DOCSLIB.ORG

Cooperation Or Competition?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cooperation Or Competition? Exploring the Universe: Cooperation or Competition? European Forum Alpbach 2013 Shuang-Nan Zhang Director, Center for Particle Astrophysics Institute of High Energy Physics Chief Scientist, Space Science Division National Astronomical Observatories Chinese Academy of Sciences 1 Day 1 2 Ways of learning Write down one thing you think you are good at doing Write down how you learnt of doing this Choose and write down one of these answers: (1) From lecturing in classroom (2) By yourself: reading, asking, discussion, practicing (3) Other 3 Importance of asking and discussion The greatest scholar and teacher in Chinese history, Confucius (孔夫子), told us: “Among every three people, there must be someone who know more than me (三人一 行，必有我师)” The Nobel Laureate C.N. Yang (杨振宁) once said “Most of my knowledge comes from asking and discussing with my fellow students”. In Chinese, an intellectual is called “a person learning by asking (有学问的人)” 4 Nobel Laureate C.N. Yang (杨振宁) and me C.N. Yang is the “person learning by asking (有学问的人)” 5 Albert Einstein (爱因斯坦) and me I am the “person learning by asking (有学问的人)” 6 Traditional and interactive teaching Traditional teaching: one directional delivery of information from the teacher to students (notebooks) Role of teacher: information delivery Success measured by rate of information delivered Interactive teaching: asking + discussion Role of teacher: stimulate and moderate the process Success measured by rate of information received Just like communications: it only matters how much is received at the receiver’s end! Barriers must be removed for efficient communications. 7 Interruptions are invited during these seminars You are invited to interrupt me during at any time Asking questions, making points and comments, and even challenging me. Any language is allowed, though I only understand Chinese and English. Of course I will ask you many questions! Please watch out for each and every “?” in my presentations. 8 Day 2 9 10 Explorations vs. Observations Explorations: Be there, do there, and return from there In site, microscope, robotic, human participation Direct knowledge, but limited scope and range Observations: Learn what’s going on elsewhere in the universe, but at or near home Remote, telescope, automatic A lot of guess work, but vast scope and range 11 We all love tourism! 12 But why tourism? Much more beautiful pictures and exhaustive information available on the internet But why do we still want to spend a lot of money, time, energy, and face various risks to go these places, and take photos? Be there, do there, and even showing-off Delicious foods, exotic cultures, different laws, beautiful girls and boys… 13 Power of being there or close-by What can be done only when being there? Collecting, digging, interacting, taking photos with a human in it, and even risking lives… What can be done better when close-by? 2 flux = emitted/4πD D is distance of the source 2 2 received=flux*πR = emitted*(R /2D) R is aperture radius of the telescope/microscope Sometimes easier to get thousands-millions times closer, but hard to make a telescope/microscope thousands-millions times larger! 14 But why (remote) observations? Convenient: telescopes are made at home (earth), so better try them out at home first Cheaper: sending telescopes far away from home is costly Correct: still not possible to send a telescope near a star outside the solar system; never possible beyond the Milky Way 3 C law 15 Why out of earth to observe? 16 Lunar explorations as examples of space explorations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_the_Moon 17 Chang’E: a beautiful girl lives in the palace of moon Princess Kaguya, moon godness of Japan 18 Lunar explorations: again and again, and more and more nations? Cold war? Science? Technology? Military? National pride? Cooperation or competition? 19 1958-1959 space race erupts Year Mission Country Objective Result 1958 Pioneer 0 USA Orbiter Launch failure 1958 Luna E-1 No.1 USSR Impactor Launch failure 1958 Pioneer 1 USA Orbiter Launch failure 1958 Luna E-1 No.2 USSR Impactor Launch failure 1958 Pioneer 2 USA Orbiter Launch failure 1958 Luna E-1 No.3 USSR Impactor Launch failure 1958 Pioneer 3 USA Flyby Launch failure 1959 Luna 1 USSR Impactor Partial success (first successful flyby 5,995 km) 1959 Pioneer 4 USA Flyby Partial success (flyby 60,000 km) 1959 Luna E-1A No.1 USSR Impactor Launch failure USSR Success (first spacecraft reaching the moon surface, impacted east of Mare Serenitatis, discovered time variations 1959 Luna 2 Impactor in the electron flux and energy spectrum in the Van Allen radiation belt) 1959 Pioneer P-1 USA Orbiter Launch failure 1959 Luna 3 USSR Flyby Success (first pictures of Moon far side) 1959 Pioneer P-3 USA Orbiter Launch failure 7/yr, mostly failures, but USSR won anyway 20 1960-1965 space race continues 1960 Luna E-3 No.1, 2 USSR Flyby Launch failure 1960 Pioneer P-30, 31 USA Orbiter Launch failure 1962 Ranger 3, 4, 5 USA Impactor Failure (flyby; crashed at Moon far-side; flyby) 1963 Luna E-6 No.2, 3 USSR Lander Launched into wrong orbit; Launch failure 1963 Luna 4 USSR Lander Failure (flyby) 1964 Ranger 6 USA Impactor Failure (TV camera, only instrument, did not work) 1964 Luna E-6 No.5, 6 USSR Lander Launch failure 1964 Ranger 7 USA Impactor Success 1965 Ranger 8 USA Impactor Success 1965 Cosmos 60 USSR Lander Failed to leave Earth orbit 1965 Ranger 9 USA Impactor Success 1965 Luna E-6 No.8 USSR Lander Launch failure 1965 Luna 5, 6 USSR Lander Failure (crashed at Sea of Clouds; flyby) 1965 Zond 3 USSR Flyby Success 1965 Luna 7, 8 USSR Lander Failure (crashed at Oceanus Procellarum) 3.8/year, still mostly failures, but USA faired better 21 1966-1967 space race speeds up USSR Success (first pictures from Moon surface, landed 1966 Luna 9 Lander at Oceanus Procellarum) 1966 Cosmos 111 USSR Orbiter Launched into wrong orbit 1966 Luna 10 USSR Orbiter Success (first lunar orbiter) 1966 Surveyor 1 USA Lander Success (landed at Oceanus Procellarum) 1966 Lunar Orbiter 1 USA Orbiter Success 1966 Luna 11 USSR Orbiter Success 1966 Surveyor 2 USA Lander Failure (crashed near Copernicus crater) 1966 Luna 12 USSR Orbiter Success 1966 Lunar Orbiter 2 USA Orbiter Success 1966 Luna 13 USSR Lander Success (landed at Oceanus Procellarum) 1967 Lunar Orbiter 3 USA Orbiter Partial success (picture acquisition cut short) 1967 Surveyor 3 USA Lander Success 1967 Lunar Orbiter 4 USA Orbiter Partial success (picture acquisition cut short) 1967 Surveyor 4 USA Lander Failure 1967 Lunar Orbiter 5 USA Orbiter Success 1967 Surveyor 5, 6 USA Lander Success 8.5/year, mostly successes, USA began to lead 22 1968-1969 space race heats up: Apollo Program 1968 Surveyor 7 USA Lander Success 1968 Luna E-6LS No.112 USSR Lander Launch failure 1968 Luna 14 USSR Orbiter Success USSR Success (first spacecraft and living beings to 1968 Zond 5, 6 Flyby return to Earth from lunar flyby); Partial success 1968 Apollo 8 USA Orbiter Success (first manned lunar orbiter) 1969 Luna E-8 No.201 USSR Rover Launch failure 1969 Apollo 10 USA Orbiter Success (lander test in Moon orbit) 1969 Luna E-8-5 No.402 USSR Sample return Launch failure 1969 Luna 15 USSR Sample return Failure (crashed at Mare Crisium) 1969 USA Orbiter Success Apollo 11 USA Success (21.5 kg of lunar rocks retrieved, 1969 Sample return first humans on the Moon surface) 1969 Zond 7 USSR Flyby Success 1969 Cosmos 300, 305 USSR Sample return Launched into wrong orbit 1969 USA Orbiter Success Apollo 12 1969 USA Sample return Success 8.5/year, mostly successes, USA won: Armstrong on the moon! 23 1970-1971 space race continues 1970 Apollo 13 USA Sample return Failure (flyby, crew returned to Earth) 1970 S-IV USA Impactor Success 1970 Luna E-8-5 No.405 USSR Sample return Launch failure 1970 Luna 16 USSR Sample return Success (first robotic lunar sample return, 101 g) 1970 Zond 8 USSR Flyby Success 1970 Luna 17 USSR Lander Success (soft-landed the Lunokhod 1) 1970 Lunokhod 1 USSR Rover Success (First lunar rover, travelled 10,54 km) 1971 USA Orbiter Success Apollo 14 1971 USA Sample return Success 1971 USA Orbiter Success Apollo 15 1971 USA Sample return Success (first manned Lunar Roving Vehicle) USA Success (measured plasma, energetic particle 1971 PFS-1 Orbiter intensities and lunar magnetic fields) 1971 Luna 18 USSR Sample return Failure 1971 Luna 19 USSR Orbiter Success 7/year, mostly successes, USA continued to lead. 24 1972-1976 space race ends! USSR Sample 1972 Luna 20 Success return 1972 USA Orbiter Success Apollo 16 USA Sample 1972 Success return 1972 PFS-2 USA Orbiter Partial success (orbit decayed earlier than anticipated) 1972 USA Orbiter Success Apollo 17 USA Sample 1972 Success (first geologist on the Moon) return 1973 Luna 21 USSR Lander Success (soft-landed the Lunokhod 2) 1973 Lunokhod 2 USSR Rover Success (longest rover journey on a celestial body, 37 km) 1974 Luna 22 USSR Orbiter Success USSR Sample 1974 Luna 23 Partial success (sample drilling failed) return USSR Sample 1976 Luna 24 Success return USA finished Apollo program with a clear victory; USSR ended its lunar program in 1976, coincided with the death of Mao that ended culture revolution in China. 25 1990-2011 new lunar exploration: global space race? 1990 Hiten Japan Orbiter first aerobraking maneuver by a deep space probe) 1994 Clementine USA Orbiter 1998 Lunar Prospector USA Orbiter 2003 SMART-1 Europe Orbiter first use of an ion engine to reach the Moon 2007 SELENE (Kaguya) Japan Orbiter 2007 Chang'e 1 China
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Low-Energy Lunar Trajectory Design
    LOW-ENERGY LUNAR TRAJECTORY DESIGN Jeffrey S. Parker and Rodney L. Anderson Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, California July 2013 ii DEEP SPACE COMMUNICATIONS AND NAVIGATION SERIES Issued by the Deep Space Communications and Navigation Systems Center of Excellence Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Joseph H. Yuen, Editor-in-Chief Published Titles in this Series Radiometric Tracking Techniques for Deep-Space Navigation Catherine L. Thornton and James S. Border Formulation for Observed and Computed Values of Deep Space Network Data Types for Navigation Theodore D. Moyer Bandwidth-Efficient Digital Modulation with Application to Deep-Space Communication Marvin K. Simon Large Antennas of the Deep Space Network William A. Imbriale Antenna Arraying Techniques in the Deep Space Network David H. Rogstad, Alexander Mileant, and Timothy T. Pham Radio Occultations Using Earth Satellites: A Wave Theory Treatment William G. Melbourne Deep Space Optical Communications Hamid Hemmati, Editor Spaceborne Antennas for Planetary Exploration William A. Imbriale, Editor Autonomous Software-Defined Radio Receivers for Deep Space Applications Jon Hamkins and Marvin K. Simon, Editors Low-Noise Systems in the Deep Space Network Macgregor S. Reid, Editor Coupled-Oscillator Based Active-Array Antennas Ronald J. Pogorzelski and Apostolos Georgiadis Low-Energy Lunar Trajectory Design Jeffrey S. Parker and Rodney L. Anderson LOW-ENERGY LUNAR TRAJECTORY DESIGN Jeffrey S. Parker and Rodney L. Anderson Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, California July 2013 iv Low-Energy Lunar Trajectory Design July 2013 Jeffrey Parker: I dedicate the majority of this book to my wife Jen, my best friend and greatest support throughout the development of this book and always.
    [Show full text]
  • Jjmonl 1402.Pmd
    alactic Observer GJohn J. McCarthy Observatory Volume 7, No. 2 February 2014 Beneath the Clouds: An in-depth look at Jupiter's wacky weather machine. See inside, pages 6 and 20. The John J. McCarthy Observatory Galactic Observer New Milford High School Editorial Committee 388 Danbury Road Managing Editor New Milford, CT 06776 Bill Cloutier Phone/Voice: (860) 210-4117 Production & Design Phone/Fax: (860) 354-1595 www.mccarthyobservatory.org Allan Ostergren Website Development JJMO Staff Marc Polansky It is through their efforts that the McCarthy Observatory Technical Support has established itself as a significant educational and Bob Lambert recreational resource within the western Connecticut Dr. Parker Moreland community. Steve Barone Jim Johnstone Colin Campbell Carly KleinStern Dennis Cartolano Bob Lambert Mike Chiarella Roger Moore Route Jeff Chodak Parker Moreland, PhD Bill Cloutier Allan Ostergren Cecilia Dietrich Marc Polansky Dirk Feather Joe Privitera Randy Fender Monty Robson Randy Finden Don Ross John Gebauer Gene Schilling Elaine Green Katie Shusdock Tina Hartzell Jon Wallace Tom Heydenburg Paul Woodell Amy Ziffer In This Issue OUT THE WINDOW ON YOUR LEFT .................................... 4 JUPITER AND ITS MOONS ................................................ 20 SCHILLER TO HANSTEEN .................................................. 5 TRANSIT OF THE JUPITER'S RED SPOT .............................. 17 LRO IMAGES CHANG'E 3 LANDING SITE ........................... 6 SUNRISE AND SUNSET ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Cosmic X-Ray Background
    The Cosmic X-Ray Background Steven M. Kahn Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology Stanford University 1 Outline of Lectures Lecture I: * Historical Introduction and General Characteristics of the CXB. * Contributions from Discrete Source Classes * Spectral Paradoxes Lecture II: * The CXB and Large Scale Structure * The Galactic Contributions to the CXB * The CXB and the Cosmic Web 2 I. Historical Introduction and General Characteristics of the CXB. 3 Historical Introduction * The “birth” of the field of X-ray astronomy is usually associated with the flight of a particular rocket experiment in 1962 that yielded the detection of the first non-solar cosmic X-ray source: Scorpius X-1. (Giacconi et al. 1962) * That same rocket experiment also yielded the discovery of an apparent diffuse component of X-radiation, the Cosmic X-ray Background (CXB). (N.B. This was well in advance of the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background by Pensias and Wilson!) * In the ensuing 40 some odd years, our understanding of the X-ray Universe has progressed considerably. X-rays have now been detected from virtually all classes of astronomical systems, ranging from normal stars to the most distant galaxies. * Nevertheless, the precise origin of the CXB remains puzzling. This has been one of the great mysteries of high energy astrophysics! 4 Historical Introduction 5 Historical Introduction * “The diffuse character of the observed background radiation does not permit a positive determination of its nature and origin. However, the apparent absorption coefficient in mica and the altitude dependence is consistent with radiation of about the same wavelength responsible for the peak.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploration of the Moon
    Exploration of the Moon The physical exploration of the Moon began when Luna 2, a space probe launched by the Soviet Union, made an impact on the surface of the Moon on September 14, 1959. Prior to that the only available means of exploration had been observation from Earth. The invention of the optical telescope brought about the first leap in the quality of lunar observations. Galileo Galilei is generally credited as the first person to use a telescope for astronomical purposes; having made his own telescope in 1609, the mountains and craters on the lunar surface were among his first observations using it. NASA's Apollo program was the first, and to date only, mission to successfully land humans on the Moon, which it did six times. The first landing took place in 1969, when astronauts placed scientific instruments and returnedlunar samples to Earth. Apollo 12 Lunar Module Intrepid prepares to descend towards the surface of the Moon. NASA photo. Contents Early history Space race Recent exploration Plans Past and future lunar missions See also References External links Early history The ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras (d. 428 BC) reasoned that the Sun and Moon were both giant spherical rocks, and that the latter reflected the light of the former. His non-religious view of the heavens was one cause for his imprisonment and eventual exile.[1] In his little book On the Face in the Moon's Orb, Plutarch suggested that the Moon had deep recesses in which the light of the Sun did not reach and that the spots are nothing but the shadows of rivers or deep chasms.
    [Show full text]
  • Chandra Was Launched Aboard Space Shuttle Columbia on July 23, 1999!!! Crew Lost During Re-Entry Modern X-Ray Telescopes and Detectors
    Chandra was launched aboard Space Shuttle Columbia on July 23, 1999!!! Crew Lost During Re-Entry Modern X-ray Telescopes and Detectors •X-ray Telescopes •X-ray Instruments •Some early highlights •Observations •Data characteristics •Calibration •Analysis X-ray Telescope: The advantages • Achieve 2-D imaging – Separate sources – Study morphology of extended sources – Simultaneously measure both source and local background • Reduce the background Æ increase the source 1/2 detection sensitivity: S/N ~ Fs t/(Fst+ ASbt) –t –exposure time –Fs – source count flux –A –source detection area –Sb – background surface brightness: Detector + sky background • Facilitate high-resolution dispersive spectrometers X-ray Telescope: Focusing mechanism External reflection at small grazing angles - an analogy of skipping stones on water •Snell’s law: sinφr=sinφi/n, where the index of refraction n=1-δ+iβ • External reflection occurs with sinφr > 1 Æ 1/2 The critical grazing angle θ = π/2- φi ~ (2δ) 1/2 (δ ∝ ne /E << 1) Focusing mechanism (cont.) • The critical angle (effective collecting area) decreases with increasing photon energy • High Z materials allow for reflecting high energy photon with the same grazing angle X-ray Telescope: Hans Wolter Configuraions • A Paraboloid gives a perfect image for on-axis rays. But it gives a coma blur of equivalent image size proportional to the off-axis angle. • Wolter showed that two reflections were needed to eliminate the coma. • A Paraboloid-Hyperboloid combination proves to be the most useful in X-ray astronomy. X-ray Telescopes • First used to observe the Solar corona • Then transferred to general astronomy with HEAO-2 (Einstein Observatory), launched in 1978: – imaged X-rays in 0.5-4.0 keV.
    [Show full text]
  • Alactic Observer Gjohn J
    alactic Observer GJohn J. McCarthy Observatory Volume 5, No. 2 February 2012 Belly of the Beast At the center of the Milky Way galaxy, a gas cloud is on a perilous journey into a supermassive black hole. As the cloud stretches and accelerates, it gives away the location of its silent predator. For more information , see page 9 inside, or go to http://www.nasa.gov/ centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/ blackhole_slumber.html. Credit: NASA/CXC/MIT/Frederick K. Baganoff et al. The John J. McCarthy Observatory Galactic Observvvererer New Milford High School Editorial Committee 388 Danbury Road Managing Editor New Milford, CT 06776 Bill Cloutier Phone/Voice: (860) 210-4117 Production & Design Phone/Fax: (860) 354-1595 Allan Ostergren www.mccarthyobservatory.org Website Development John Gebauer JJMO Staff Marc Polansky It is through their efforts that the McCarthy Observatory has Josh Reynolds established itself as a significant educational and recreational Technical Support resource within the western Connecticut community. Bob Lambert Steve Barone Allan Ostergren Dr. Parker Moreland Colin Campbell Cecilia Page Dennis Cartolano Joe Privitera Mike Chiarella Bruno Ranchy Jeff Chodak Josh Reynolds Route Bill Cloutier Barbara Richards Charles Copple Monty Robson Randy Fender Don Ross John Gebauer Ned Sheehey Elaine Green Gene Schilling Tina Hartzell Diana Shervinskie Tom Heydenburg Katie Shusdock Phil Imbrogno Jon Wallace Bob Lambert Bob Willaum Dr. Parker Moreland Paul Woodell Amy Ziffer In This Issue THE YEAR OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM ................................ 4 SUNRISE AND SUNSET .................................................. 11 OUT THE WINDOW ON YOUR LEFT ............................... 5 ASTRONOMICAL AND HISTORICAL EVENTS ...................... 11 FRA MAURA ................................................................ 5 REFERENCES ON DISTANCES .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Misiones Espaciales Misiones Que Año Nación Lanzador Síntesis De La Misión Recorrido Lo Visitaron
    Una vez finalizada la Segunda Guerra Mundial, Estados Unidos y la Unión Soviética se enfrentaron ideológica y políticamente. El campo de batalla de los dos bloques fue llamado Guerra fría. Las dos super potencias se embarcaron en una carrera por la conquista del espacio en un despliegue de poderío científico, militar y tecnológico. En un comienzo los mayores éxitos fueron de la URSS pero fue EE UU el que logró llevar seres humanos a la Luna. Luego de ese suceso, pasaron varios años hasta que otros países lograron el sueño de llegar a nuestro satélite. LMiUNsiones espacAiales En la actual carrera espacial ingresan nuevos proyectos financiados de manera privada. Las misiones que tuvieron éxito en llegar a la Luna se pueden dividir en: las que sobrevolaron, las que orbitaron, las que descendieron con robots y las que lograron llevar humanos Sobrevuelos/Orbitadores: Luna | Ranger | Zond| Lunar Orbiter | Explorer | Clementine | Lunar prospector | Smart | Kaguya Selene|Chang`e| Chandrayaan| Lunar reconnaissance|Grail| Ladee Landers y Rovers: Luna 9| Surveyour|Luna13|Luna 16/20/24| Luna 17|Lunakhod|Yutu Misiones tripuladas: Apollo 8/10/11/12/14/15/16/17 Fuente: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/programmissions/missions/ Planetario de Buenos AiresPlanetario de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires Galileo Galilei - Av. Sarmiento y B. Roldán - Tel. 4772-9265 / 4771-6629 - e-mail: [email protected] 1/6 Misiones espaciales Misiones que año Nación Lanzador Síntesis de la misión Recorrido lo visitaron Objetivo: Impactar Sobrevoló la Luna. Luego ingresó en órbita al Sol R-7 Logros : Fue el primer vehículo en escapar de la gravedad Enero Unión terrestre.
    [Show full text]
  • Highlights and Discoveries from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory1
    Highlights and Discoveries from the Chandra X-ray Observatory1 H Tananbaum1, M C Weisskopf2, W Tucker1, B Wilkes1 and P Edmonds1 1Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. 2 NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, ZP12, 320 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805. Abstract. Within 40 years of the detection of the first extrasolar X-ray source in 1962, NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory has achieved an increase in sensitivity of 10 orders of magnitude, comparable to the gain in going from naked-eye observations to the most powerful optical telescopes over the past 400 years. Chandra is unique in its capabilities for producing sub-arcsecond X-ray images with 100-200 eV energy resolution for energies in the range 0.08<E<10 keV, locating X-ray sources to high precision, detecting extremely faint sources, and obtaining high resolution spectra of selected cosmic phenomena. The extended Chandra mission provides a long observing baseline with stable and well-calibrated instruments, enabling temporal studies over time-scales from milliseconds to years. In this report we present a selection of highlights that illustrate how observations using Chandra, sometimes alone, but often in conjunction with other telescopes, have deepened, and in some instances revolutionized, our understanding of topics as diverse as protoplanetary nebulae; massive stars; supernova explosions; pulsar wind nebulae; the superfluid interior of neutron stars; accretion flows around black holes; the growth of supermassive black holes and their role in the regulation of star formation and growth of galaxies; impacts of collisions, mergers, and feedback on growth and evolution of groups and clusters of galaxies; and properties of dark matter and dark energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1912.04482V1 [Physics.Space-Ph] 10 Dec 2019
    manuscript submitted to Radio Science Measuring the Earth's Synchrotron Emission from Radiation Belts with a Lunar Near Side Radio Array Alexander Hegedus1, Quentin Nenon2, Antoine Brunet3, Justin Kasper1, Ang´elicaSicard3, Baptiste Cecconi4, Robert MacDowall5, Daniel Baker6 1University of Michigan, Department of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA 2Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA 3ONERA / DPHY, Universit´ede Toulouse, F-31055 Toulouse France 4LESIA, Observatoire de Paris, Universit PSL, CNRS, Sorbonne Universit, Univ. de Paris, Meudon, France 5NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA 6University of Colorado Boulder, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, Boulder, Colorado, USA Key Points: • Synchrotron emission between 500-1000 kHz has a total flux density of 1.4-2 Jy at lunar distances • A 10 km radio array with 16000 elements could detect the emission in 12-24 hours with moderate noise • Changing electron density can make detections 10x faster at lunar night, 10x slower at lunar noon arXiv:1912.04482v1 [physics.space-ph] 10 Dec 2019 Corresponding author: Alexander Hegedus, [email protected] {1{ manuscript submitted to Radio Science Abstract The high kinetic energy electrons that populate the Earth's radiation belts emit synchrotron emissions because of their interaction with the planetary magnetic field. A lunar near side array would be uniquely positioned to image this emission and provide a near real time measure of how the Earth's radiation belts are responding to the current solar in- put. The Salammb^ocode is a physical model of the dynamics of the three-dimensional phase-space electron densities in the radiation belts, allowing the prediction of 1 keV to 100 MeV electron distributions trapped in the belts.
    [Show full text]
  • Spacecraft Deliberately Crashed on the Lunar Surface
    A Summary of Human History on the Moon Only One of These Footprints is Protected The narrative of human history on the Moon represents the dawn of our evolution into a spacefaring species. The landing sites - hard, soft and crewed - are the ultimate example of universal human heritage; a true memorial to human ingenuity and accomplishment. They mark humankind’s greatest technological achievements, and they are the first archaeological sites with human activity that are not on Earth. We believe our cultural heritage in outer space, including our first Moonprints, deserves to be protected the same way we protect our first bipedal footsteps in Laetoli, Tanzania. Credit: John Reader/Science Photo Library Luna 2 is the first human-made object to impact our Moon. 2 September 1959: First Human Object Impacts the Moon On 12 September 1959, a rocket launched from Earth carrying a 390 kg spacecraft headed to the Moon. Luna 2 flew through space for more than 30 hours before releasing a bright orange cloud of sodium gas which both allowed scientists to track the spacecraft and provided data on the behavior of gas in space. On 14 September 1959, Luna 2 crash-landed on the Moon, as did part of the rocket that carried the spacecraft there. These were the first items humans placed on an extraterrestrial surface. Ever. Luna 2 carried a sphere, like the one pictured here, covered with medallions stamped with the emblem of the Soviet Union and the year. When Luna 2 impacted the Moon, the sphere was ejected and the medallions were scattered across the lunar Credit: Patrick Pelletier surface where they remain, undisturbed, to this day.
    [Show full text]
  • Photographs Written Historical and Descriptive
    CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, MISSILE ASSEMBLY HAER FL-8-B BUILDING AE HAER FL-8-B (John F. Kennedy Space Center, Hanger AE) Cape Canaveral Brevard County Florida PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 100 Alabama St. NW Atlanta, GA 30303 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, MISSILE ASSEMBLY BUILDING AE (Hangar AE) HAER NO. FL-8-B Location: Hangar Road, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Industrial Area, Brevard County, Florida. USGS Cape Canaveral, Florida, Quadrangle. Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: E 540610 N 3151547, Zone 17, NAD 1983. Date of Construction: 1959 Present Owner: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Present Use: Home to NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) and the Launch Vehicle Data Center (LVDC). The LVDC allows engineers to monitor telemetry data during unmanned rocket launches. Significance: Missile Assembly Building AE, commonly called Hangar AE, is nationally significant as the telemetry station for NASA KSC’s unmanned Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) program. Since 1961, the building has been the principal facility for monitoring telemetry communications data during ELV launches and until 1995 it processed scientifically significant ELV satellite payloads. Still in operation, Hangar AE is essential to the continuing mission and success of NASA’s unmanned rocket launch program at KSC. It is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A in the area of Space Exploration as Kennedy Space Center’s (KSC) original Mission Control Center for its program of unmanned launch missions and under Criterion C as a contributing resource in the CCAFS Industrial Area Historic District.
    [Show full text]
  • Dsc Pub Edited
    1968 93) few craters, much like the mare sites, Surveyor 7 although the general area was rougher. About Nation: U.S. (43) 21 hours after landing, ground controllers Objective(s): lunar soft-landing fired a pyrotechnic charge to drop the alpha- Spacecraft: Surveyor-G scattering instrument on the lunar surface. Spacecraft Mass: 1,040.1 kg When the instrument failed to move, con- Mission Design and Management: NASA JPL trollers used the robot arm to force it down. Launch Vehicle: Atlas-Centaur (AC-15 / Atlas The scoop on the arm was used numerous 3C no. 5903C / Centaur D-1A) times for picking up soil, digging trenches, Launch Date and Time: 7 January 1968 / and conducting at least sixteen surface- 06:30:00 UT bearing tests. Apart from taking 21,274 pho- Launch Site: ETR / launch complex 36A tographs (many of them in stereo), Surveyor Scientific Instruments: 7 also served as a target for Earth-based 1) imaging system lasers (of 1-watt power) to accurately 2) alpha-scattering instrument measure the distance between Earth and the 3) surface sampler Moon. Although it was successfully reacti- 4) footpad magnet vated after the lunar night, Surveyor 7 Results: Since Surveyors 1, 3, 5, and 6 success- finally shut down on 21 February 1968. In fully fulfilled requirements in support of total, the five successful Surveyors returned Apollo, NASA opted to use the last remaining more than 87,000 photos of the lunar surface Surveyor for a purely scientific mission out- and demonstrated the feasibility of soft- side of exploring a potential landing site for landing a spacecraft on the lunar surface.
    [Show full text]