DOCSLIB.ORG

Technology Advancing Phobos Exploration and Return March 29

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Technology Advancing Phobos Exploration and Return March 29 TAPER Technology Advancing Phobos Exploration and Return March 29, 2013 Contents List of Figures ...................................... v List of Tables ....................................... viii Glossary ......................................... ix Team Explorer ...................................... xii Abstract .......................................... xi 1 Introduction ..................................... 1 1.1 ProblemStatement ............................... 1 1.2 Inspiration.................................... 2 1.3 Context ..................................... 2 1.3.1 TheCurrent andFutureState ofSpace Exploration . ...... 2 1.3.2 MajorContributors . 3 1.3.2.1 SpaceAgencies. 3 1.3.2.2 ThePrivateSpaceIndustry. 3 1.3.3 StepTowardsHumanExplorationofMars . 4 2 TAPER Program Overview ............................. 5 2.1 TechnologyDemonstrations . 6 2.1.1 KnowledgeGaps ............................ 6 2.1.2 ExpectedResearch . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 2.2 PrecursorMission:TAPER0 . 8 2.2.1 TechnologyDemonstrations . 8 3 TAPER 1 Mission Overview ............................. 10 3.1 MissionStatement................................ 10 3.2 PrimaryObjectives ............................... 10 3.3 SecondaryObjectives .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 3.4 Requirements .................................. 11 3.5 MissionArchitecture .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 3.6 MajorDesignChoices.............................. 13 3.6.1 Phobosvs.Deimos ........................... 13 3.6.2 Conjunctionvs.OppositionClass . 14 3.6.3 LaunchDates .............................. 15 3.6.4 VehicleSelection . 16 i CONTENTS 3.6.4.1 DeepSpaceHabitat . 16 3.6.4.2 CrewVehicle. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17 3.6.4.3 PhobosExplorer . 18 3.6.5 PropulsionSystemSelection . 19 4 Science ........................................ 21 4.1 Context ..................................... 21 4.2 Science Objectives for Surface Operations . ........ 21 4.2.1 MissionCriticalScienceObjectives . .... 22 4.2.2 Additional high-priorityscience objectives . ......... 24 4.3 LandingSites .................................. 24 4.4 SciencePayload................................. 25 4.4.1 Insituinstruments . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 25 4.4.2 Additionalscienceinstruments . ... 28 4.5 OpportunitiesforSciencewhileinTransit . ........ 29 4.5.1 In-flightsampleanalysis . 29 4.5.2 Radiationexperiments . 30 4.5.3 Intransitastrophysics. 30 5 Operations ...................................... 31 5.1 PhaseI:LEOAssemblyOperations. ... 31 5.2 PhaseII:PhobosTransitOperations . ..... 31 5.2.1 CrewActivities ............................. 31 5.3 PhaseIII:PhobosVicinityOperations . ...... 33 5.3.1 SurfaceControlOperations. 33 5.3.2 RemoteControlOperations. 35 5.4 PhaseIV:EarthReturnOperations . .... 35 5.5 PhaseV:SustainedPhobosScience. .... 36 6 Engineering ...................................... 37 6.1 Launch...................................... 37 6.1.1 Overview ................................ 37 6.1.2 LaunchVehicle(s). 37 6.2 Transit...................................... 38 6.2.1 OutboundCrewTrajectory . 39 6.2.1.1 InterplanetaryTrajectory . 39 6.2.1.2 MarsIntermediateOrbit . 44 6.2.1.3 PhobosOrbit ......................... 47 6.2.2 InboundCrewTrajectory . 48 6.2.2.1 MarsVicinity. 48 ii CONTENTS 6.2.2.2 InterplanetaryTrajectory . 48 6.2.2.3 AbortScenarios . 49 6.3 Re-entry..................................... 50 6.4 Spacecraft.................................... 50 6.4.1 SubsystemOverview . 50 6.4.2 Introduction............................... 50 6.4.2.1 AODCS&GNC ....................... 50 6.4.2.2 Command&DataHandling . 51 6.4.2.3 Communications . 51 6.4.2.4 ECLSS ............................ 52 6.4.2.5 Power............................. 52 6.4.2.6 Propulsion .......................... 52 6.4.2.7 StructuralDesignandLayout . 53 6.4.2.8 ThermalControl . 53 6.4.3 DeepSpaceVehicle. 54 6.4.3.1 Overview........................... 54 6.4.3.2 AODCSandGNC .. .. .. .. .. .. 56 6.4.3.3 Communications . 56 6.4.3.4 ECLSS ............................ 56 6.4.3.5 Power............................. 57 6.4.3.6 Propulsion .......................... 57 6.4.3.7 StructuralDesignandLayout . 58 6.4.3.8 ThermalControl . 60 6.4.4 PhobosSurfaceExplorer . 61 6.4.4.1 AODCSandGNC .. .. .. .. .. .. 62 6.4.4.2 Communications . 62 6.4.4.3 ECLSS ............................ 62 6.4.4.4 Power............................. 62 6.4.4.5 Propulsion .......................... 63 6.4.4.6 StructuralDesignandLayout . 63 6.4.4.7 ThermalControl . 64 6.5 RoboticAssistance ............................... 64 6.5.1 Goals .................................. 64 6.5.2 RobotOverview............................. 65 6.5.2.1 Design ............................ 65 6.5.2.2 Instruments.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 65 6.5.2.3 Operation........................... 66 6.6 ECLSS...................................... 66 6.7 RiskAnalysisandMitigation . ... 70 iii CONTENTS 6.7.1 DesignMarginsandSafetyFactors. 72 7 Human Factors .................................... 73 7.1 CrewSizeandSelection. 73 7.1.1 PhysiologicalTests . 74 7.1.2 GeneticTests .............................. 75 7.1.3 PsychologicalTests . 75 7.2 RadiationProtection. 75 7.3 Physiology.................................... 77 7.3.1 Countermeasures . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 79 7.4 ClinicalMedicine ................................ 81 7.4.1 Telemedicine .............................. 82 7.4.2 3DMetalPrinting. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 83 7.4.3 SurgicalSuite.............................. 83 7.4.4 Psychology ............................... 84 8 Programmatic Considerations ........................... 86 8.1 Costing ..................................... 86 8.2 Risk ....................................... 86 8.2.1 DescopeOptions ............................ 87 8.3 PoliticalSustainability . .... 87 8.4 PlanetaryProtection. 87 8.5 PublicRelationsandOutreach . ... 88 8.5.1 InternationalCubeSatDesignCompetition . ...... 88 8.5.2 ExternalBiologyExperiment. 89 8.5.3 AstronautInterfacing . 89 8.5.4 VehicleNaming............................. 89 8.5.5 OnlineEducation . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 89 9 Conclusion ...................................... 91 A Answers to the Five Challenge Questions ..................... 93 B Mission Power and Link Budgets .......................... 104 C Mission Requirements ................................ 107 References ........................................ 110 iv List of Figures 1.1 ListoftechnologiesfromtheGER. .... 4 2.1 TheRoadMaptoMars.............................. 6 3.1 BATdiagramforTAPER1mission. 12 3.2 Mission ∆V and radiation estimates for different launch dates. 15 3.3 Bigelow Aerospace’s Inflatable Habitat Concept. ......... 16 3.4 Considered crew vehicles (Orion, Dragon and CTS-100). .......... 17 3.5 NASA’s Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV) Concept. ........ 18 3.6 SummaryofPropulsionTradeStudy. .... 19 5.1 Templateforatypicaldaycrewschedule. ...... 32 5.2 Template for a crew work break down for a typical day. ........ 32 5.3 Template for a crew schedule day during surface operations. ......... 33 5.4 Rendering of PSE surface operations (Photo credit: VictorDang). 34 5.5 Rendering of PSEP returning to DSV, leaving the PSE Habitat behind on the surfaceofPhobos(Photocredit: VictorDang). ...... 36 6.1 Overviewofoutboundcrewtrajectory. ...... 38 6.2 Overviewofinboundcrewtrajectory.. ...... 39 6.3 Total ∆V (in km/s, depicted in the colorbar) for Lambert Arc solutions in the year 2033 for flight times from 100 to 365 days, connecting the states of EarthandMars. ................................. 40 6.4 C3(in km2/s2, depicted in the colorbar) at Earth departure for Lambert Arc solutions in the year 2033 for flight times from 100 to 365 days, connecting thestatesofEarthandMars. 41 6.5 Total ∆V (in km/s, depicted in the colorbar) for Lambert Arc solutions in the year 2035 for flight times from 100 to 365 days, connecting the states of EarthandMars. ................................. 42 6.6 Total ∆V (in km/s, depicted in the colorbar) for return Lambert Arc solutions, given a 2033 launch year, for flight times from 100 to 365 days, connecting thestatesofMarsandEarth. 43 6.7 Arrival Earth velocity (in km/s, depicted in the colorbar) for return Lambert Arc solutions, given a 2033 launch year, for flight times from 100 to 365 days, connectingthestatesofMarsandEarth. ... 44 6.8 Total ∆V for return Lambert Arc solutions in the launch year 2035 for flight times from 100 to 365 days, connecting the states of Mars and Earth. 45 v LIST OF FIGURES 6.9 Interplanetary transfer arcs between Earth and Mars, as viewed in a Sun- centeredinertialframe. 46 6.10 Trajectory in the Martian system, viewed in a Mars-centered inertial frame. 46 6.11 Side view of trajectory in the Martian system, viewed in a Mars-centered inertialframe. .................................. 47 6.12 Representative diagram of sight access gaps from the location of the Mars- Phobos L1 to Earth during Phobos vicinity operations. Computed using STK 10......................................... 48 6.13 CAD model of assembled spacecraft, using SolidWorks. ........... 51 6.14PSEConcept. .................................. 54 6.15 ComponentMassTablefortheDSH. ... 55 6.16DSVlayout.................................... 55 6.17PowerBudgetTable. .............................. 57 6.18NTRperformance. ............................... 57 6.19HabitatLayout. ................................. 58 6.20 Crosssectionalviewofthehabitat1. ....... 59 6.21 Crosssectionalviewofthehabitat2. ....... 60 6.22Dragondesign. ................................. 60 6.23 MassbreakdownforthePSE.. 61 6.24 ECLSSpowerbudget... .. .. .. .. .. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Navigation Strategy for the Exomars Schiaparelli EDM Lander Mission
    Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Navigation Strategy for the ExoMars Schiaparelli EDM Lander Mission Premkumar R. Menon Sean V. Wagner, David C. Jefferson, Eric J. Graat, Kyong J. Lee, and William B. Schulze AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference San Antonio, Texas February 5–9, 2017 AAS Paper 17-337 © 2017 California Institute of Technology. Government Sponsorship Acknowledged. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Project Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (Mission, Spacecraft and PSO) The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter mission launched in August 2005 from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station arriving at Mars in March 2006 started science operations in November 2006. MRO has completed 10 years since launch (50,000 orbits by Mar 2017) and to date has returned nearly 300 Terabytes of data. MRO Primary Science Orbit (PSO): • Sun-synchronous orbit ascending node at 3:00 PM ± 15 minutes Local Mean Solar Time (LMST) (daylight equatorial crossing) • Periapsis is frozen about the Mars South Pole • Near-repeat ground track walk (GTW) every 17-day, 211 orbit (short-term repeat) MRO targeting cycle, exact repeat after 4602 orbits. The nominal GTW is 32.45811 km West each 211 orbit cycle (maintained with periodic maneuvers). MRO Spacecraft: • Spacecraft Bus: 3-axis stabilized ACS system; 3-meter diameter High Gain Antenna; hydrazine propulsion system • Instrument Suite: HiRISE Camera, CRISM Imaging spectrometer, Mars Climate Sounder, Mars Color Imager, Context Camera, Shallow Subsurface Radar, Electra engineering payload (among other instrument payloads) 2/07/17 MRO support of ExoMars Schiaparelli Lander Overflight Relay PRM-3 4. MRO shall have good overflight pass geometry within the first 2 Sols after landing.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA's Curiosity Rover Maximizes Data Sent to Earth by Using International Space Data Communication Standards
    Press Release For immediate release NASA's Curiosity Rover Maximizes Data Sent to Earth by Using International Space Data Communication Standards WASHINGTON, 22 August 2012 (CCSDS) – NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission began its planned 2-year Mars surface exploration mission on August 6 after landing its large, mobile laboratory called Curiosity. The goal of the mission is to assess whether Mars has ever had, or still has, environmental conditions favorable to microbial life. Curiosity, with its one-ton payload carrying capacity carries 10 science instruments that will gather samples of rocks and soil, and process and distribute them to onboard test chambers inside analytical instruments. Some of the rover’s scientific data, including images of the surface of Mars collected by Curiosity’s 17 onboard cameras, are sent directly to and from Earth via NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN) of large ground antennas. However, once Curiosity becomes fully operational most of the scientific and engineering data will be transferred via relay satellites that are in orbit around Mars. These are primarily the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) and the Mars Odyssey (ODY) spacecraft. The MSL Mars-Earth communications systems are using internationally-agreed space data communications standards to enable reliable transmission of the expected rich data sets to be gathered by Curiosity. These standards were developed by a team of international space data communication specialists collaborating within the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS). Use of internationally-agreed upon standards reduce cost and risk to space missions, and also offer rich “cross-support” capabilities to collaborate since key data interfaces are inherently interoperable.
    [Show full text]
  • Exomars Schiaparelli Direct-To-Earth Observation Using GMRT
    TECHNICAL ExoMars Schiaparelli Direct-to-Earth Observation REPORTS: METHODS 10.1029/2018RS006707 using GMRT S. Esterhuizen1, S. W. Asmar1 ,K.De2, Y. Gupta3, S. N. Katore3, and B. Ajithkumar3 Key Point: • During ExoMars Landing, GMRT 1Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA, 2Cahill Center for Astrophysics, observed UHF transmissions and California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA, 3National Centre for Radio Astrophysics, Pune, India Doppler shift used to identify key events as only real-time aliveness indicator Abstract During the ExoMars Schiaparelli separation event on 16 October 2016 and Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) events 3 days later, the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT) near Pune, India, Correspondence to: S. W. Asmar, was used to directly observe UHF transmissions from the Schiaparelli lander as they arrive at Earth. The [email protected] Doppler shift of the carrier frequency was measured and used as a diagnostic to identify key events during EDL. This signal detection at GMRT was the only real-time aliveness indicator to European Space Agency Citation: mission operations during the critical EDL stage of the mission. Esterhuizen, S., Asmar, S. W., De, K., Gupta, Y., Katore, S. N., & Plain Language Summary When planetary missions, such as landers on the surface of Mars, Ajithkumar, B. (2019). ExoMars undergo critical and risky events, communications to ground controllers is very important as close to real Schiaparelli Direct-to-Earth observation using GMRT. time as possible. The Schiaparelli spacecraft attempted landing in 2016 was supported in an innovative way. Radio Science, 54, 314–325. A large radio telescope on Earth was able to eavesdrop on information being sent from the lander to other https://doi.org/10.1029/2018RS006707 spacecraft in orbit around Mars.
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
    Chapter 6 Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Jim Taylor, Dennis K. Lee, and Shervin Shambayati 6.1 Mission Overview The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) [1, 2] has a suite of instruments making observations at Mars, and it provides data-relay services for Mars landers and rovers. MRO was launched on August 12, 2005. The orbiter successfully went into orbit around Mars on March 10, 2006 and began reducing its orbit altitude and circularizing the orbit in preparation for the science mission. The orbit changing was accomplished through a process called aerobraking, in preparation for the “science mission” starting in November 2006, followed by the “relay mission” starting in November 2008. MRO participated in the Mars Science Laboratory touchdown and surface mission that began in August 2012 (Chapter 7). MRO communications has operated in three different frequency bands: 1) Most telecom in both directions has been with the Deep Space Network (DSN) at X-band (~8 GHz), and this band will continue to provide operational commanding, telemetry transmission, and radiometric tracking. 2) During cruise, the functional characteristics of a separate Ka-band (~32 GHz) downlink system were verified in preparation for an operational demonstration during orbit operations. After a Ka-band hardware anomaly in cruise, the project has elected not to initiate the originally planned operational demonstration (with yet-to-be­ used redundant Ka-band hardware). 201 202 Chapter 6 3) A new-generation ultra-high frequency (UHF) (~400 MHz) system was verified with the Mars Exploration Rovers in preparation for the successful relay communications with the Phoenix lander in 2008 and the later Mars Science Laboratory relay operations.
    [Show full text]
  • “Gateway Earth” – Low Cost Access to Interplanetary Space
    RIS-2015-13 “Gateway Earth” – Low Cost Access to Interplanetary Space Derek Webber, FBIS, Senior Member AIAA Spaceport Associates PO Box 614, Damariscotta, Maine 04543, USA 207-563-2660 [email protected], www.SpaceportAssociates.com INTRODUCTION The paper describes some aspects of a proposed space development whose aim is to dramatically reduce the cost of missions, both crewed and robotic, to anywhere in the solar system. The concept uses a funding mechanism combining governmental and commercial financing working in new ways together. The aim is to enable interplanetary space transportation and exploration within realistic funding projections. The basic architecture uses a combined governmental/commercial space station (“Gateway Earth”) located in geostationary orbit (near the edge of Earth’s gravity well) and a logistical supply chain of reusable tugs going regularly between LEO (Low Earth Orbit) and GEO (Geostationary Orbit) and back. Part of the commercial station would be a GEO space tourist hotel. Other commercial uses of the Gateway complex would include servicing of GEO communications satellites. “Gateway Earth”, the station at the edge of interplanetary space, would consequently be partly funded by space tourism revenues, as would also be the operation of the tugs. It’s a way of exploring the solar system by using space tourism revenues to augment government funding. The paper addresses some design implications of including an industrial scale 3-D manufacturing facility at the Gateway complex, for building and assembling components of craft intended for ongoing interplanetary travel. Elements of a business case framework are presented, using market analogs for this next destination of space tourists beyond LEO, which supports the argument that the “Gateway Earth” architecture represents a way to achieve relatively low cost interplanetary travel.
    [Show full text]
  • Phobos, Deimos: Formation and Evolution Alex Soumbatov-Gur
    Phobos, Deimos: Formation and Evolution Alex Soumbatov-Gur To cite this version: Alex Soumbatov-Gur. Phobos, Deimos: Formation and Evolution. [Research Report] Karpov institute of physical chemistry. 2019. hal-02147461 HAL Id: hal-02147461 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02147461 Submitted on 4 Jun 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Phobos, Deimos: Formation and Evolution Alex Soumbatov-Gur The moons are confirmed to be ejected parts of Mars’ crust. After explosive throwing out as cone-like rocks they plastically evolved with density decays and materials transformations. Their expansion evolutions were accompanied by global ruptures and small scale rock ejections with concurrent crater formations. The scenario reconciles orbital and physical parameters of the moons. It coherently explains dozens of their properties including spectra, appearances, size differences, crater locations, fracture symmetries, orbits, evolution trends, geologic activity, Phobos’ grooves, mechanism of their origin, etc. The ejective approach is also discussed in the context of observational data on near-Earth asteroids, main belt asteroids Steins, Vesta, and Mars. The approach incorporates known fission mechanism of formation of miniature asteroids, logically accounts for its outliers, and naturally explains formations of small celestial bodies of various sizes.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Farm:” an Inflatable Centrifuge Biology Research Module on the International Space Station
    The “Farm:” An Inflatable Centrifuge Biology Research Module on the International Space Station M.Thangavelu1, L. Simurda2 As the sole manned laboratory in Low Earth Orbit, permanently operating in microgravity and largely unprotected by the Earth's atmosphere, the International Space Station serves as an unparalleled platform for studying the effects of low or zero-gravity and the space radiation environment on biological systems as well as developing, testing and certifying sturdy and reliable systems for long duration missions such as ambitious interplanetary expeditions planned for the future. Earth- bound research, automated research aboard satellites and short missions into low- altitude orbits cannot replicate long-term ISS experiments. Abandoning or de- orbiting the station, even in 2020, leaves the international scientific and engineering community bereft of a manned station in orbit and destroys any opportunity for conducting long-term microgravity and radiation experiments requiring human oversight in space. The United States should invest in extending the station's life by a minimum of 15 years from present by attaching an inflatable "Farm" centrifuge module to equip biologists, psychologists and engineers with the tools required to investigate these questions and more. At a time when humankind has only begun exploring the effects of the space environment on biological systems, it is essential that we not abandon the only empirical research facility in operation today and instead begin vigorously pursuing research in this area that is of vital importance to all humanity, not only in the basic and applied sciences but also in international collaboration. I. Introduction In June 2010, President Barack Obama announced a novel vision for NASA and proposed extending the life of the International Space Station (ISS) until at least 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Mars 2020 Radiological Contingency Planning
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Mars 2020 Radiological Contingency Planning NASA plans to launch the Mars 2020 rover, produce the rover’s onboard power and to Perseverance, in summer 2020 on a mission warm its internal systems during the frigid to seek signs of habitable conditions in Mars’ Martian night. ancient past and search for signs of past microbial life. The mission will lift off from Cape NASA prepares contingency response plans Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida aboard a for every launch that it conducts. Ensuring the United Launch Alliance Atlas V launch vehicle safety of launch-site workers and the public in between mid-July and August 2020. the communities surrounding the launch area is the primary consideration in this planning. The Mars 2020 rover design is based on NASA’s Curiosity rover, which landed on Mars in 2012 This contingency planning task takes on an and greatly increased our knowledge of the added dimension when the payload being Red Planet. The Mars 2020 rover is equipped launched into space contains nuclear material. to study its landing site in detail and collect and The primary goal of radiological contingency store the most promising samples of rock and planning is to enable an efficient response in soil on the surface of Mars. the event of an accident. This planning is based on the fundamental principles of advance The system that provides electrical power for preparation (including rehearsals of simulated Mars 2020 and its scientific equipment is the launch accident responses), the timely availability same as for the Curiosity rover: a Multi- of technically accurate and reliable information, Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator and prompt external communication with the (MMRTG).
    [Show full text]
  • Constraints on the Habitability of Extrasolar Moons
    Formation, Detection, and Characterization of Extrasolar Habitable Planets Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 293, 2012 c International Astronomical Union 2014 N. Haghighipour, ed. doi:10.1017/S1743921313012738 Constraints on the Habitability of Extrasolar Moons Ren´e Heller1 and Rory Barnes2,3 1 Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP), An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam email: [email protected] 2 University of Washington, Dept. of Astronomy, Seattle, WA 98195, USA 3 Virtual Planetary Laboratory, NASA, USA email: [email protected] Abstract. Detections of massive extrasolar moons are shown feasible with the Kepler space telescope. Kepler’s findings of about 50 exoplanets in the stellar habitable zone naturally make us wonder about the habitability of their hypothetical moons. Illumination from the planet, eclipses, tidal heating, and tidal locking distinguish remote characterization of exomoons from that of exoplanets. We show how evaluation of an exomoon’s habitability is possible based on the parameters accessible by current and near-future technology. Keywords. celestial mechanics – planets and satellites: general – astrobiology – eclipses 1. Introduction The possible discovery of inhabited exoplanets has motivated considerable efforts towards estimating planetary habitability. Effects of stellar radiation (Kasting et al. 1993; Selsis et al. 2007), planetary spin (Williams & Kasting 1997; Spiegel et al. 2009), tidal evolution (Jackson et al. 2008; Barnes et al. 2009; Heller et al. 2011), and composition (Raymond et al. 2006; Bond et al. 2010) have been studied. Meanwhile, Kepler’s high precision has opened the possibility of detecting extrasolar moons (Kipping et al. 2009; Tusnski & Valio 2011) and the first dedicated searches for moons in the Kepler data are underway (Kipping et al.
    [Show full text]
  • An Impacting Descent Probe for Europa and the Other Galilean Moons of Jupiter
    An Impacting Descent Probe for Europa and the other Galilean Moons of Jupiter P. Wurz1,*, D. Lasi1, N. Thomas1, D. Piazza1, A. Galli1, M. Jutzi1, S. Barabash2, M. Wieser2, W. Magnes3, H. Lammer3, U. Auster4, L.I. Gurvits5,6, and W. Hajdas7 1) Physikalisches Institut, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 2) Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Kiruna, Sweden, 3) Space Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Graz, Austria, 4) Institut f. Geophysik u. Extraterrestrische Physik, Technische Universität, Braunschweig, Germany, 5) Joint Institute for VLBI ERIC, Dwingelo, The Netherlands, 6) Department of Astrodynamics and Space Missions, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands 7) Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland. *) Corresponding author, [email protected], Tel.: +41 31 631 44 26, FAX: +41 31 631 44 05 1 Abstract We present a study of an impacting descent probe that increases the science return of spacecraft orbiting or passing an atmosphere-less planetary bodies of the solar system, such as the Galilean moons of Jupiter. The descent probe is a carry-on small spacecraft (< 100 kg), to be deployed by the mother spacecraft, that brings itself onto a collisional trajectory with the targeted planetary body in a simple manner. A possible science payload includes instruments for surface imaging, characterisation of the neutral exosphere, and magnetic field and plasma measurement near the target body down to very low-altitudes (~1 km), during the probe’s fast (~km/s) descent to the surface until impact. The science goals and the concept of operation are discussed with particular reference to Europa, including options for flying through water plumes and after-impact retrieval of very-low altitude science data.
    [Show full text]
  • Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards
    MARATHON 2,500 YEARS EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 124 DIRECTOR & GENERAL EDITOR: JOHN NORTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS: RICHARD SIMPSON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARATHON CONFERENCE 2010 EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 2013 The cover image shows Persian warriors at Ishtar Gate, from before the fourth century BC. Pergamon Museum/Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. Photo Mohammed Shamma (2003). Used under CC‐BY terms. All rights reserved. This PDF edition published in 2019 First published in print in 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN: 978-1-905670-81-9 (2019 PDF edition) DOI: 10.14296/1019.9781905670819 ISBN: 978-1-905670-52-9 (2013 paperback edition) ©2013 Institute of Classical Studies, University of London The right of contributors to be identified as the authors of the work published here has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory note 1 P. J. Rhodes The battle of Marathon and modern scholarship 3 Christopher Pelling Herodotus’ Marathon 23 Peter Krentz Marathon and the development of the exclusive hoplite phalanx 35 Andrej Petrovic The battle of Marathon in pre-Herodotean sources: on Marathon verse-inscriptions (IG I3 503/504; Seg Lvi 430) 45 V.
    [Show full text]
  • Nagy Commentary on Euripides, Herakles
    Informal Commentary on Euripides, Herakles by Gregory Nagy 97 The idea of returning from Hades implies a return from death 109f The mourning swan... Cf. the theme of the swansong. Cf. 692ff. 113 “The phantom of a dream”: cf. skias onar in Pindar Pythian 8. 131f “their father’s spirit flashing from their eyes”: beautiful rendition! 145f Herakles’ hoped-for return from Hades is equated with a return from death, with resurrection; see 297, where this theme becomes even more overt; also 427ff. 150 Herakles as the aristos man: not that he is regularly described in this drama as the best of all humans, not only of the “Greeks” (also at 183, 209). See also the note on 1306. 160 The description of the bow as “a coward’s weapon” is relevant to the Odysseus theme in the Odyssey 203 sôzein to sôma ‘save the body’... This expression seems traditional: if so, it may support the argument of some linguists that sôma ‘body’ is derived from sôzô ‘save’. By metonymy, the process of saving may extend to the organism that is destined to be saved. 270 The use of kleos in the wording of the chorus seems to refer to the name of Herakles; similarly in the wording of Megara at 288 and 290. Compare the notes on 1334 and 1369. 297 See at 145f above. Cf. the theme of Herakles’ wrestling with Thanatos in Euripides Alcestis. 342ff Note the god-hero antagonism as expressed by Amphitryon. His claim that he was superior to Zeus in aretê brings out the meaning of ‘striving’ in aretê (as a nomen actionis derived from arnumai; cf.
    [Show full text]