Identification of Dual-Use Innovations

Many of the innovations generated in high-energy physics facilities are
developed and designed primarily to support facility construction and
instrument design. However, a number of these innovations have what are called
“dual-uses”, meaning that the innovations have applications in several other
fields and concepts of operation outside their intended use. For example,
physics-based AI algorithms developed to identify anomalies in large data
streams from high-energy physics experiments may have a range of applications
in data analytics and autonomy.

Working with technology transfer entities, scientists and engineers developing
new technologies can identify “dual-use” application cases where inventions
identified early can proactively develop market analysis and case studies to
support leveraging and commercializing technologies in areas beyond their
immediate use. Many of the barriers to capturing innovation from high-energy
physics technology areas come from limited funds to pursue patents
effectively, which requires technology transfer and laboratory leadership to
evaluate innovations on their return on investment (ROI) and pull from the
marketplace. Developing value propositions and market analysis upfront on
innovations with identified potential applications beyond their original
intended use can accelerate acceptance and impact in the marketplace.

###  3.4 Increasing Technology Transfer Educational Opportunities Targeted to
HEP Researchers

A gap currently exists in many of the national laboratories in education of
scientists and engineers working in high-energy physics facilities on the
basics of technology transfer and intellectual property. While national
programs such as I-Corps are reaching many of the innovators in applied
research areas where the link between innovation and market products are quite
clear, more support is required for high-energy physics researchers to help
them understand the relevance of their innovations in the broader marketplace.

Providing educational opportunities to ramp up to an I-Corps level of
engagement for high-energy physics researchers would be a great opportunity to
provide the building blocks to researchers to enable more engagement in
capturing innovations. An intermediate step may be adoption of an I-Corps
”Lite” program which has demonstrated success at other labs where time
commitments and fewer resources constrain participation in a full I-Corps
program. Where researchers and TT staff have sufficient interest and
engagement to justify coverage of abbreviated I-Corps content, a ”Lite”
program may be a useful to step encourage thinking about intellectual property
and technology commercialization concepts. Discussions on the types of
intellectual property (ex. patents, copyrights), rights afforded to
researchers from their innovations, and the mechanisms to engage with industry
to advance their technologies would provide valuable resources and
perspectives

###  3.5 Public-Private Partnerships for Accelerating HEP Innovations

A major barrier with market proliferation of high-energy physics innovation is
the decreasing pool of companies who have the business models, infrastructure,
and capabilities to develop and manufacture the technologies evolving out of
the laboratories. Specifically, in technology areas such as accelerators, US
federal program managers have proposed developing public-private partnerships
to foster and support small and large technology businesses who collaborate
with the laboratories and serve as commercialization partners for critical
technologies developed as part of facilities and experiments in high-energy
physics. These public-private partnerships could serve as both advocacy and
economic development entities for high-energy physics derived technologies, as
well as matchmakers which aid companies and laboratories in forming
collaborations which lead to commercialization outcomes.

###  3.6 Extending Other Transaction Authority

DOE has created a number of tools the labs can use to collaborate with
industry, including Strategic Partnership Projects (SPPs), Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), User Facility Agreements,
Agreements for Commercializing Technology (ACTs), and direct technology
licensing through its technology transfer offices. However, a heretofore
underutilized tool is the Other Transaction Authority (OTA).

An Other Transaction (OT) is a special mechanism used by federal agencies for
obtaining or advancing R&D or prototypes; it is not a contract, grant, or
cooperative agreement, and there is no statutory or regulatory definition of
“Other Transaction.” OTA is valuable in cases where the government needs to
obtain R&D and prototypes from commercial sources, but the companies equipped
to provide them are unwilling or unable to comply with the government’s
procurement regulations. The government’s procurement regulations and certain
procurement statutes do not apply to OTs; thus, OTA gives agencies the
requisite flexibility to develop agreements tailored to a particular
engagement.

While the Energy Policy Act of 2005 granted OTA to DOE at the agency level, it
failed to authorize the labs to use it. OTA could be offered as a unique
authority provided by DOE to the labs that can enable HEP to showcase a more
effective model for technology transition— but drive it at the local
laboratory level, where the interaction with industry is vital for success.
OTA is an ideal mechanism to help labs better identify market needs and become
more valuable to the private sector because it can establish a formalized
relationship where both parties have “skin in the game” early on in the
research process, so markets can be better understood for deployment of
technology. For example, under Stevenson Wydler, laboratory partners cannot be
funded by means of a CRADA. Thus, CRADA partners, if they are to be funded,
must enter procurement subcontracts with the laboratories, which not only
introduces another complex agreement to the partnership, but potentially
disparate terms and conditions. Because OTA is merely defined in the negative,
an OT can be crafted to function much like a CRADA, but without the
prohibition of funds-out.

Additionally, OTA has been used successfully in other agencies such as the
Department of Defense to construct consortium arrangements with multiple
parties. These consortia establish an interested and engaged set of
stakeholders early on in a technology lifecycle, which can then lead to a set
of potential partners for further collaboration or even vendors who could
manufacture the technology in the future.

Current mechanisms (e.g., CRADAs and SPPs) don’t engage the deployment /
commercialization community early enough in the development process. As a
result, industry does not have enough incentive to be part of the process in
defining the deployment model. Having agency funding tied to OTA and a funds-
out collaborative agreement keeps the critical researchers involved, as well
as a partner— but can call out specific performance deliverables related to
transition that the agency funding the OTA could request. Furthermore, the OTA
allows for negotiation of onerous federal contract provisions that often keep
companies from doing business with the federal government. Therefore, HEP
could be “open for business” with non-traditional federal contractors who
otherwise would not be willing to do business with DOE.

Additionally, a collaborative mechanism with bilateral flow of funds better
ensures the risk of failing to commercialize the technology is not carried
exclusively by the industry partner, but also by the laboratory. HEP could
fund projects that authorize use of funds-out collaborative agreements with
industry partners that then leverage federal funds as well as industry in-kind
contributions. The OTA includes provisions and milestones for performance that
can include: prototype development, delivery, market scope definition,
deployment models, etc., which are elements not included in R&D subcontracts.
With requirements as part of the funding mechanism (along with provisions with
respect to intellectual property), both parties are focused early in the
research process on moving a national lab technology to deployment.

Because OTA affords flexibility not available in other agreements, HEP can set
expectations about technology transition but drive the activity at the
research/partnership level rather than the agency level. This will enable
tailoring of an arrangement most suitable for the technology and the market in
which the technology will be deployed, with terms and conditions that reflect
the risks and potential reward chain available to the industry partner.

###  3.7 Establishing an Entrepreneurial Leave Program

An Entrepreneurial Leave Program (ELP) allows employees to take a leave of
absence or separation from the laboratory in order to start or join a new
company. ELPs encourage startup activities by reducing the risks faced by the
employee entrepreneur. Some elements of an ELP may include business
preparation / training, a means for licensing laboratory IP, continuity of
health benefits during leave, and a mechanism for returning to work.

ELPs are not implemented consistently across the DOE complex; some
laboratories have ELPs while others do not. A harmonized ELP could help to
attract and retain talented staff to the national laboratories by drawing
entrepreneurial candidates to the laboratories and providing a path for
returning to work. By facilitating a return to the laboratory, DOE brings
these unique entrepreneurial experiences back into the Federal R&D network. A
survey of lab ELP policies is available [3].

## References

  * [1] D. Koker and J.M. Micheau, “Federal Technology Transfer Requirements: A Focused Study of Principal Agencies Approaches with Implications for the Department of Homeland Security,” U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information Technical Report, July 2006. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/889004
  * [2] C. Asmail, “DOE Promotes Innovative Practices to Accelerate the Commercialization of Technologies (PACT) at the National Labs,” UIDPCONNECT Sep. 2020. https://uidp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/09-DOE-OTT-Pact-FINAL.pdf
  * [3] P. Atherton, “Implementing an Entrepreneurial Leave Program (ELP),” Summer Meeting of the Technology Transfer Working Group (TTWG), June 2015.
https://indico.fnal.gov/event/9818/contributions/116035/attachments/75245/90247/
TTWG_ELP_White_Paper_Atherton_Sandia_6-8-15.pdf

  * [4] A. Sauers, “How to License,” Fermilab Partnerships and Technology Transfer, 2016. https://partnerships.fnal.gov/licensing/how-license/
  * [5] A. Sauers, “Licensing Guidelines,” Fermilab Partnerships and Technology Transfer, 2016. https://partnerships.fnal.gov/licensing/licensing-guidelines/

##  Appendix A Appendix A: Fermilab Commercialization Process of HEP
Technologies by Spin-offs or Start-ups

###  A.1 IP Royalty

The minimum royalty percentage required by US statute to be given to an
inventor is 15%. Technology transfer legislation also mandates that each
federal agency that spends more than $50 million per fiscal year on R&D shall
develop a cash awards program to reward researchers for their innovations. As
a Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) facility, Fermilab has greater
freedom in the way it distributes royalties; however, its current policies
remain close to the federally mandated regulations. FRA inventor employees
share 50% of net royalties (after direct expenses) on annual net royalties
below $10,000. If annual net royalties are $10,000 or greater, the inventor
employees share $5,000 of the first $10,000 in net royalties and 25% of net
royalties in excess of $10,000. In cases for which Fermilab negotiates
recovery of patent costs from the licensee as a distinct payment (e.g.
exclusive licenses), patent expenses are not deducted from gross royalties
prior to sharing of the proceeds.

###  A.2 Technology License

A technology license is a contract that details rights and obligations.
Licenses can differ greatly depending on the type of technology and the type
of rights requested. For more information, please see:

https://partnerships.fnal.gov/licensing/licensing-guidelines/

https://www.autm.net/AUTMMain/media/ThirdEditionPDFs/V4/
TTP_V4_AnatomyLicense.pdf

There is a term “U.S. Government retained license” in the first link above.
Through a series of landmark legislative acts in the 1980s (e.g. the Bayh-Dole
Act), universities and contractors operating national laboratories were
authorized to retain title to inventions created using federal funding, pursue
patent protection, and license those inventions to third parties. These
regulations also stipulate government rights, including the right of the US
Government to use the inventions for its own internal purposes (U.S.
Government retained license) and Licensee obligations, for example to
substantially manufacture in the U.S. for U.S. products for exclusive
licenses. For an interesting article on this subject please check:
https://www.bnl.gov/techtransfer/docs/TTWG-LicensingGuide.pdf

###  A.3 Process of Requesting a License

FRA Management will ensure widespread notice of the availability of
technologies suited for transfer and opportunities for exclusive licensing
through the Fermilab website and will invite comments submitted by interested
parties. In addition, notice of exclusive licenses may be provided by other
media such as: publication, participation in conferences, exhibitions, or
competitive solicitations.

If Fermilab’s Management determines that there has not been a sufficient
period of notice given to establish fairness, or that based upon the evidence
and argument submitted in writing by a third party that it would not be in the
best interest of the general public, FRA/Fermilab and the United States
Department of Energy to grant the exclusive or partially exclusive licenses, a
written notice of such decision shall be documented and provided to the third
party.

FRA Management reserves the right to extend the notice period if it determines
the circumstances warrant additional opportunities for notice and comment are
necessary to meet its obligation of fairness of opportunity under its DOE
Contract.

An inventor’s team can portray credibility of commercial intent by having a
commercialization plan. The inventor understands that it usually takes a team
with diverse skills (technical, financial, legal, etc.) to commercialize an
invention. It also requires time and resources. The commercialization plan
will outline the resources needed, how these resources will be obtained and
the timeline of how they will be deployed to reach well defined milestones.

The Laboratory requires a commercialization plan from all its prospective
licensees before licensing its intellectual property. The plan better enables
the Laboratory and the prospective licensee to determine and characterize the
business fit between their interests. The commercialization plan also provides
information for the Laboratory to use in assessing the prospective licensee’s
intent and plan to achieve commercial use of the Laboratory Intellectual
Property. Finally, the plan provides the Laboratory input on its calculation
of value of the intellectual property to both Parties and the type of rights
that the startup needs in the license (e.g. what type of Field of Use? Or what
type of Territory?) [4].

Fermilab licensing royalties are comparable to those charged by universities,
other research organizations and the private sector. Licenses usually require
an upfront, nonrefundable payment, royalty payments based on sales, and a
minimum annual royalty. The fees will vary depending on the number of
patents/copyrights licensed, the demand for the technology and the exclusivity
of the license. Licensees obtaining foreign rights may be asked to pay the
cost of preparing, filing and prosecuting foreign patent applications, and the
maintenance of all resulting foreign patents .

FRA can accept equity in lieu of up-front payments in the license. While FRA
can accept equity as consideration for grant of IP rights, it favors phantom
stock provisions over equity. Phantom stock may generally take the form of a
milestone payment tied to company valuation. Phantom stock may be useful when
working with startup companies without the ability to commit significant cash
outlays for both developmental and licensing costs (e.g. patenting costs
and/or licensing fee).

###  A.4 OPTT Process to Secure Authorization

Many startups would require an exclusive license (at least in a relevant field
of use) in order to secure funding from investors. If that is the case and an
exclusive license is requested, FRA will need to make sure that there is
“fairness of opportunity” for other entities to be able to compete for the
license. Fermilab’s OPTT will ensure widespread notice of the availability of
the technology suited for transfer through the Fermilab website. In addition,
notice of exclusive licenses may be provided by other media such as:
publication, participation in conferences, exhibitions, or competitive
solicitations [5].

FRA may grant exclusive or partially exclusive licenses in any invention only
if the invention has been published for licensing for a period of at least
thirty (30) days. After the thirty (30) day notice period, FRA Management will
determine whether:

  * •

The interests of the general public, FRA/Fermilab and the United States
Department of Energy will be best served by the proposed license; and,

  * •

It does not appear that the desired practical or commercial application has
been or will be achieved on a nonexclusive basis; and that,

  * •

Exclusive or partially exclusive licensing is a reasonable and necessary
incentive to call forth the risk capital and expenses necessary to bring the
invention to the point of practical or commercial application.

Besides making sure that there is fairness of opportunity, FRA will also need
to make sure that there is no conflict of interest, as described below.

Conflict of interests need to be reviewed prior to providing a license to an
employee inventor. Examples of conflict of interest may arise when there is an
invention related to a collaboration, was created under contract, or is
related with the employee’s prior employment.

DOE’s Fermi Site Office Contracting Officer needs to sign-off any requests for
licenses by FRA employees and any individual who has been a Laboratory
employee within the previous two years or to the company in which the
individual is a principal.

The Laboratory must ensure it both has the rights it intends to license and is
able to provide those rights to the requester. As a result, the Laboratory may
take steps to perfect its rights prior to a proposed licensing arrangement. In
addition, intellectual property may be encumbered by existing license
agreements or options to license.

###  A.5 Educational Programs for FRA Inventors

FRA is a partnership between the University of Chicago and the Universities
Research Association (URA). The fact that University of Chicago is part of the
management of FRA gives FRA employees the ability to take advantage of many
educational and entrepreneurial resources provided by University of Chicago.
For example, FRA entrepreneurs can participate in:

  * •

Polsky I-CORPS (https://polsky.uchicago.edu/programs-events/polsky-i-corps/),

  * •

Collaboratorium (https://polsky.uchicago.edu/programs-
events/collaboratorium/),

  * •

free non-credit classes like the Intro to Venture Capital
(https://polsky.uchicago.edu/event/application-deadline-intro-to-venture-
capital/).

FRA employees may also participate in:

  * •

DOE’s Energy I-CORPS (https://energyicorps.energy.gov),

  * •

FRA’s Practicum (https://news.fnal.gov/2020/03/fy20-entrepreneurship-
and-commercialization-practicum-new-schedule/),

  * •

and/or discuss with OPTT about other possible options.

###  A.6 Accelerator Programs for FRA Inventors

Once you secure a license to the technology, you’re free to join any startup
accelerator in the nation that you want. DOE hosts three accelerators that
specialize in energy and hard tech:

  * •

Chain Reaction Innovation at Argonne National Lab
(https://chainreaction.anl.gov/program/)

  * •

Innovation Crossroads at Oak Ridge National Lab
(https://innovationcrossroads.ornl.gov)

  * •

Cyclotron Road at Berkeley Lab (https://cyclotronroad.lbl.gov)

All FRA entrepreneurs are encouraged to learn about these programs as part of
their commercialization journey.

For FRA inventors who wish to take time-off to work in their startup, FRA does
not currently have a standard Entrepreneurial Leave Program but has and will
continue to entertain requests for sabbatical or reduced employment hours on a
case-by-case basis.

##  Appendix B Appendix B: KEK Commercialization Process of HEP Technologies
by Start-ups

###  B.1 IP Royalty

The inventors get a percentage (after patent expenses) of the revenue received
by KEK. KEK inventors share 40% of net royalties personally or they can use
65% to 95% of net royalties as research fund. They can also select both the
personal and the research options at the same time. In addition, they will
receive around 15,000 Japanese Yen (the exact amount depends on number of
claims and inventors) when the patent is admitted at the Patent office.

###  B.2 Process of Requesting a License

If an inventor starts a venture company which utilize the invention, KEK will
admit and give several supports to the company, such as office space,
exclusive patent license, and permission of using KEK name etc. Many
inventions are shared patents with collaborating companies. In this case, KEK
request non-implementation compensation to the company, or ask all the patent-
related fee to the company or negotiate paid transfer of the patent.

As for the independent patent, IPPO and inventors try to find interested
companies. Although it is not easy to find interested company, companies
working around the inventor may show interest in some case.

KEK can accept equity as consideration for grant of IP rights but there is no
such case happened up to now.

If a venture company is established by KEK employees for the technology
transfer of their invention, KEK can support the company after examination.
The support term is 5 years and it can be extended another 5 years if it is
admitted as necessary. The supported venture company can use the name of ’KEK
venture’ and KEK space/equipment. They can get exclusive license of their
invention and preferential treatment.

Examples of recent IPs licensed to companies or jointly invented are shown
below:

  * •

IPs related to Non-Evaporable Getter (NEG) for vacuum pump,

  * •

IPs related to super-conducting magnet,

  * •

IPs related to super-conducting RF accelerating chamber,

  * •

IPs related to ultra-low temperature device,

  * •

IPs related to making cathode/target material,

  * •

IPs related to making SOI pixel detector,

  * •

Low power oscillator circuit.


divergence that is adjoined to the second parabola takes a large detour to
high $r$ values and then goes back to the parabola pair at negative $U<0$.

To investigate the pseudo-divergences at $U=0$ we just have to consider the
bubble term $\chi_{0}$ of the susceptibility. The bubble term in the spin
index space is definite as

$\displaystyle\chi_{0,\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}^{\nu,\nu^{\prime}\\!,\,\omega}=-\beta
G_{\sigma}(\nu)G_{\sigma}(\nu+\omega)\delta_{\nu\nu^{\prime}}\delta_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}},$
(102)
$\displaystyle\chi_{0,\overline{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}}^{\nu,\nu^{\prime}\\!,\,\omega}=-\beta
G_{\sigma}(\nu)G_{\sigma^{\prime}}(\nu+\omega)\delta_{\nu\nu^{\prime}},$ (103)
$\displaystyle\chi_{0,\overline{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}},\text{pp}}^{\nu,\nu^{\prime}\\!,\,\omega}=-\beta
G_{\sigma}(\nu)G_{\sigma^{\prime}}(\omega-\nu)\delta_{\nu\nu^{\prime}}$ (104)

for the longitudinal and transversal spin channel in ph and pp frequency
convention. $\chi_{0}$ in the longitudinal channel reads

$\displaystyle\chi_{0,\text{L}}=\begin{pmatrix}\chi_{0,\uparrow\uparrow}+\chi_{0,\downarrow\downarrow}&\chi_{0,\uparrow\uparrow}-\chi_{0,\downarrow\downarrow}\\\
\chi_{0,\uparrow\uparrow}-\chi_{0,\downarrow\downarrow}&\chi_{0,\uparrow\uparrow}+\chi_{0,\downarrow\downarrow}\end{pmatrix}.$
(105)

Note that $\chi_{0,\text{L}}$ is only diagonal for $SU(2)_{S}$ symmetric
systems, but can be diagonalized by

$\displaystyle
P\chi_{0,\text{L}}P=\begin{pmatrix}\chi_{0,\uparrow\uparrow}&\mathbb{0}\\\
\mathbb{0}&\chi_{0,\downarrow\downarrow}\end{pmatrix}\quad\text{with}\quad
P=\begin{pmatrix}\mathbb{1}&\mathbb{1}\\\
\mathbb{1}&-\mathbb{1}\end{pmatrix},$ (106)

where $P$ transforms from the spin index basis to the longitudinal (physical)
channel. Further, the bubble terms for the transversal spin and the pairing
channel are defined as

$\displaystyle\chi_{0,S_{x}}=\chi_{0,\overline{\uparrow\downarrow}}+\chi_{0,\overline{\downarrow\uparrow}},$
(107)
$\displaystyle\chi_{0,\text{pair}}=-\chi_{0,\overline{\uparrow\downarrow},\text{pp}}-\Big{(}\chi_{0,\overline{\downarrow\uparrow},\text{pp}}\Big{)}^{*}.$
(108)

By replacing $G_{\sigma}$ with $G_{0,\sigma}$ and by solving for
Re($\chi_{0}$)$=0$ we find the pseudo-divergences for $U=0$ and $\omega=0$.
The resulting conditions for the different channels are the following:

$\displaystyle\chi_{0,\uparrow\uparrow}:\quad
r=\frac{\nu}{\sqrt{1-2\cos{\alpha}\sin{\alpha}}},$ (109)
$\displaystyle\chi_{0,\downarrow\downarrow}:\quad
r=\frac{\nu}{\sqrt{1+2\cos{\alpha}\sin{\alpha}}},$ (110)

$\displaystyle\chi_{0,S_{x}}:\quad
r=\frac{\nu}{\sqrt{(\cos{\alpha})^{2}-(\sin{\alpha})^{2}}},$ (111)
$\displaystyle\chi_{0,\text{pair}}:\quad
r=\frac{\nu}{\sqrt{(\sin{\alpha})^{2}-(\cos{\alpha})^{2}}}.$ (112)

Therefore, for $\chi_{0,\uparrow\uparrow}$ and $\chi_{0,\downarrow\downarrow}$
two pseudo-divergences cross the $U=0$ axis for almost all values of $\alpha$
except for $\alpha=45^{\circ}$ where only the pseudo-divergences of
$\chi_{0,\downarrow\downarrow}$ are present at $U=0$. By transforming the
eigenvectors back in the space of the longitudinal channel we find that all
pseudo-divergences at $U=0$ are maximally “mixed”
$(\mathcal{N}_{\text{c}}=\mathcal{N}_{\text{s}}=0.5)$.

In the transversal spin channels, pseudo-divergences cross the $U=0$ axis only
for $0^{\circ}\leq\alpha<45^{\circ}$ and for the pairing channel only for
$45^{\circ}<\alpha\leq 90^{\circ}$.