DOCSLIB.ORG

The Galilean Satellites Formed Slowly from Pebbles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Galilean Satellites Formed Slowly from Pebbles Draft version October 29, 2019 Preprint typeset using LATEX style AASTeX6 v. 1.0 THE GALILEAN SATELLITES FORMED SLOWLY FROM PEBBLES Yuhito Shibaike1,2,Chris W. Ormel3,4,Shigeru Ida1,Satoshi Okuzumi5, and Takanori Sasaki6 1Earth-Life Science Institute, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan 2Physikalisches Institut & NCCR PlanetS, Universitaet Bern, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland 3Anton Pannekoek Institute, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904,1090GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands 4Department of Astronomy, Tsinghua University, Haidian DS 100084, Beijing, China 5Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 152-8551, Japan 6Department of Astronomy, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa-Oiwake-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8502, Japan ABSTRACT It is generally accepted that the four major (Galilean) satellites formed out of the gas disk that accompanied Jupiter’s formation. However, understanding the specifics of the formation process is challenging as both small particles (pebbles) as well as the satellites are subject to fast migration processes. Here, we hypothesize a new scenario for the origin of the Galilean system, based on the capture of several planetesimal seeds and subsequent slow accretion of pebbles. To halt migration, we invoke an inner disk truncation radius, and other parameters are tuned for the model to match physical, dynamical, compositional, and structural constraints. In our scenario it is natural that Ganymede’s mass is determined by pebble isolation. Our slow-pebble-accretion scenario then reproduces the following characteristics: (1) the mass of all the Galilean satellites; (2) the orbits of Io, Europa, and Ganymede captured in mutual 2:1 mean motion resonances; (3) the ice mass fractions of all the Galilean satellites; (4) the unique ice-rock partially differentiated Callisto and the complete differentiation of the other satellites. Our scenario is unique to simultaneously reproduce these disparate properties. Keywords: accretion, accretion disks — planets and satellites: dynamical evolution and stability — planets and satellites: formation — planets and satellites: individual (Jupiter, Galilean satellites) — planets and satellites: interiors — planet-disk interactions 1. INTRODUCTION that if enough satellitesimals (km-sized bodies) exist in the The four large satellites around Jupiter were discovered by disk, satellites with the current Galilean satellites mass can Galileo Galilei over 400 years ago. The physical, dynami- form by two-body collisions (Canup & Ward 2006; Sasaki cal, compositional, and structural properties of the satellite et al. 2010). A problem with this scenario, however, is the system are well known. The inner three satellites, Io, Eu- formation of satellitesimals. Unless the CJD features pres- ropa, and Ganymede, are captured in mutual 2:1 mean mo- sure reversals or the gas flows outward on the midplane, the tion resonances. The satellites’ masses are similar at about progenitor dust grains will not have had the time to conglom- −4 erate, because of the strong radial drift (Shibaike et al. 2017; 10 MJ (Jupiter mass). The satellites’ ice mass fractions in- crease with their distance from Jupiter: Io is dry, Europa con- Drazkowska˙ & Szulagyi´ 2018). Alternatively, planetesimals sist of 6 − 9 wt% ice, while Ganymede and Callisto have ice expelled from the CSD can be captured by the CJD by virtue mass fractions of about 50 wt% (Kuskov & Kronrod 2005). of the large density of the latter disk. A problem with this arXiv:1909.00285v2 [astro-ph.EP] 28 Oct 2019 Uniquely, Callisto features an undifferentiated internal struc- planetesimal-capture scenario is, however, that the growing ture (Schubert et al. 2004). Jupiter and the opened gas gap push the planetesimals out Any model describing the formation of the Galilean satel- from Jupiter’s feeding zone, rendering the capture rate very lites, must obey these basic observational constraints. How- low (Hayashi et al. 1977; Fujita et al. 2013). ever, previous models have only explained parts of these Another problem formation models face is that of strong characteristics and the models are inconsistent with each radial migration of planetesimals and satellites by aerody- other. Given that the satellites reside in the same plane, it is namic and tidal forces. Previous works argued that today’s natural to assume that they formed in a gas disk surrounding Galilean satellites are the final survivors of a history in which Jupiterthe circum-Jovian disk (CJD)analogous to the forma- an earlier generation of satellites repeatedly formed, but were tion of planets in circum-stellar disks (CSDs) (Canup & Ward lost because they migrated into Jupiter (Canup & Ward 2006; 2002; Mosqueira & Estrada 2003). Previous works showed Sasaki et al. 2010; Ogihara & Ida 2012; Cilibrasi et al. 2018). This model is therefore very inefficient in its use of (already 2 scarce) solid material supplied to the CJD. An alternative 2, we explain the methods used in this work. We then show idea, which we invoke in our model, is to stop the inward the results of our calculations in Section3 and discuss the migration by virtue of a cavity of the gas disk around Jupiter validity of our assumptions In Section4. These two sections opened by a strong magnetic field of the planet. The res- are the key parts of this paper. We also add some discussion onance chain of the inner three satellites’ orbits is actually in Section5 and conclude our work in Section6. consistent with a scenario where the cavity halted the migra- tion of Io and then Europa and Ganymede were captured into 2. METHODS the resonances one by one (Sasaki et al. 2010; Ogihara & Ida In order to create a scenario for the origin of the Galilean 2012). satellites consistent with almost all of the available con- The variation in the ice fraction also constitutes a straints, we rely on combining a variety of modeling tools. formidable modeling challenge (Heller & Pudritz 2015a,b). We first provide an executive summary of the overall model In particular, the ice mass fraction of Europa (6 − 9%)rather (Section 2.1) and then discuss its elements in more detail. small compared to Ganymede and Callistois hard to explain by the previous satellitesimal-accretion scenario because the 2.1. Model Summary rocky and icy satellitesimals must be radially mixed beyond As we show later in Section 2.4, the pebble isolation mass the snowline (Dwyer et al. 2013). Recently, a scenario where (PIM) in the CJD is close to the actual mass of Ganymede. Europa accretes small icy particles, which dehydrated inte- Therefore, we investigate two models. In the first model, four rior to the snowline, has been suggested to explain the small planetesimals are captured, grow, and migrate (Model A). ice fraction (Ronnet et al. 2017). Another idea is to repro- In the second model, three planetesimals are captured, the duce the fraction by accreting small particles by invoking the third satellite reaches pebble isolation, and the fourth satel- inward movement of the snowline (the place in the CJD cor- lite forms out of the pebbles trapped at the gas pressure maxi- responding to T = 160 K) in the final growth phases of the mum associated with reaching PIM (Model B). The methods satellites (Canup & Ward 2009). A formation scenario for the used in the two models are the same except for the treatment TRAPPIST-1 system which has various ice mass fractions of of PIM and the way to calculate the growth of Callisto. In planets may be able to apply to the Galilean satellites, where both the models, the captured planetesimals slowly accrete the seeds of the planets form around the snowline and accrete the particles drifting toward Jupiter, here referred to as peb- pebbles during their migration toward the star (Ormel et al. bles (∼ 10 cm). The interiors of the satellites are mainly 2017). heated by the radiogenic decay of 26Al included in the ac- Finally, the dichotomy between the differentiated creted pebbles. Figure1 represents the two models of our Ganymede and the partially differentiated Callisto requires slow-pebble-accretion scenario. tuned conditions. Given that Ganymede and Callisto have At first, we model the gas accretion rate as M˙ g = −1 similar mass and compositions, it is natural to likewise 0:2 exp(−(t − tgap)=tdep)) MJ Myr , where t, tgap, tdep, and expect a similar thermal history for these neighboring MJ are the time after the formation of CAIs, gap opening satellites (Barr & Canup 2008). Thermal evolution after their time, gas depletion timescale of the CSD (we assume tdep = 30 formation by the release of the gravitational energy during 3 Myr), and the current Jupiter mass MJ = 1:90 × 10 g, the differentiation and/or the impacts during the Late Heavy respectively. We consider a 1-D viscous accretion CJD. We Bombardment might be able to make the dichotomy but still assume that the gas mass flux is uniform in the CJD and it tuned conditions were needed (Friedson & Stevenson 1983; is equal to both the inflow mass flux to the disk and gas ac- Barr & Canup 2010). cretion rate to Jupiter, and the mass of Jupiter grows by M˙ g Here we show that we have succeeded to construct a new from 0:4 MJ at t = tgap to 1:0 MJ at the end of the calcula- scenario, “Slow-Pebble-Accretion scenario”, which repro- tion. We fix the position of the edge of the cavity rcav at the duces the physical, dynamical, compositional, and structural current position of Io. On the distribution of the disk tem- properties of the satellite system simultaneously and consis- perature in our model, the position of the snowline rsnow is at tently. Naturally, in order to match the above constraints, our Ganymede’s orbit when the gap opens and moves to Europa’s model is characterized by a number of parameters. There- orbit at the end of the disk evolution.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Compendium of Space Debris Mitigation Standards Adopted by States and International Organizations”
    COMPENDIUM SPACE DEBRIS MITIGATION STANDARDS ADOPTED BY STATES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 17 JUNE 2021 SPACE DEBRIS MITIGATION STANDARDS TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 Part 1. National Mechanisms Algeria ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Argentina .................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Australia (Updated on 17 January 2020) .................................................................................................................... 8 Austria (Updated on 21 March 2016) ...................................................................................................................... 10 Azerbaijan (Added on 6 February 2019) .................................................................................................................. 13 Belgium .................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Canada...................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Chile.........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Orbiting Debris: a Space Environmental Problem (Part 4 Of
    Orbiting Debris: A Since Environmential Problem ● 3 Table 2--of Hazardous Interference by environment. Yet, orbital debris is part of a Orbital Debris larger problem of pollution in space that in- cludes radio-frequency interference and inter- 1. Loss or damage to space assets through collision; ference to scientific observations in all parts of 2. Accidental re-entry of space hardware; the spectrum. For example, emissions at ra- 3. Contamination by nuclear material of manned or unmanned spacecraft, both in space and on Earth; dio frequencies often interfere with radio as- 4. Interference with astronomical observations, both from the tronomy observations. For several years, ground and in space; gamma-ray astronomy data have been cor- 5. Interference with scientific and military experiments in space; rupted by Soviet intelligence satellites that 14 6. Potential military use. are powered by unshielded nuclear reactors. The indirect emissions from these satellites SOURCE: Space Debris, European Space Agency, and Office of Technology As- sessment. spread along the Earth’s magnetic field and are virtually impossible for other satellites to Earth. The largest have attracted worldwide escape. The Japanese Ginga satellite, attention. 10 Although the risk to individuals is launched in 1987 to study gamma-ray extremely small, the probability of striking bursters, has been triggered so often by the populated areas still finite.11 For example: 1) Soviet reactors that over 40 percent of its available observing time has been spent trans- the U.S.S.R. Kosmos 954, which contained a 15 nuclear power source,12 reentered the atmos- mitting unintelligible “data.” All of these phere over northwest Canada in 1978, scatter- problem areas will require attention and posi- ing debris over an area the size of Austria; 2) a tive steps to guarantee access to space by all Japanese ship was hit in 1969 by pieces of countries in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Rain: the Burial of the Galilean Satellites in Irregular Satellite Debris
    Black Rain: The Burial of the Galilean Satellites in Irregular Satellite Debris William F: Bottke Southwest Research Institute and NASA Lunar Science Institute 1050 Walnut St, Suite 300 Boulder, CO 80302 USA [email protected] David Vokrouhlick´y Institute of Astronomy, Charles University, Prague V Holeˇsoviˇck´ach 2 180 00 Prague 8, Czech Republic David Nesvorn´y Southwest Research Institute and NASA Lunar Science Institute 1050 Walnut St, Suite 300 Boulder, CO 80302 USA Jeff Moore NASA Ames Research Center Space Science Div., MS 245-3 Moffett Field, CA 94035 USA Prepared for Icarus June 20, 2012 { 2 { ABSTRACT Irregular satellites are dormant comet-like bodies that reside on distant pro- grade and retrograde orbits around the giant planets. They were possibly cap- tured during a violent reshuffling of the giant planets ∼ 4 Gy ago (Ga) as de- scribed by the so-called Nice model. As giant planet migration scattered tens of Earth masses of comet-like bodies throughout the Solar System, some found themselves near giant planets experiencing mutual encounters. In these cases, gravitational perturbations between the giant planets were often sufficient to capture the comet-like bodies onto irregular satellite-like orbits via three-body reactions. Modeling work suggests these events led to the capture of ∼ 0:001 lu- nar masses of comet-like objects on isotropic orbits around the giant planets. Roughly half of the population was readily lost by interactions with the Kozai resonance. The remaining half found themselves on orbits consistent with the known irregular satellites. From there, the bodies experienced substantial col- lisional evolution, enough to grind themselves down to their current low-mass states.
    [Show full text]
  • 10/2/95 Rev EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Report, Entitled "Hazard
    10/2/95 rev EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, entitled "Hazard Analysis of Commercial Space Transportation," is devoted to the review and discussion of generic hazards associated with the ground, launch, orbital and re-entry phases of space operations. Since the DOT Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) has been charged with protecting the public health and safety by the Commercial Space Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-575), it must promulgate and enforce appropriate safety criteria and regulatory requirements for licensing the emerging commercial space launch industry. This report was sponsored by OCST to identify and assess prospective safety hazards associated with commercial launch activities, the involved equipment, facilities, personnel, public property, people and environment. The report presents, organizes and evaluates the technical information available in the public domain, pertaining to the nature, severity and control of prospective hazards and public risk exposure levels arising from commercial space launch activities. The US Government space- operational experience and risk control practices established at its National Ranges serve as the basis for this review and analysis. The report consists of three self-contained, but complementary, volumes focusing on Space Transportation: I. Operations; II. Hazards; and III. Risk Analysis. This Executive Summary is attached to all 3 volumes, with the text describing that volume highlighted. Volume I: Space Transportation Operations provides the technical background and terminology, as well as the issues and regulatory context, for understanding commercial space launch activities and the associated hazards. Chapter 1, The Context for a Hazard Analysis of Commercial Space Activities, discusses the purpose, scope and organization of the report in light of current national space policy and the DOT/OCST regulatory mission.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Space Law
    JOURNAL OF SPACE LAW VOLUME 24, NUMBER 2 1996 JOURNAL OF SPACE LAW A journal devoted to the legal problems arising out of human activities in outer space VOLUME 24 1996 NUMBERS 1 & 2 EDITORIAL BOARD AND ADVISORS BERGER, HAROLD GALLOWAY, ElLENE Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Washington, D.C. BOCKSTIEGEL, KARL·HEINZ HE, QIZHI Cologne, Germany Beijing, China BOUREr.. Y, MICHEL G. JASENTULIYANA, NANDASIRI Paris, France Vienna. Austria COCCA, ALDO ARMANDO KOPAL, VLADIMIR Buenes Aires, Argentina Prague, Czech Republic DEMBLING, PAUL G. McDOUGAL, MYRES S. Washington, D. C. New Haven. Connecticut DIEDERIKS·VERSCHOOR, IE. PH. VERESHCHETIN, V.S. Baarn, Holland Moscow. Russ~an Federation FASAN, ERNST ZANOTTI, ISIDORO N eunkirchen, Austria Washington, D.C. FINCH, EDWARD R., JR. New York, N.Y. STEPHEN GOROVE, Chairman Oxford, Mississippi All correspondance should be directed to the JOURNAL OF SPACE LAW, P.O. Box 308, University, MS 38677, USA. Tel./Fax: 601·234·2391. The 1997 subscription rates for individuals are $84.80 (domestic) and $89.80 (foreign) for two issues, including postage and handling The 1997 rates for organizations are $99.80 (domestic) and $104.80 (foreign) for two issues. Single issues may be ordered for $56 per issue. Copyright © JOURNAL OF SPACE LAW 1996. Suggested abbreviation: J. SPACE L. JOURNAL OF SPACE LAW A journal devoted to the legal problems arising out of human activities in outer space VOLUME 24 1996 NUMBER 2 CONTENTS In Memoriam ~ Tribute to Professor Dr. Daan Goedhuis. (N. J asentuliyana) I Articles Financing and Insurance Aspects of Spacecraft (I.H. Ph. Diederiks-Verschoor) 97 Are 'Stratospheric Platforms in Airspace or Outer Space? (M.
    [Show full text]
  • Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance Best Practices Handbook
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance Best Practices Handbook December 2020 NASA/SP-20205011318 The cover photo is an image from the Hubble Space Telescope showing galaxies NGC 4038 and NGC 4039, also known as the Antennae Galaxies, locked in a deadly embrace. Once normal spiral galaxies, the pair have spent the past few hundred million years sparring with one another. Image can be found at: https://images.nasa.gov/details-GSFC_20171208_Archive_e001327 ii NASA Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance Best Practices Handbook DOCUMENT HISTORY LOG Status Document Effective Description (Baseline/Revision/ Version Date Canceled) Baseline V0 iii NASA Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance Best Practices Handbook THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv NASA Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance Best Practices Handbook Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................................ 1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 3 2. Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................ 5 3. History ........................................................................................................... 7 USSPACECOM CA Process .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • IAA Situation Report on Space Debris - 2016
    IAA Situation Report on Space Debris - 2016 Editors: Christophe Bonnal Darren S. McKnight International A cadem y of A stronautics Notice: The cosmic study or position paper that is the subject of this report was approved by the Board of Trustees of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring or funding organizations. For more information about the International Academy of Astronautics, visit the IAA home page at www.iaaweb.org. Copyright 2017 by the International Academy of Astronautics. All rights reserved. The International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), an independent nongovernmental organization recognized by the United Nations, was founded in 1960. The purposes of the IAA are to foster the development of astronautics for peaceful purposes, to recognize individuals who have distinguished themselves in areas related to astronautics, and to provide a program through which the membership can contribute to international endeavours and cooperation in the advancement of aerospace activities. © International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) May 2017. This publication is protected by copyright. The information it contains cannot be reproduced without written authorization. Title: IAA Situation Report on Space Debris - 2016 Editors: Christophe Bonnal, Darren S. McKnight Printing of this Study was sponsored by CNES International Academy of Astronautics 6 rue Galilée, Po Box 1268-16, 75766 Paris Cedex 16, France www.iaaweb.org ISBN/EAN IAA : 978-2-917761-56-4 Cover Illustration: NASA IAA Situation Report on Space Debris - 2016 Editors Christophe Bonnal Darren S.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Small-Satellites to Live Through the Kessler Effect
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335617312 Building Small-Satellites to Live Through the Kessler Effect Preprint · September 2019 CITATIONS READS 0 43 4 authors: Steven Morad Himangshu Kalita Toshiba Research Europe Limited The University of Arizona 11 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS 53 PUBLICATIONS 164 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Ravi Teja Nallapu Jekan Thangavelautham The University of Arizona The University of Arizona 45 PUBLICATIONS 160 CITATIONS 205 PUBLICATIONS 828 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Automated Design of CubeSats and Small Spacecrafts View project Evolutionary Algorithms View project All content following this page was uploaded by Steven Morad on 02 April 2020. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Building Small-Satellites to Live Through the Kessler Effect Steven Morad, Himangshu Kalita, Ravi teja Nallapu, and Jekan Thangavelautham Space and Terrestrial Robotic Exploration (SpaceTREx) Laboratory, University of Arizona ABSTRACT The rapid advancement and miniaturization of spacecraft electronics, sensors, actuators, and power systems have resulted in grow- ing proliferation of small-spacecraft. Coupled with this is the growing number of rocket launches, with left-over debris marking their trail. The space debris problem has also been compounded by test of several satellite killer missiles that have left large remnant debris fields. In this paper, we assume a future in which the Kessler Effect has taken hold and analyze the implications on the design of small-satellites and CubeSats. We use a multiprong approach of surveying the latest technologies, including the ability to sense space debris in orbit, perform obstacle avoidance, have sufficient shielding to take on small impacts and other techniques to mitigate the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Program 1-9-07
    Conference Program 17th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting 28 January -01 February 2007 — Sedona, Arizona AAS General Chair Dr. Robert H. Bishop The University of Texas at Austin AIAA General Chair Alfred J. Treder Barrios Technology AAS Technical Chair Dr. Maruthi R. Akella The University of Texas at Austin AIAA Technical Chair Dr. James W. Gearhart Orbital Sciences Corporation Program cover design & printing sponsored by: TABLE OF CONTENTS General Information ……………...……………………………………………………….. 2 Conference Location …...………...……………………………………………………….. 3 Schedule of Events ……..………...……………………………………………………….. 8 Special Events ………….………...……………………………………………………….. 9 Technical Program …………………………………………………………………….…. 12 Session 1: Attitude Estimation ………..…...………………………………...…….. 13 Session 2: Satellite Constellations & Formation Flying I …………………...…….. 15 Session 3: Trajectory Design & Optimization I ……………...……………...…….. 17 Session 4: Orbit Determination & Tracking I …………......………………...…….. 19 Session 5: Spacecraft Guidance, Navigation, & Control I ……………...…..…….. 21 Session 6: Orbit Dynamics & Perturbations I …………….......……………........... 23 Session 7: Space Debris & Planetary Defense …………….....……………...…….. 25 Session 8: Satellite Constellations & Formation Flying II ….…………...…...……. 27 Session 9: Trajectory Design & Optimization II ……………..……………..…….. 29 Session 10: Orbit Determination & Tracking II ……………......……………...……. 31 Session 11: Solar Sails ……………...……………………….………………..…….. 32 Session 12: Earth and Planetary Missions I ……………...….………………..…….
    [Show full text]
  • Space Security 2010
    SPACE SECURITY 2010 spacesecurity.org SPACE 2010SECURITY SPACESECURITY.ORG iii Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publications Data Space Security 2010 ISBN : 978-1-895722-78-9 © 2010 SPACESECURITY.ORG Edited by Cesar Jaramillo Design and layout: Creative Services, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Cover image: Artist rendition of the February 2009 satellite collision between Cosmos 2251 and Iridium 33. Artwork courtesy of Phil Smith. Printed in Canada Printer: Pandora Press, Kitchener, Ontario First published August 2010 Please direct inquires to: Cesar Jaramillo Project Ploughshares 57 Erb Street West Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6C2 Canada Telephone: 519-888-6541, ext. 708 Fax: 519-888-0018 Email: [email protected] iv Governance Group Cesar Jaramillo Managing Editor, Project Ploughshares Phillip Baines Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada Dr. Ram Jakhu Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University John Siebert Project Ploughshares Dr. Jennifer Simons The Simons Foundation Dr. Ray Williamson Secure World Foundation Advisory Board Hon. Philip E. Coyle III Center for Defense Information Richard DalBello Intelsat General Corporation Theresa Hitchens United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Dr. John Logsdon The George Washington University (Prof. emeritus) Dr. Lucy Stojak HEC Montréal/International Space University v Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 Acronyms PAGE 7 Introduction PAGE 11 Acknowledgements PAGE 13 Executive Summary PAGE 29 Chapter 1 – The Space Environment:
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly News Volume 13, Issue 2 April 2009
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Orbital Debris Quarterly News Volume 13, Issue 2 April 2009 Inside... Satellite Collision Leaves Significant Debris Clouds ISS Crew Seeks The first accidental hypervelocity collision debris created in a collision of this type is dependent Safe Haven During of two intact spacecraft occurred on 10 February, upon the masses of the vehicles involved and the Debris Flyby 3 leaving two distinct debris clouds extending through manner in which they struck one another. The two much of low Earth orbit (LEO). The first indication complex spacecraft (Figure 2) were of moderate dry Minor March of the impact was the immediate cessation of signals continued on page 2 Satellite from one of the satellites. Shortly thereafter, the Break-Up 3 U.S. Space Surveillance Network (SSN) began detecting numerous new objects in the paths of the STS-126 Shuttle two spacecraft. By the end of March, 823 of the Endeavour Window larger debris had been identified and cataloged by the SSN with additional debris being tracked, but not Impact Damage 3 yet cataloged. Special ground-based observations confirmed that a much greater number of smaller Abstracts from the debris was also generated in the unprecedented NASA OD Program event. Office 5 Iridium 33, a U.S. operational communications satellite (International Designator 1997-051C, U.S. Upcoming Satellite Number 24946), and Cosmos 2251, a Meeting 9 Russian decommissioned communications satellite Figure 1. The orbital planes of Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 (International Designator 1993-036A, U.S. Satellite were at nearly right angles at the time of the collision.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Security in Space: a Thirty-Year US Strategy
    APRIL 2021 The Future of Security in Space: A Thirty-Year US Strategy Lead Authors: Clementine G. Starling, Mark J. Massa, Lt Col Christopher P. Mulder, and Julia T. Siegel With a Foreword by Co-Chairs General James E. Cartwright, USMC (ret.) and Secretary Deborah Lee James In Collaboration with: Raphael Piliero Christopher J. MacArthur Brett M. Williamson Alexander Powell Hays Dor W. Brown IV Christian Trotti Ross Lott Olivia Popp The Future of Security in Space: A Thirty-Year US Strategy Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and the world. The Center honors General Brent Scowcroft’s legacy of service and embodies his ethos of nonpartisan commitment to the cause of security, support for US leadership in cooperation with allies and partners, and dedication to the mentorship of the next generation of leaders. Forward Defense Forward Defense helps the United States and its allies and partners contend with great-power competitors and maintain favorable balances of power. This new practice area in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security produces Forward-looking analyses of the trends, technologies, and concepts that will define the future of warfare, and the alliances needed for the 21st century. Through the futures we forecast, the scenarios we wargame, and the analyses we produce, Forward Defense develops actionable strategies and policies for deterrence and defense, while shaping US and allied operational concepts and the role of defense industry in addressing the most significant military challenges at the heart of great-power competition.
    [Show full text]