DOCSLIB.ORG

NASA Cost Symposium, 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NASA Cost Symposium, 2018 NASA Cost Symposium, 2018 Export Control Notice Export or re-export of information contained herein may be subject to restrictions and requirements of U.S. export laws and regulations and may require advance authorization from the U.S. Government. Lunar Missions: Earth-orbiting or Planetary? Mitch Lasky, Ball Aerospace Joe Hamaker, PhD, Galorath Federal (With Special Thanks to Mary Ellen Harris, the MSFC REDSTAR Librarian) Contents 2 • Motivation • Purpose • Orbit Descriptions • Earth-orbiting, Lunar, Planetary Mission Characteristics • Parametric Analysis • Historical Cost Analysis • Observations Motivation - Exploration 3 Lunar Exploration Missions 4 Power and Propulsion Element 5 NASA Exploration Campaign 6 Motivation 7 • There is a need to credibly estimate cost of lunar orbital and EM L1, L2 missions – Parametric models typically allow selection of Earth- orbiting or planetary mission § Which results in a more credible cost estimate for lunar missions? This study excludes lunar landers Purpose 8 • This presentation will: – Explore characteristics of Earth-orbiting, lunar orbiting, EM L1, L2, and planetary orbits and what drives spacecraft design and cost – Compare results of parametric cost estimates for spacecraft using Earth-orbiting and planetary input selections – Analyze historical spacecraft cost and mass to determine if there is a statistically valid difference in Earth-orbiting, lunar orbiting, and planetary mission cost – Provide near- and long-term suggestions for lunar orbital and EM L1, L2 cost estimates Orbit Description: Earth-orbiting 9 • Distance from Earth – LEO • 160 – 2,000 km – HEO • 16,000 x 133,000 km – MEO • 2,000 – 35,786 km – GEO • 35,786 km Not to scale Orbit Description: Lunar 10 EM L2 ~449,000 km Low Lunar Orbit (LLO) 100 km Mean distance EM L1 384,450 km ~326,400 km ~58,030 km Apogee: 405,504 km Perigee: 363,396 km Not to scale Orbit Description: Planetary 11 • Distance from Earth (closest approach) – Venus § 40 M km – Mars § 56 M km – Moon § 0.36 M km – GEO § 0.036 M km Lunar Orbit 12 • Model as Earth-orbiting or Planetary? Moon Mars 0.36 M km GEO 0.036 M km 56 M km Lunar E-M L1 Not to scale E-M L2 Ø Answer requires more information than distance from Earth Differences Between Earth-orbiting, Lunar Orbital, and Planetary Missions 13 • Propulsion – LEO: optional, rare – Planetary: required to reach destination – Lunar: required to reach destination • Telecom/ADC – Pointing/Ground Station Tracking § LEO: slew s/c or gimbal antenna § Planetary: large distances require fine pointing § Lunar: Distance not as great as Planetary; fast slewing not required – RF Transmit Power § Range dependent o Planetary > Lunar > LEO o Increased mass (and cost) for TWTA and conditioning electronics Differences Between Earth-orbiting, Lunar Orbital, and Planetary Missions 14 • Thermal Control & Battery Degradation ― Eclipse Cycle § LEO: ~14 eclipses/day § Planetary: destination dependent § Lunar: ~14 eclipses/day, some may be long ― Destination Dependence § Distance from sun Distance Solar Flux from Sun Solar Flux (W/m2) Body (AU) (W/m2) [Earth=1] Earth 1.000 1368 1.00 Moon 1.003 1368 1.00 Venus 0.723 2614 1.91 Mars 1.524 589 0.43 Jupiter 5.204 51 0.04 Differences Between Earth-orbiting, Lunar Orbital, and Planetary Missions 15 • Autonomy (FSW) – Time delay proportional to range § Planetary > Lunar > LEO – Number of contacts depends on destination and ground infrastructure – Anomaly may become mission critical failure if response not timely – Autonomy may buy critical time Differences Between Earth-orbiting, Lunar Orbital, and Planetary Missions 16 • Delta-v/Mass Constraint – LEO: Least constrained § Δv ~9 km/s – Planetary: Largest delta-v required -> more fuel -> reduced s/c mass (exotic materials, non-standard manufacturing processes) -> higher cost § Mars Δv ~15-19 km/s – Lunar Δv ~13 km/s • Critical Propulsive Events – LEO: none – Planetary: can be several § Parker Solar Probe has 5 Venus gravity assists – Lunar: § Orbit injection § Periodic orbit maintenance o Asymmetric lunar density resulting in non-uniform gravitational field Differences Between Earth-orbiting, Lunar Orbital, and Planetary Missions 17 • NASA Mission Class – LEO § Typically Class C or Class D – Planetary § Typically Class B or Class C – Lunar § Some Class D – LCROSS, LADEE – Less stringent parts requirements – Full-redundancy may not be required § Some Class B – GRAIL, LRO Destination Comparison 18 Parameter Propulsion Telecom Pointing/Gnd Stn Trkg Telecom Range Battery Degradation Autonomy (FSW) Thermal Control Mass Constraint Delta-V (Inner Planets) Critical Propulsive Events 1=> more benign Destination Comparison 19 Destination Parameter Earth-Orbiting Lunar Planetary Propulsion 1 3 5 Telecom Pointing/Gnd Stn Trkg 4 3 5 Telecom Range 1 3 5 Battery Degradation 3 3 2 Autonomy (FSW) 2 4 5 Thermal Control 3 3 4 Mass Constraint 1 3 4 Delta-V (Inner Planets) 1 3 4 Critical Propulsive Events 1 3 5 Total 17 28 39 1=> more benign • Lunar total not closer to Earth-orbiting or planetary totals • Destination driven characteristics imply lunar orbital mission cost is probably between Earth-orbiting and planetary mission costs Parametric Models: Spacecraft 20 • Modeling methodology – 4 different models – Results estimated for – Earth-orbiting – Planetary – Identical spacecraft MEL used – Results normalized to Earth-orbiting cost Parametric Relative Spacecraft Cost Model Earth-orbiting Planetary SSCM 1 1.2 Commercial 1 1.2 PCEC 1 1.6 QuickCost 1 1.1 Ø Average Planetary to Earth-orbiting cost: 1.3 Lunar Orbiting: Earth-orbiting or Planetary? 21 • Based on qualitative mission requirement differences between Earth-orbiting, lunar, and planetary missions • Lunar orbital and EM L1, L2 mission requirements are a composite of Earth-orbiting and Planetary mission requirements • 30% cost increase over Earth-orbiting mission estimated by a parametric model may be not be justified (Planetary model input selected) • What can we learn from the historical data? Recap of 2017 Cost Results 22 • In our 2017 study, we found that Planetary Missions cost more per unit of mass than Earth Orbital and the difference could be shown to be statistically valid with t-tests and regression analysis ― Well duh ― We only did this test to warm up our t-test jets • We then showed that Lagrange missions were statistically more “birds of a feather” with Earth Orbital Missions than they were with Planetary ― Again, using t-tests and regression Methodology Differences From 2017 Study 23 • Our 2017 study of Lagrange missions used… ― Life cycle cost of the missions (Phase B/C/D/E) § Including Launch Costs ― Dollars per wet kg (because of missing dry mass data) • This 2018 study of Lunar missions used… ― Phase B/C/D (not including Phase E) ― Excluding Launch Costs ― And dollars per dry kg (we filled in missing dry mass numbers) • Why? Because Phase E, Launch Costs and dollars per wet kg added noise to the data • Plus we re-categorized Lagrange missions as Earth Orbital based on the results from our 2017 study Is There A Difference In Cost? 24 • First, we will compare the mean $/Dry kg of the three destinations – Used mean $/Dry kg (i.e., as opposed to just mean $) to correct for the scale difference in the missions • Two sample t-tests were used to investigate if there is a difference in the mean cost of… – Earth Orbital and Planetary missions (just to warm our t-test jets) – Lunar vs Earth Orbital missions – Lunar vs Planetary missions • We will also use regression analysis to examine the predicted cost of the three destinations Cost Database (Showing Only Lunar Missions in the Table) 25 FY2018$Ms Mass (kg) Phase B/C/D Acquisition Cost Launch Organiza Mission Less Launch Cost* We t Dry Orbit Ye ar tion(s) Other Explorer 33 (AKA IMP-D) $144 212 172 Lunar Jul-66 NASA GSFC Explorer 35 (AKA IMP-E) $71 104 84 Lunar Jul-67 NASA LaRC Explorer 49 (AKA RAE-B) $168 334 271 Lunar Jun-73 NASA (Center TBD) Clementine $120 424 227 Lunar Jan-94 NASA, Lunar Prospector $111 295 239 Lunar Jan-98 NASA Ames Lockheed Martin Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) $80 892 581 Lunar Jun-09 NASA ARC Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL)* $268 307 201 Lunar Sep-11 JPL Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) $424 1915 1020 Lunar Sep-13 NASNASAA GSFC Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) $259 384 249 Lunar Sep-13 ARC, * For multi-spacecraft missions the costs reflect only Development through the First Unit • Our database consisted of 71 missions ― 42 Earth Orbital (including Lagrange missions) ― 20 Planetary ― 9 Lunar (shown in table above) including 9 Orbital and 4 missions at L1 and L2 • Note: We left out a few available historical lunar missions which seemed to be outliers ― Surveyor (1966) was a Lunar lander ― Lunar Orbiter (1966) was a very expensive mission (~$1 billion in today’s dollars) ― Artemis P1 was a relocated THEMIS B (2007) spacecraft First Indications… 26 Ratio to Destination $/Dry Kg Earth Orbital Earth Orbital (including Lagrange) $536,272 1.00 Lunar Orbit $685,911 1.28 Planetary $765,327 1.43 • A simple dollars per dry kg calculation indicates that per kg… ― Lunar missions cost 1.28x Earth Orbital ― Planetary missions cost 1.43x Earth Orbital T-Test Comparing Earth Orbital and Planetary Missions 27 Two-sample T for $/dry kg EO=0, PL=1 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 42 536272 267837 41328 1 20 765327 370926 82942 Difference = mu (0) - mu (1) Estimate for difference: -229055 95% CI for difference: (-418877, -39234) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value =
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Solar-Wind Proton Access Deep Into the Near-Moon Wake M
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L16103, doi:10.1029/2009GL039444, 2009 Click Here for Full Article Solar-wind proton access deep into the near-Moon wake M. N. Nishino,1 M. Fujimoto,1 K. Maezawa,1 Y. Saito,1 S. Yokota,1 K. Asamura,1 T. Tanaka,1 H. Tsunakawa,2 M. Matsushima,2 F. Takahashi,2 T. Terasawa,2 H. Shibuya,3 and H. Shimizu4 Received 3 June 2009; revised 22 July 2009; accepted 24 July 2009; published 28 August 2009. [1] We study solar wind (SW) entry deep into the near- wake were not known because there were no observation Moon wake using SELENE (KAGUYA) data. It has been data. Recently, a Japanese lunar orbiter SELENE known that SW protons flowing around the Moon access (KAGUYA) performed comprehensive measurements of the central region of the distant lunar wake, while their the plasma and electromagnetic environment around the intrusion deep into the near-Moon wake has never been Moon; in particular, entry of SW protons into the near- expected. We show that SW protons sneak into the deepest Moon wake was found [Nishino et al., 2009]. The SW lunar wake (anti-subsolar region at 100 km altitude), and protons are accelerated by the bipolar electric field around that the entry yields strong asymmetry of the near-Moon the wake boundary and come into the near-Moon wake by wake environment. Particle trajectory calculations their Larmor motion in the direction perpendicular to the demonstrate that these SW protons are once scattered at IMF. This entry mechanism, which we call ‘Type-I entry’, the lunar dayside surface, picked-up by the SW motional lets the SW protons come fairly deep into the wake (solar electric field, and finally sneak into the deepest wake.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Iowa Instruments in Space
    University of Iowa Instruments in Space A-D13-089-5 Wind Van Allen Probes Cluster Mercury Earth Venus Mars Express HaloSat MMS Geotail Mars Voyager 2 Neptune Uranus Juno Pluto Jupiter Saturn Voyager 1 Spaceflight instruments designed and built at the University of Iowa in the Department of Physics & Astronomy (1958-2019) Explorer 1 1958 Feb. 1 OGO 4 1967 July 28 Juno * 2011 Aug. 5 Launch Date Launch Date Launch Date Spacecraft Spacecraft Spacecraft Explorer 3 (U1T9)58 Mar. 26 Injun 5 1(U9T68) Aug. 8 (UT) ExpEloxrpelro r1e r 4 1915985 8F eJbu.l y1 26 OEGxOpl o4rer 41 (IMP-5) 19697 Juunlye 2 281 Juno * 2011 Aug. 5 Explorer 2 (launch failure) 1958 Mar. 5 OGO 5 1968 Mar. 4 Van Allen Probe A * 2012 Aug. 30 ExpPloiorenre 3er 1 1915985 8M Oarc. t2. 611 InEjuxnp lo5rer 45 (SSS) 197618 NAouvg.. 186 Van Allen Probe B * 2012 Aug. 30 ExpPloiorenre 4er 2 1915985 8Ju Nlyo 2v.6 8 EUxpKlo 4r e(rA 4ri1el -(4IM) P-5) 197619 DJuenc.e 1 211 Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission / 1 * 2015 Mar. 12 ExpPloiorenre 5e r 3 (launch failure) 1915985 8A uDge.c 2. 46 EPxpiolonreeerr 4130 (IMP- 6) 19721 Maarr.. 313 HMEaRgCnIe CtousbpeShaetr i(cF oMxu-1ltDis scaatelell itMe)i ssion / 2 * 2021081 J5a nM. a1r2. 12 PionPeioenr e1er 4 1915985 9O cMt.a 1r.1 3 EExpxlpolorerer r4 457 ( S(IMSSP)-7) 19721 SNeopvt.. 1263 HMaalogSnaett oCsupbhee Sriact eMlluitlet i*scale Mission / 3 * 2021081 M5a My a2r1. 12 Pioneer 2 1958 Nov. 8 UK 4 (Ariel-4) 1971 Dec. 11 Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission / 4 * 2015 Mar.
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Express Orbiter Radio Science
    MaRS: Mars Express Orbiter Radio Science M. Pätzold1, F.M. Neubauer1, L. Carone1, A. Hagermann1, C. Stanzel1, B. Häusler2, S. Remus2, J. Selle2, D. Hagl2, D.P. Hinson3, R.A. Simpson3, G.L. Tyler3, S.W. Asmar4, W.I. Axford5, T. Hagfors5, J.-P. Barriot6, J.-C. Cerisier7, T. Imamura8, K.-I. Oyama8, P. Janle9, G. Kirchengast10 & V. Dehant11 1Institut für Geophysik und Meteorologie, Universität zu Köln, D-50923 Köln, Germany Email: [email protected] 2Institut für Raumfahrttechnik, Universität der Bundeswehr München, D-85577 Neubiberg, Germany 3Space, Telecommunication and Radio Science Laboratory, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 95305, USA 4Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91009, USA 5Max-Planck-Instuitut für Aeronomie, D-37189 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany 6Observatoire Midi Pyrenees, F-31401 Toulouse, France 7Centre d’etude des Environnements Terrestre et Planetaires (CETP), F-94107 Saint-Maur, France 8Institute of Space & Astronautical Science (ISAS), Sagamihara, Japan 9Institut für Geowissenschaften, Abteilung Geophysik, Universität zu Kiel, D-24118 Kiel, Germany 10Institut für Meteorologie und Geophysik, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, A-8010 Graz, Austria 11Observatoire Royal de Belgique, B-1180 Bruxelles, Belgium The Mars Express Orbiter Radio Science (MaRS) experiment will employ radio occultation to (i) sound the neutral martian atmosphere to derive vertical density, pressure and temperature profiles as functions of height to resolutions better than 100 m, (ii) sound
    [Show full text]
  • Information Summaries
    TIROS 8 12/21/63 Delta-22 TIROS-H (A-53) 17B S National Aeronautics and TIROS 9 1/22/65 Delta-28 TIROS-I (A-54) 17A S Space Administration TIROS Operational 2TIROS 10 7/1/65 Delta-32 OT-1 17B S John F. Kennedy Space Center 2ESSA 1 2/3/66 Delta-36 OT-3 (TOS) 17A S Information Summaries 2 2 ESSA 2 2/28/66 Delta-37 OT-2 (TOS) 17B S 2ESSA 3 10/2/66 2Delta-41 TOS-A 1SLC-2E S PMS 031 (KSC) OSO (Orbiting Solar Observatories) Lunar and Planetary 2ESSA 4 1/26/67 2Delta-45 TOS-B 1SLC-2E S June 1999 OSO 1 3/7/62 Delta-8 OSO-A (S-16) 17A S 2ESSA 5 4/20/67 2Delta-48 TOS-C 1SLC-2E S OSO 2 2/3/65 Delta-29 OSO-B2 (S-17) 17B S Mission Launch Launch Payload Launch 2ESSA 6 11/10/67 2Delta-54 TOS-D 1SLC-2E S OSO 8/25/65 Delta-33 OSO-C 17B U Name Date Vehicle Code Pad Results 2ESSA 7 8/16/68 2Delta-58 TOS-E 1SLC-2E S OSO 3 3/8/67 Delta-46 OSO-E1 17A S 2ESSA 8 12/15/68 2Delta-62 TOS-F 1SLC-2E S OSO 4 10/18/67 Delta-53 OSO-D 17B S PIONEER (Lunar) 2ESSA 9 2/26/69 2Delta-67 TOS-G 17B S OSO 5 1/22/69 Delta-64 OSO-F 17B S Pioneer 1 10/11/58 Thor-Able-1 –– 17A U Major NASA 2 1 OSO 6/PAC 8/9/69 Delta-72 OSO-G/PAC 17A S Pioneer 2 11/8/58 Thor-Able-2 –– 17A U IMPROVED TIROS OPERATIONAL 2 1 OSO 7/TETR 3 9/29/71 Delta-85 OSO-H/TETR-D 17A S Pioneer 3 12/6/58 Juno II AM-11 –– 5 U 3ITOS 1/OSCAR 5 1/23/70 2Delta-76 1TIROS-M/OSCAR 1SLC-2W S 2 OSO 8 6/21/75 Delta-112 OSO-1 17B S Pioneer 4 3/3/59 Juno II AM-14 –– 5 S 3NOAA 1 12/11/70 2Delta-81 ITOS-A 1SLC-2W S Launches Pioneer 11/26/59 Atlas-Able-1 –– 14 U 3ITOS 10/21/71 2Delta-86 ITOS-B 1SLC-2E U OGO (Orbiting Geophysical
    [Show full text]
  • 170221 Sps, Phase-Standing Whistler
    Symposium on Planetary Science 2017, February 20−21, Sendai Phase-standing whistler fuctuations detected by SELENE and ARTEMIS around the Moon Yasunori Tsugawa1, Y. Katoh2, N. Terada2, and S. Machida1 1Institute for Space-Earth Environmental Research, Nagoya University 2Department of Geophysics, Tohoku University Abstract Low frequency (<~0.01 Hz) magnetic fluctuations around the Moon in the solar wind have been reported since 1960s. They are extended upstream of the lunar wake edge along the interplanetary magnetic field lines. We analyze magnetic field data detected by SELENE and ARTEMIS to reveal generation processes of the fluctuations. Our analyses indicate that observed polarizations of the magnetic fluctuations are determined by the spacecraft velocity: right-hand polarization when S/C moves downstream, left-hand polarization when S/ C moves upstream. This fact suggests that their phase velocity in the Moon frame is smaller than the spacecraft velocity and they are R-mode in plasma frame, i.e., they are phase-standing whistlers. They are possibly generated as bow waves around the lunar crustal magnetic anomalies and/ or ballistic fluctuations carried by electrons modified through the wake. 6432 NESS AND SCHATTEN INTERPLANETARY MAGNETIC FIELD FLUCTUATIONSverse to the average6429 field direction. The noise appearance indicative of a convective phe- regions represent relatively large amplitude per- nomenon associated with the solar wind flow DFA is the Distance to the extended field craft position thatturbations is downstream where magnitudes from of the transverse past the moon. X perturbations in(XW interplanetary space increase line From the 888 Axis. the lunar wake intersect position < STATISTICAL STUDIES DCA is the Distance along the field line from Xsc).
    [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]
  • Apollo Over the Moon: a View from Orbit (Nasa Sp-362)
    chl APOLLO OVER THE MOON: A VIEW FROM ORBIT (NASA SP-362) Chapter 1 - Introduction Harold Masursky, Farouk El-Baz, Frederick J. Doyle, and Leon J. Kosofsky [For a high resolution picture- click here] Objectives [1] Photography of the lunar surface was considered an important goal of the Apollo program by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The important objectives of Apollo photography were (1) to gather data pertaining to the topography and specific landmarks along the approach paths to the early Apollo landing sites; (2) to obtain high-resolution photographs of the landing sites and surrounding areas to plan lunar surface exploration, and to provide a basis for extrapolating the concentrated observations at the landing sites to nearby areas; and (3) to obtain photographs suitable for regional studies of the lunar geologic environment and the processes that act upon it. Through study of the photographs and all other arrays of information gathered by the Apollo and earlier lunar programs, we may develop an understanding of the evolution of the lunar crust. In this introductory chapter we describe how the Apollo photographic systems were selected and used; how the photographic mission plans were formulated and conducted; how part of the great mass of data is being analyzed and published; and, finally, we describe some of the scientific results. Historically most lunar atlases have used photointerpretive techniques to discuss the possible origins of the Moon's crust and its surface features. The ideas presented in this volume also rely on photointerpretation. However, many ideas are substantiated or expanded by information obtained from the huge arrays of supporting data gathered by Earth-based and orbital sensors, from experiments deployed on the lunar surface, and from studies made of the returned samples.
    [Show full text]
  • Solar Parameters for Modeling Interplanetary Background
    — 2 — Solar parameters for modeling interplanetary background M. Bzowski, J.M. Sokoł´ Space Research Center Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland M. Tokumaru,K.Fujiki Solar-Terrestrial Environment Laboratory, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan E. Quemerais,R.Lallement LATMOS-IPSL, Universite Versailles Saint-Quentin, Guyancourt, France S. Ferron ACRI-ST, Sophia Antipolis, France P. Bochsler Space Science Center & Department of Physics, University of New Hampshire, Durham NH Physikalisches Institut, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland D.J. McComas Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio TX University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA Abstract The goal of the Fully Online Datacenter of Ultraviolet Emissions (FONDUE) Work- ing Team of the International Space Science Institute (ISSI) in Bern, Switzerland, was to establish a common calibration of various UV and EUV heliospheric observations, both spectroscopic and photometric. Realization of this goal required a credible and up-to-date model of spatial distribution of neutral interstellar hydrogen in the heliosphere, and to that end, a credible model of the radiation pressure and ionization processes was needed. This chapter describes the latter part of the project: the solar factors responsible for shap- arXiv:1112.2967v1 [astro-ph.SR] 13 Dec 2011 ing the distribution of neutral interstellar H in the heliosphere. Presented are the solar Lyman-alpha flux and the question of solar Lyman-alpha resonant radiation pressure force acting on neutral H atoms in the heliosphere, solar EUV radiation and the process of pho- toionization of heliospheric hydrogen, and their evolution in time and the still hypothetical variation with heliolatitude. Further, solar wind and its evolution with solar activity is 1 2 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Space Chronicle Deep Space Chronicle: a Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes, 1958–2000 | Asifa
    dsc_cover (Converted)-1 8/6/02 10:33 AM Page 1 Deep Space Chronicle Deep Space Chronicle: A Chronology ofDeep Space and Planetary Probes, 1958–2000 |Asif A.Siddiqi National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA SP-2002-4524 A Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes 1958–2000 Asif A. Siddiqi NASA SP-2002-4524 Monographs in Aerospace History Number 24 dsc_cover (Converted)-1 8/6/02 10:33 AM Page 2 Cover photo: A montage of planetary images taken by Mariner 10, the Mars Global Surveyor Orbiter, Voyager 1, and Voyager 2, all managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. Included (from top to bottom) are images of Mercury, Venus, Earth (and Moon), Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and its Moon, and Mars) and the outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) are roughly to scale to each other. NASA SP-2002-4524 Deep Space Chronicle A Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes 1958–2000 ASIF A. SIDDIQI Monographs in Aerospace History Number 24 June 2002 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of External Relations NASA History Office Washington, DC 20546-0001 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Siddiqi, Asif A., 1966­ Deep space chronicle: a chronology of deep space and planetary probes, 1958-2000 / by Asif A. Siddiqi. p.cm. – (Monographs in aerospace history; no. 24) (NASA SP; 2002-4524) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Space flight—History—20th century. I. Title. II. Series. III. NASA SP; 4524 TL 790.S53 2002 629.4’1’0904—dc21 2001044012 Table of Contents Foreword by Roger D.
    [Show full text]
  • ISEE&Hyphen;3 Wave Measurements in the Distant Geomagnetic Tail And
    GEOPHYSICALRESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 11, NO. 4, PAGES335-338, APRIL 1984 ISEE-3 WAVE MEASUREMENTS IN THE DISTANT GEOMAGNETIC TAIL AND BOUNDARY LAYER Fß L. Scarfl , F. V. Coroniti1, Cß F. KennelI , Rß Wß Fredricks1 D. A. Gurnett2, andE ß Jß Smith3 1TRWSpace and Technology Group, Redondo Beach, California 90278 2Universityof Iowa,Iowa City, Iowa 52242 3jet PropulsionLaboratory, Pasadena, California 91109 Abstractß The ISEE-3 excursion into the dis- field configuration for the first relatively tant tail region reveals a complex structure with close-in traversal of the tail (r < 94 Re) and several wave, particle and field characteristics for the first deep excursion to r = 225 Re. In that differ significantly from those measured another recent report, Bame et al. (1983) pre- closer to earth. The most striking results are Sented initial results from the ISEE-3 plasma found within the distant boundary layer where in- analyzer, and they showed that all plasma regimes tense electrostatic turbulence levels are de- identified from earlier measurements (plasma tected in association with bi-directional elec- sheet, low latitude boundary levels, mantle, lobe tron distributions. The wave amplitudes appear and magnetosheath) remained recognizable in the to increase with increasing downstream distance distant tail, although the regimes appeared to be and the polarizations are those expected for ion "intermingled" far from earth, and a well-defined acoustic oscillations. Near the boundary of the low density tail lobe was rarely encountered. distant plasmas sheet the turbulence spectra are The distant tail plasma was also characterized by essentially identical to those measured much unusually large flow speeds (generally tailward) closer to earth on IMP-8.
    [Show full text]
  • ILWS Report 137 Moon
    Returning to the Moon Heritage issues raised by the Google Lunar X Prize Dirk HR Spennemann Guy Murphy Returning to the Moon Heritage issues raised by the Google Lunar X Prize Dirk HR Spennemann Guy Murphy Albury February 2020 © 2011, revised 2020. All rights reserved by the authors. The contents of this publication are copyright in all countries subscribing to the Berne Convention. No parts of this report may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, in existence or to be invented, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the written permission of the authors, except where permitted by law. Preferred citation of this Report Spennemann, Dirk HR & Murphy, Guy (2020). Returning to the Moon. Heritage issues raised by the Google Lunar X Prize. Institute for Land, Water and Society Report nº 137. Albury, NSW: Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University. iv, 35 pp ISBN 978-1-86-467370-8 Disclaimer The views expressed in this report are solely the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the views of Charles Sturt University. Contact Associate Professor Dirk HR Spennemann, MA, PhD, MICOMOS, APF Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 789, Albury NSW 2640, Australia. email: [email protected] Spennemann & Murphy (2020) Returning to the Moon: Heritage Issues Raised by the Google Lunar X Prize Page ii CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 2. HUMAN ARTEFACTS ON THE MOON 3 What Have These Missions Left BehinD? 4 Impactor Missions 10 Lander Missions 11 Rover Missions 11 Sample Return Missions 11 Human Missions 11 The Lunar Environment & ImpLications for Artefact Preservation 13 Decay caused by ascent module 15 Decay by solar radiation 15 Human Interference 16 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moon As a Laboratory for Biological Contamination Research
    The Moon As a Laboratory for Biological Contamina8on Research Jason P. Dworkin1, Daniel P. Glavin1, Mark Lupisella1, David R. Williams1, Gerhard Kminek2, and John D. Rummel3 1NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA 2European Space AgenCy, Noordwijk, The Netherlands 3SETI InsQtute, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA Introduction Catalog of Lunar Artifacts Some Apollo Sites Spacecraft Landing Type Landing Date Latitude, Longitude Ref. The Moon provides a high fidelity test-bed to prepare for the Luna 2 Impact 14 September 1959 29.1 N, 0 E a Ranger 4 Impact 26 April 1962 15.5 S, 130.7 W b The microbial analysis of exploration of Mars, Europa, Enceladus, etc. Ranger 6 Impact 2 February 1964 9.39 N, 21.48 E c the Surveyor 3 camera Ranger 7 Impact 31 July 1964 10.63 S, 20.68 W c returned by Apollo 12 is Much of our knowledge of planetary protection and contamination Ranger 8 Impact 20 February 1965 2.64 N, 24.79 E c flawed. We can do better. Ranger 9 Impact 24 March 1965 12.83 S, 2.39 W c science are based on models, brief and small experiments, or Luna 5 Impact 12 May 1965 31 S, 8 W b measurements in low Earth orbit. Luna 7 Impact 7 October 1965 9 N, 49 W b Luna 8 Impact 6 December 1965 9.1 N, 63.3 W b Experiments on the Moon could be piggybacked on human Luna 9 Soft Landing 3 February 1966 7.13 N, 64.37 W b Surveyor 1 Soft Landing 2 June 1966 2.47 S, 43.34 W c exploration or use the debris from past missions to test and Luna 10 Impact Unknown (1966) Unknown d expand our current understanding to reduce the cost and/or risk Luna 11 Impact Unknown (1966) Unknown d Surveyor 2 Impact 23 September 1966 5.5 N, 12.0 W b of future missions to restricted destinations in the solar system.
    [Show full text]