Space Science Reviews
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Space Science Reviews A review of the in situ probe designs from recent Ice Giant mission concept studies --Manuscript Draft-- Manuscript Number: SPAC-D-19-00060R1 Full Title: A review of the in situ probe designs from recent Ice Giant mission concept studies Article Type: Vol xxx: In Situ Exploration of the Ice Giants Keywords: Uranus; Neptune; Mission Concept; Robotic Exploration; Atmospheric Probe Corresponding Author: Amy A. Simon NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland UNITED STATES Corresponding Author Secondary Information: Corresponding Author's Institution: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Corresponding Author's Secondary Institution: First Author: Amy A. Simon First Author Secondary Information: Order of Authors: Amy A. Simon Leigh N. Fletcher Christopher Arridge David Atkinson Athena Coustenis Francesca Ferri Mark Hofstadter Adam Masters Olivier Mousis Kim Reh Diego Turrini Olivier Witasse Order of Authors Secondary Information: Funding Information: European Research Council Leigh N. Fletcher (723890) Royal Society Adam Masters (University Research Fellowship) Abstract: For the Ice Giants, atmospheric entry probes provide critical measurements not attainable via remote observations. Including the 2013-2022 NASA Planetary Decadal Survey, there have been at least five comprehensive atmospheric probe engineering design studies performed in recent years by NASA and ESA. International science definition teams have assessed the science requirements, and each recommended similar measurements and payloads to meet science goals with current instrument technology. The probe system concept has matured and converged on general design parameters that indicate the probe would include a 1-meter class aeroshell and have a mass around 350 to 400-kg. Probe battery sizes vary, depending on the duration of a post-release coast phase, and assumptions about heaters and instrument power needs. The various mission concepts demonstrate the need for advanced power and thermal protection system development. The many completed studies show an Ice Giant mission with an in situ probe is feasible and would be welcomed by the Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation international science community. Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation Response to reviewer's comments Click here to access/download;Response to reviewer's comments;SSR_responses.docx Response to reviewer We thank the review for thoughtful comments and having edited the text accordingly. The point by point responses are in blue below. Reviewer #1: This manuscript reviews the investigations of atmospheric entry probes designed by NASA and ESA. It is suitable for SSRv and I recommend that it should be published after some minor revisions. 1) p2 line 4, 'With the completion of the Galileo...' the authors should mention Juno as a successful mission at Jupiter. Noted, and added 2) p4 - p7, Several kinds of numbers (entry angle, entry velocity, heating rate, battery performance, so on) are enumerated as the characteristics of the entry probes. It is difficult for readers to understand how important these numbers are for the entry probes to measure the gas at the planets. It is recommended to add some descriptions to indicate how these numbers would affect finally the scientific results. Thank you for this comment – we sometimes forget all readers are not familiar with the details of probe missions and their jargon! We have added a section before the study discussion defining and explaining these parameters, and have revised the Table 1 to better show the comparison of the most critical values. 3) From the title 'Recent mission concepts for...' the readers would expect the overview of the functions of the onboard sensors and the progress of the performance, as well as its relation ship with the scientific target of entry probe mission, which are insufficient in the present manuscript. It is recommended to add more descriptions in view of the scientific strategy. We purposely kept the description of the science goals and instruments brief for two reasons: 1) they are described in other papers in this volume in much more detail and 2) these studies we review have defined the science in detail, but the instruments are only notional and not meant to be the payload that flies. We have addressed this concern by adding a second table that describes the science goals and notional payload from each study in more detail, but we have also changed the title to be more reflective of the paper content: “A review of the in situ probe designs from recent Ice Giant mission concept studies” In a few places we have added some words to each concept section. 4) p9 line 13, 'No new technologies are required.' It sounds that the authors are going a bit too far. I suppose that new technologies would get required when new scientific objectives emerge. It would be much better to say that they are able to achieve the proposed scientific targets by the technologies currently available. We’ve changed the wording to: “The in situ scientific goals of these missions can all be achieved with existing instrument technologies, …” Manuscript Click here to access/download;Manuscript;Simon_SSRV_revised_final.docx Click here to view linked References A review of the in situ probe designs from recent Ice Giant mission concept studies A. A. Simon1,*, L. N. Fletcher2, C. Arridge3, D. Atkinson4, A. Coustenis5, F. Ferri6, M. Hofstadter4, A. Masters7, O. Mousis8, K. Reh4, D. Turrini9, O. Witasse10 1. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Solar System Exploration Division, Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA 2. School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK 3. Physics Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YW, UK 4. Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena, CA 91109 USA 5. LESIA, Paris Observatory, CNRS, PSL Univ., Sorbonne Univ., Univ. Paris, 92195 Meudon, France 6. Università degli Studi di Padova, Centro di Ateneo di Studi e Attività Spaziali “Giuseppe Colombo” CISAS, via Venezia 15, 35131 Padova, Italy 7. Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College London, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2AZ, UK. 8. Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, CNES, LAM, Marseille, France 9. Institute for Space Astrophysics and Planetology, INAF-IAPS, Via Fosso del Cavaliere 100, I- 00133, Rome, Italy 10. European Space Agency, ESTEC, Noordwijk, Netherlands * Corresponding author, [email protected], 301-286-6738. ORCID: 0000-0003-4641-6186 Acknowledgements: Fletcher was supported by a Royal Society Research Fellowship and European Research Council Consolidator Grant (under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, grant agreement No 723890) at the University of Leicester. Masters was supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship. Mousis and Coustenis acknowledge support from CNES. Abstract For the Ice Giants, atmospheric entry probes provide critical measurements not attainable via remote observations. Including the 2013-2022 NASA Planetary Decadal Survey, there have been at least five comprehensive atmospheric probe engineering design studies performed in recent years by NASA and ESA. International science definition teams have assessed the science requirements, and each recommended similar measurements and payloads to meet science goals with current instrument technology. The probe system concept has matured and converged on general design parameters that indicate the probe would include a 1-meter class aeroshell and have a mass around 350 to 400-kg. Probe battery sizes vary, depending on the duration of a post-release coast phase, and assumptions about heaters and instrument power needs. The various mission concepts demonstrate the need for advanced power and thermal protection system development. The many completed studies show an Ice Giant mission with an in situ probe is feasible and would be welcomed by the international science community. Key words: Uranus; Neptune; Mission Concept; Robotic Exploration; Atmospheric Probe 1 1 1. Introduction: 2 Uranus and Neptune remain the only planets in our solar system not to have been visited by a 3 dedicated robotic mission. After the brief Voyager 2 flybys of each in 1986 and 1989, 4 respectively, we were left with sparse scientific data that showed these two planets were vastly 5 different than their gas giant counterparts, Jupiter and Saturn, in composition, internal structure 6 and magnetospheres, satellite and ring systems (Porco et al. 1995, Duncan & Lissauer 1997, 7 Guillot 2005, Masters et al. 2014, Atreya et al. 2018). Perhaps even more fundamentally, solar 8 system formation models have continued to evolve over the past several decades, both to explain 9 the configuration of our own solar system, but also to understand how exoplanet systems may 10 have formed. We do not yet understand the role of the ice giants in planetary migration in our 11 solar system, yet they reside in the same mass range as the majority of the exoplanets (e.g., 12 Borucki et al. 2011, Turrini et al. 2014). 13 14 For these reasons, and many more, the most recent U.S. Planetary Decadal Survey: Visions and 15 Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-20221, listed Uranus Orbiter and Probe (Ice 16 Giant exploration) as the next in priority after Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher (first of three 17 elements of a Mars Sample Return campaign a.k.a. Mars 2020) and Jupiter Europa Orbiter (a.k.a. 18 Europa Clipper) both of which are