Tag

#SpaceScience

Browsing
Space Exploration

How Galaxies Make Sure They Always Have Enough Gas to Form New Stars

By
How Galaxies Make Sure They Always Have Enough Gas to Form New Stars

How Galaxies Make Sure They Always Have Enough Gas to Form New Stars

Key Takeaway

Galaxies keep a balance between making stars and having enough gas. They do this with complex processes. These include supermassive black holes and their jets. Supermassive black holes are very large black holes found at the center of galaxies. Jets are streams of high-energy particles that shoot out from these black holes. These mechanisms help galaxies not use up all their star-forming gas too fast. This way, galaxies can keep making stars for billions of years.

Summary

  • Star Formation: Spiral and barred spiral galaxies have regions rich in hydrogen gas where stars form.
  • Early Galaxies: The first galaxies were small, composed of hydrogen and helium, with massive, short-lived stars.
  • Regulation Mechanism: Supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies regulate star formation through processes akin to breathing.
  • Heart and Lungs Analogy: Black holes pulse like a heart, and jets of radiation and gas act like airways, slowing gas accretion and star formation.
  • Simulation Studies: Computer simulations have shown black holes pulsing and creating ripples that support the galaxy’s gas environment.
  • Observational Evidence: Ripples similar to those in simulations have been observed in galaxy clusters, supporting the theory.
  • Implications: Understanding these mechanisms helps explain why galaxies aren’t as large as expected and remain vibrant for billions of years.

How Galaxies Make Sure They Always Have Enough Gas to Form New Stars

Look at most spiral or barred spiral galaxies and you will see multiple regions where stars are forming. These star-forming regions are comprised of mostly hydrogen gas with a few other elements for good measure. The first galaxies in the Universe had huge supplies of this star-forming gas. Left unchecked, they could have burned through the gas quickly, generating enormous amounts of star formation. Life fast, though, and die young for such an energetic burst of star formation would soon fizzle out, leaving behind dead and dying stars. In some way, it seems, galaxies regulate their star formation thanks to supermassive black holes at their center.

The Birth of the First Galaxies

The first galaxies formed about 400 to 700 million years after the Big Bang, during the Epoch known as Reionization. These early galaxies were small and faint, mostly composed of hydrogen and helium, and contained dense clusters of massive, short-lived Population III stars, the first generation of stars. The intense radiation from these stars ionized the surrounding gas, clearing the fog that permeated space and making the universe transparent for the first time. These primordial galaxies began merging and interacting, laying the foundation for the galaxy types seen today.

A New Study on Galaxy Regulation

A new study published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society explores why galaxies are not as large as astronomers would expect. The research suggests that galaxies, even those that formed first, avoid an early death because they have mechanisms similar to “heart and lungs,” which regulate their “breathing.” Without these regulatory processes, our bodies and galaxies would have aged much faster, resulting in massive galaxies filled with dead and dying stars and devoid of new star formation.

Observations and Findings

Observations show that galaxies are not so big and full of dying stars having outgrown themselves. It seems something limits their ability to allow gas to form into stars. Astrophysicists at the University of Kent believe they may have the answer: galaxies could be controlling their growth rate through a process not too dissimilar to “breathing.” They compare the supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy to a heart and the supersonic jets emerging from the poles with the radiation and gas they emit to airways feeding a pair of lungs.

The Heart and Lungs of Galaxies

The supermassive black holes pulse like a heart. These pulses create a shock front that moves back and forth along the jets. It’s like a diaphragm inflating and deflating the lungs. This process sends energy along the jet. It slowly counters the pull of gravity. It also slows down gas falling into the black hole and star formation. PhD student Carl Richards developed this idea. His simulations showed a black hole pulsing like a heart.

In an illustration, magnetic fields help a spiraling wind to grow the supermassive black hole in galaxy ESO320-G030. A rotating wind of dense gas flows outward from the hidden supermassive black hole at the galaxy’s center. This wind dominates the galaxy’s core. Scientists traced the gas motions using light from hydrogen cyanide molecules. They measured these movements with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array, which is a powerful telescope.

Richards explains,

“We realized that there would have to be some means for the jets to support the body – the galaxy’s surrounding ambient gas – and that is what we discovered in our computer simulations.” He continued, “The unexpected behavior was revealed when we analyzed the computer simulations of high pressure and allowed the heart to pulse.”

Supporting Evidence from Observations

Evidence of ripples just like those in Richards’ simulations in extra-galactic media has been found in galaxy clusters like the Perseus cluster. These ripples are thought to sustain a galaxy’s environment, though their generation mechanism was unclear. Conventional simulations fail to explain gas flows into galaxies, but the work of the team from the University of Kent may well have answered the question.

The Role of Supermassive Black Holes

Supermassive black holes play a crucial role in regulating the gas supply in galaxies. They are not just passive objects but active participants in the galactic ecosystem. By emitting jets of radiation and particles, they can heat up the surrounding gas, preventing it from cooling down and collapsing to form stars. This process, known as feedback, ensures that the galaxy does not deplete its gas supply too quickly.

Mechanisms of Gas Regulation

  1. Feedback from Supermassive Black Holes: As mentioned, the jets from these black holes heat the gas and prevent it from collapsing to form stars. This feedback can be continuous or occur in bursts, depending on the activity of the black hole.
  2. Galactic Winds: Star formation itself can drive winds that push gas out of the galaxy. These winds are powered by the radiation and stellar winds from massive stars and by supernova explosions. The expelled gas can later cool and fall back into the galaxy, replenishing the gas supply.
  3. Gas Accretion from the Intergalactic Medium: Galaxies can also accrete gas from the intergalactic medium, the vast space between galaxies. This process can provide a fresh supply of gas for star formation.

Table 1: Mechanisms Regulating Gas Supply in Galaxies

Mechanism Description
Feedback from Black Holes Jets from black holes heat surrounding gas, preventing star formation
Galactic Winds Winds driven by star formation push gas out of the galaxy
Gas Accretion Galaxies accrete gas from the intergalactic medium

The Balance of Star Formation and Gas Supply

The balance between star formation and gas supply is delicate. If a galaxy forms stars too quickly, it will exhaust its gas supply and star formation will cease. If it forms stars too slowly, it will not be able to maintain its structure and will lose gas to the intergalactic medium. The regulatory mechanisms described above help galaxies maintain this balance.

Future Research Directions

Understanding how galaxies regulate their gas supply and star formation is an ongoing area of research. Future studies will focus on:

  • Detailed Observations: Using advanced telescopes and instruments to observe the gas flows and feedback processes in galaxies.
  • Improved Simulations: Developing more accurate simulations to model the complex interactions between stars, gas, and black holes.
  • Comparative Studies: Comparing different types of galaxies to understand how these mechanisms vary across the galaxy population.

Table 2: Future Research Directions in Galaxy Regulation

Research Area Goals
Detailed Observations Observe gas flows and feedback processes
Improved Simulations Model interactions between stars, gas, and black holes
Comparative Studies Understand variation of mechanisms across different galaxy types

Conclusion

Galaxies have evolved complex mechanisms to ensure they always have enough gas to form new stars. The interplay between supermassive black holes, feedback processes, and gas accretion helps regulate the gas supply, preventing galaxies from exhausting their star-forming material too quickly. By studying these processes, astronomers can gain a deeper understanding of galaxy evolution and the life cycle of galaxies.

References

    1. Richards, C., et al. (Year). Title of the Study. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
    2. How the ‘Heart and Lungs’ of a Galaxy Extend its Life. Royal Astronomical Society.

Hashtags

#GalaxyRegulation, #StarFormation, #SupermassiveBlackHoles, #Astrophysics, #GalacticWinds, #GasAccretion, #UniverseToday, #Astronomy, #SpaceScience
Keep Reading
By
Space Exploration

How Time Differs on the Moon: 57 Microseconds Per Earth Day Insight

By
How Time Differs on the Moon: 57 Microseconds Per Earth Day Insight

How Time Differs on the Moon: 57 Microseconds Per Earth Day Insight

Key Takeaways

Time on the moon ticks 57 microseconds faster per day than on Earth. This difference could impact navigation and coordination in lunar missions. NASA is tasked with defining a lunar time zone as lunar exploration increases. The disparity in time is due to differences in gravity and the moon’s velocity relative to Earth. Accurate timekeeping is essential for future manned and unmanned lunar missions.

Summary

  • Time on the moon is faster: 57 microseconds faster per Earth day.
  • Lunar missions increasing: NASA plans to return humans to the moon; multiple uncrewed missions already underway.
  • Need for accurate timekeeping: Crucial for navigation, coordination, and scientific experiments.
  • Why time differs: Result of gravitational time dilation and the moon’s relative velocity.
  • NASA’s role: Developing a lunar time zone to standardize timekeeping.
  • Impact on astronauts: Synchronization with Earth time essential for mission success.
  • Scientific importance: Understanding time differences helps in various scientific and technological aspects.
  • Technological challenges: Developing clocks and synchronization methods for lunar use.
  • Future prospects: Improved timekeeping methods could aid in deep space exploration.
  • Collaboration: International efforts required for a unified lunar time system.

Introduction

What time is it on the moon? This question might seem trivial at first glance, but with lunar exploration set to ramp up in the coming decade, defining a lunar time zone has become a critical task. Astronauts and mission controllers must consider that time on the moon ticks ever so slightly faster than it does on Earth—by approximately 57 microseconds per Earth day.

NASA’s Artemis program aims to return humans to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years. Alongside this ambitious plan, multiple uncrewed missions have already made their way to the lunar surface, signaling a new era of lunar exploration. However, the subtle differences in timekeeping between Earth and the moon present a unique challenge that must be addressed to ensure the success of these missions.

Why Time Differs on the Moon

Gravitational Time Dilation

One of the primary reasons for the time difference between the Earth and the moon is gravitational time dilation. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, time passes at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential. The moon has a weaker gravitational field compared to Earth, meaning that time on the lunar surface passes slightly faster.

Relative Velocity

Another factor contributing to the time difference is the relative velocity of the moon. The moon orbits Earth at an average distance of about 384,400 kilometers (238,855 miles), moving at a speed of roughly 1.022 kilometers per second (0.635 miles per second). This motion causes time on the moon to tick faster compared to a stationary observer on Earth.

Importance of Accurate Timekeeping

Navigation and Coordination

Accurate timekeeping is crucial for the navigation and coordination of lunar missions. With multiple spacecraft operating simultaneously, precise timing ensures that each mission proceeds smoothly without conflicts. Navigation systems rely on synchronized clocks to determine the position and velocity of spacecraft accurately.

Scientific Experiments

Timekeeping also plays a vital role in scientific experiments conducted on the lunar surface. Experiments that measure seismic activity, temperature changes, and other phenomena require precise timing to yield accurate results. Any discrepancies in timekeeping could lead to erroneous data and potentially compromise scientific findings.

Communication with Earth

Maintaining synchronization between lunar and Earth time is essential for effective communication. Mission controllers on Earth need to coordinate with astronauts on the moon, and any time lag could lead to delays or misunderstandings. Standardizing timekeeping practices between Earth and the moon ensures seamless communication and operational efficiency.

NASA’s Role in Defining Lunar Time

Developing a Lunar Time Zone

NASA has been tasked with developing a lunar time zone to standardize timekeeping on the moon. This involves creating a system that accounts for the 57-microsecond daily difference while remaining synchronized with Earth time. The lunar time zone will serve as a reference for all future missions, ensuring consistency and reliability.

Synchronizing Lunar Clocks

One of the challenges in establishing a lunar time zone is developing clocks that can remain synchronized with Earth-based timekeeping systems. These clocks must account for the differences in gravitational potential and relative velocity to maintain accurate time. Advances in atomic clock technology and synchronization methods will be essential for this task.

Impact on Astronauts and Missions

Daily Operations

Astronauts on the moon will need to adjust to the slight difference in timekeeping. While 57 microseconds per day may seem negligible, over the course of a mission, these discrepancies can add up. Ensuring that astronauts’ schedules are synchronized with mission control on Earth is vital for the smooth operation of daily activities.

Mission Planning

Mission planners must consider the time difference when designing schedules and timelines for lunar missions. This includes coordinating launch windows, communication schedules, and scientific experiments. Accurate timekeeping helps in optimizing mission planning and reducing the risk of errors or delays.

How Time Differs on the Moon: 57 Microseconds Per Earth Day Insight
A computer generated close-up of the planet Mars with shine. 3d rendering of realistic cosmic background. Elements of this image are presented by NASA

Scientific and Technological Significance

Deep Space Exploration

Understanding and addressing time differences on the moon sets a precedent for future deep space exploration. As missions venture farther from Earth, the effects of gravitational time dilation and relative velocity will become more pronounced. Developing robust timekeeping systems for the moon provides a foundation for tackling these challenges in deep space.

Technological Innovations

The need for precise timekeeping on the moon drives technological innovations in clock design and synchronization methods. Advances in atomic clock technology, time transfer techniques, and synchronization protocols have broader applications beyond lunar missions. These innovations can benefit various fields, including telecommunications, global positioning systems (GPS), and scientific research.

Collaboration and International Efforts

Unified Lunar Time System

Establishing a unified lunar time system requires international collaboration. Space agencies from around the world must work together to develop and implement standardized timekeeping practices for lunar missions. This collaboration ensures that all lunar activities are synchronized, regardless of the mission’s origin.

Sharing Knowledge and Resources

International cooperation also involves sharing knowledge and resources to address the challenges of lunar timekeeping. By pooling expertise and technological capabilities, space agencies can develop more effective solutions and accelerate progress in lunar exploration.

Future Prospects

Lunar Bases and Colonies

As plans for establishing lunar bases and colonies progress, accurate timekeeping will become even more critical. A standardized lunar time zone will facilitate daily operations, scientific research, and communication for long-term habitation on the moon. Reliable timekeeping systems will support the infrastructure needed for sustainable lunar presence.

Enhanced Exploration Capabilities

Improved timekeeping methods will enhance exploration capabilities on the moon and beyond. Accurate navigation, communication, and scientific experiments will enable more ambitious missions and deeper exploration of the lunar surface and other celestial bodies. These advancements pave the way for the continued expansion of human presence in space.

View of the red terrestrial planet. space concept
View of the red terrestrial planet. space concept

Tables

Table 1: Comparison of Time on Earth and the Moon

Aspect Earth Moon
Gravitational Potential Stronger Weaker
Relative Velocity Stationary (relative) 1.022 km/s
Time Difference Standard 57 microseconds faster per day
Impact on Timekeeping None Requires adjustment

Table 2: Key Challenges in Lunar Timekeeping

Challenge Description
Gravitational Time Dilation Accounting for weaker gravitational field on the moon
Relative Velocity Compensating for the moon’s orbital motion
Synchronization Ensuring lunar clocks remain in sync with Earth-based timekeeping systems
Technological Development Advancing atomic clock and synchronization technologies
International Collaboration Establishing a unified lunar time system through global cooperation

Conclusion

As humanity begins a new age of lunar exploration, we must understand and handle the small differences in timekeeping between Earth and the moon. There is a small daily time difference of 57 microseconds. This may seem minor, but it is very important. It affects navigation, coordination, and scientific research on the moon’s surface.

NASA is working hard to create a lunar time zone and ways to keep time synchronized. “Synchronization” means making sure things happen at the same time. This is very important for future moon missions. Accurate clocks will help with daily tasks, planning missions, and communicating. This keeps astronauts safe and helps them explore the moon efficiently.

Countries and new technologies will be very important to solve the problems of keeping time on the moon. Space agencies need to work together. They can create a single time system for the moon. This shared system will help all missions and prepare us for exploring further into space.

Advances in lunar timekeeping help us do more than just work on the moon. They also prepare us to explore other planets and moons. As we go further into space, having precise time will be key. Accurate timekeeping helps us explore and understand the universe better.

Hashtags

#TimeOnTheMoon, #LunarExploration, #NASAMissions, #LunarTimeZone, #SpaceScience, #GravitationalTimeDilation, #Timekeeping, #Astronauts, #LunarMissions, #SpaceExploration
Keep Reading
By
Space Exploration

Artemis Program: Why a Moon Base Will Need a Transport System

By
Artemis Program: Why a Moon Base Will Need a Transport System

Artemis Program: Why a Moon Base Will Need a Transport System

Key Takeaway

The Artemis Program aims to establish a permanent human presence on the Moon, necessitating advanced transport systems to move astronauts and cargo efficiently. Addressing logistical, scientific, and technical requirements, these transport systems will play a crucial role in ensuring the success of lunar missions and the sustainability of human activities on the Moon.

Summary

  • NASA’s Artemis Program will return astronauts to the Moon for the first time since 1972.
  • The program aims to establish a permanent human presence on the Moon.
  • Transport systems are essential for moving astronauts and cargo on the lunar surface.
  • The 2024 Moon to Mars Architecture white paper highlights the need for lunar mobility systems.
  • NASA’s objectives include the delivery of crews, supplies, experiments, and habitats.
  • The Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) and Pressurized Rover (PR) are part of the Artemis Base Camp.
  • The Artemis Program is divided into three segments: Human Lunar Return (HLR), Foundational Exploration (FE), and Sustained Lunar Evolution (SLR).
  • The program’s initial missions will require enhanced transport capabilities for crew and cargo.
  • The lunar surface presents unique challenges, including regolith, lighting conditions, and terrain.
  • Autonomous and teleoperated systems will be vital for mobility on the Moon.
  • Energy and environmental considerations are crucial for the design of lunar transport systems.
  • Future mobility systems will need to be interoperable and capable of autonomous operation.
  • NASA will address these requirements in the 2024 Architecture Concept Review (2024 ACR).

Artemis Program: Why a Moon Base Will Need a Transport System

NASA’s Artemis Program will send astronauts back to the Moon. The last visit was Apollo 17 in 1972. The next mission is planned for September 2026. NASA will then build the systems needed for yearly trips to the Moon. This will lead to humans living there permanently. There will be a big need for cargo delivery systems. These systems must help with the needs of the crews. They must support their exploration with the right logistical, scientific, and technical support.

We need transportation systems not just for delivering crews and cargo. They must also handle logistical needs and help exploration efforts. These needs were described in a 2024 Moon to Mars Architecture white paper. The paper is titled “Lunar Mobility Drivers and Needs.”

It follows another paper called “Lunar Surface Cargo.” This new white paper talks about the need for lunar infrastructure. Such infrastructure will help move astronauts and payloads from landing sites to important locations. As usual, they found a big gap between what we can currently do and what we expect to need.

The authors again stress the need for mobility systems. These systems should align with NASA’s goals. These goals are outlined in the Moon to Mars Architecture Definition Document (ADD). The authors say recent studies show something important. We need transport systems on the lunar surface. These systems should move cargo from delivery points to usage points. This cargo can include crew supplies, scientific demonstrations, and large infrastructure that needs precise moving.

In short, in addition to landers capable of delivering crews, supplies, experiments, and habitats, NASA’s Moon to Mars program also requires vehicles and support networks that can deliver them from point A to point B. As they state, the currently defined mobility elements are either primarily for crew use or are limited in mobility. This includes elements like the Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) and the Pressurized Rover (PR) – which are elements of the Artemis Base Camp – and robotic missions contracted through the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program.

In addition, the needs and challenges that will emerge as the Artemis Program unfolds are broken down into three segments: Human Lunar Return (HLR), Foundational Exploration (FE), and Sustained Lunar Evolution (SLR). The HLR segment includes the Artemis III mission, currently scheduled for September 2026, where a crew of two will land on the lunar surface using a Starship HLS. The FE segment will coincide with Artemis IV and Artemis V (2028 and 2030), where crew sizes will expand from two to four, and the necessary infrastructure will expand.

After that, during the SLR segment, NASA plans to mount a mission a year and establish a permanent lunar habitat. Throughout this period, the demands for payloads and transportation systems will exceed current capabilities, limited to 15,000 kg (33,070 lbs) of cargo. Similar to what NASA related in their Lunar Surface Cargo whitepaper, accomplishing key mission objectives will require cargo of sizes and masses beyond these capabilities, creating the need for additional solutions.

Mobility demand forecast shows how much transportation will be needed in the future. LTV stands for Lunar Terrain Vehicle. LRV stands for Lunar Roving Vehicle. These are types of transport vehicles used on the moon. NASA compared how well LTV and LRV could meet the future transportation needs.
Mobility demand forecast shows how much transportation will be needed in the future. LTV stands for Lunar Terrain Vehicle. LRV stands for Lunar Roving Vehicle. These are types of transport vehicles used on the moon. NASA compared how well LTV and LRV could meet the future transportation needs.

Isolation and Movement

As the authors state, a major issue on the lunar surface affecting mobility is the need for separation between landing sites and points of use. This separation is motivated by several factors, including science objectives, lighting conditions, and safety considerations. In short, crew vehicles, habitats, and key infrastructure will be positioned at a distance from landing sites so as not to be affected by darkness caused by the landers’ shadow, contamination by the landers, and regolith or blast ejecta created by engine plumes. Based on the level of concern, separation distances are broken down into three tiers:

  • Separation from lander shadowing: tens of meters (tens of yards)
  • Lander blast ejecta constraints: due either to separation between the lander and existing infrastructure or lander ascent (>1,000 m; ~1090 yards)
  • Support for aggregation of elements in ideal habitation zones from available regional landing areas: up to 5,000 m (~5470 yards)

NASA’s Moon to Mars mission architecture emphasizes the need for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), such as water ice, regolith, and minerals. NASA also recognizes the need to select habitation and hibernation sites that minimize the exposure to darkness from shadows caused by the local topography and the inclination of the Sun during lunar nights (which last two weeks at a time). This is easiest at higher elevations and on top of crater ridges. This necessitates two things:

  1. Exploration, habitation, and power sites will need to be located far from landing and ISRU sites.
  2. Traverses from landing to habitation zones could encounter slopes of up to 20 degrees.

As the authors state, these overlapping challenges can be met by ensuring systems are in place so mission elements can move away from landers once they are deployed on the surface:

“This could be done using independent or integrated mobility systems. The frequency of traverses between downslope and upslope locations would be driven by the cadence with which landers deliver cargo to the lunar surface and the mass that a given mobility system can carry on each traversal. Integrated architecture operations will necessitate non-trivial relocation and aggregation ranges for cargo and assets.”

Transportation Abilities

During the FE segment of the Artemis Program, NASA plans to expand surface crews from two to four, which will need to operate on the surface for about 30 days. This will require a wide range of mobility needs that can accommodate payloads of varying size and mass and over a range of distances. These include:

  • Smaller technology demonstrations: 500 to 2000 kg (~1100 to 4410 lbs)
  • Logistic Elements per crewed surface mission: 2,000 to 6,000 kg (~4410 to 13,230 lbs)
  • Habitation Systems: 12,000 to 15,000 kg (~26455 to 33,070 lbs)

The authors acknowledge that current mobility elements could provide some cargo relocation capabilities – the LTV, for example, can accommodate 800 kg (~1764 lbs) of cargo when uncrewed. However, according to the NASA team’s analysis, the mobility capacity falls short of demand by 1,000 to 15,000 kg (2,200 to 33,070 lbs) per asset for ranges of 50 to 5,000 m (~55 to 5470 yards). Moreover, the “frequency of relocation needs” (i.e., how often payloads need to be moved) will vary considerably, ranging from single operations for large elements to multiple trips a year for containers and smaller cargo.

Environments

The authors also address how lunar conditions are important when developing mobility systems. One of the greatest hazards on the Moon is regolith (aka. “moondust”), the fine silicate powder that covers much of the surface and sticks to everything it comes into contact with. There are lighting conditions where parts of the South Pole region will be shadowed due to the inclination of the Sun and permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) that experience perpetual darkness. Last is the matter of the terrain, which can be rocky or covered by 1 to 10 m (3.3 to 33 ft) of regolith and where slopes of more than 10 degrees are common.

This combination of factors, they argue, “creates a significant technological gap between existing systems and mobility demands for future exploration.” For starters, energy systems must provide enough power so vehicles can maintain sufficient speeds and carrying capacity and can operate during lunar nights. The authors also recommend conducting more studies on regolith mitigation strategies to prevent wear and tear and the effects regolith could have on electro-mechanical systems. They also stress the need for sufficient autonomy and/or teleoperation, allowing greater flexibility and range.

These autonomous systems must contend with the challenging lunar terrain, map the local topography, recognize obstacles and unpassable regions, and identify optimal pathways to reach their destinations. As the authors note, these systems could offer increased flexibility for mission planning and increase the speed of mobile assets, especially in areas where the terrain interferes with communications and makes remote operations impossible.

Artemis Program Why a Moon Base Will Need a Transport System
Artemis Program Why a Moon Base Will Need a Transport System

Energy and Environmental Demands

The white paper also addresses energy and environmental considerations. As noted already, lunar nights are two weeks long, which poses significant challenges for exploration and habitation. Currently, NASA’s Moon to Mars architecture does not specify how the base camps will be powered, though solar power is considered a safe bet. However, the team notes that generating sufficient power to accommodate lunar operations will require solar power systems with “surface mobility capabilities.”

They also note that lunar mobility systems will need to operate for 12 hours a day for up to 30 days and that proposed systems will need to deliver sufficient power to operate for six to twelve months. The thermal environments are also a serious consideration, with average daytime temperatures reaching 120 °C (248 °F) and nighttime temperatures going down to -170 °C (-274 °F). This creates issues for systems that are required to operate day and night.

Conclusion

NASA sees the need for flexible mobility systems. These systems will help astronauts and cargo move across the lunar surface. The systems must meet the needs of the Artemis Program. HLR, FE, and SLR segments define these needs. Current systems handle some mobility needs, but there is a gap. Future missions will need more advanced capabilities. The 2024 Architecture Concept Review (2024 ACR) will focus on these needs.

NASA aims to develop new mobile assets. These assets must work together smoothly and operate on their own without constant human control. The Artemis Program will rely on these assets for its first lunar missions in 2026. This includes delivering infrastructure and crew missions in the late 2020s. By the 2030s, NASA wants to have a lasting presence on the Moon. Closing these technology gaps will help astronauts explore and do science on the Moon.

Tables

Mission Segment Crew Size Duration Infrastructure Needs
Human Lunar Return (HLR) 2 1-2 weeks Initial landing and exploration infrastructure
Foundational Exploration (FE) 4 30 days Expanded habitats, power systems, mobility solutions
Sustained Lunar Evolution (SLR) 4+ Indefinite Permanent habitats, ISRU systems, advanced mobility
Mobility Demand Payload Mass Range Traversal Distance
Small technology demos 500-2000 kg Up to 5000 m
Logistics per mission 2000-6000 kg Up to 5000 m
Habitation systems 12000-15000 kg Up to 5000 m

References

Hashtags:

#ArtemisProgram, #NASA, #MoonBase, #LunarExploration, #SpaceTravel, #SpaceTechnology, #MoonMission, #SpaceExploration, #SpaceScience, #MoonSurface, #MoonTransport, #SpaceTech, #HumanSpaceflight, #Astrobiology, #LunarBase, #ExplorationMission, #MoonToMars, #SpaceColonization, @NASA, @NASAArtemis, @NASAMoon, @NASA_Technology, @SpaceX, @BlueOrigin, @BoeingSpace, @LockheedMartin, @Space_Station, @ISS_Research
Keep Reading
By
Space Exploration

The Science Behind Meteorites Striking the Surface of Mars Daily

By
This is a picture of the first meteoroid impact found by NASA’s InSight mission. NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter took the picture. It used its High-Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona The Science Behind Meteorites Striking the Surface of Mars Daily

The Science Behind Meteorites Striking the Surface of Mars Daily

Key Takeaway

Meteorites strike the surface of Mars daily, with NASA’s InSight lander and its SEIS instrument providing critical data to understand these impacts. This data has allowed scientists to estimate impact rates, revealing insights into the geological history and potential hazards for future missions.

Summary

  • NASA’s InSight Mars Lander’s SEIS instrument collected seismic data on Mars for over four years.
  • Researchers used this data to determine a new meteorite impact rate for Mars.
  • SEIS detected over 1300 seismic events, with a portion attributed to meteorite impacts.
  • Scientists estimate that 280 to 360 meteoroids, about the size of basketballs, strike Mars each year.
  • This rate is five times higher than previously estimated from orbital imagery.
  • Impact rates help understand the age of Mars’ surface and provide insight into its geological history.
  • The study shows that seismometers are reliable tools for measuring impact rates on Mars.
  • The data has broader implications for understanding impact rates throughout the Solar System.
  • Frequent impacts create significant blast zones, posing potential hazards for future Mars missions.
  • Understanding meteorite impacts on Mars is crucial for the safety and planning of robotic and human missions.

Introduction

Mars, our neighboring red planet, experiences daily meteorite impacts that shape its surface and reveal much about its geological history. NASA’s InSight Mars Lander, equipped with the Seismic Experiment for Interior Structure (SEIS), has provided invaluable data to understand these impacts.

SEIS and Its Mission

NASA’s InSight lander, which arrived on Mars on November 26, 2018, was equipped with several scientific instruments, including SEIS. The primary goal of SEIS was to probe Mars’ interior by measuring seismic waves from marsquakes and meteorite impacts. Over four years, SEIS recorded more than 1300 seismic events, allowing scientists to analyze the frequency and impact of meteoroids on Mars.

The Role of SEIS

  • SEIS: Designed to detect seismic waves caused by marsquakes and meteorite impacts.
  • Placement: Positioned on Mars’ surface on December 19, 2018, and later covered with a protective shell to shield it from wind.
  • Data Collection: Collected seismic data for over four years, recording over 1300 seismic events.

Determining Impact Rates

Researchers faced the challenge of distinguishing between seismic events caused by marsquakes and those caused by meteorite impacts. Despite this difficulty, six events near the InSight lander were confirmed as meteorite impacts due to their correlation with acoustic signals produced when meteors entered Mars’ atmosphere. These events helped establish a new estimate for Mars’ impact rates.

Analyzing Seismic Data

  • Confirmed Impacts: Six events were confirmed as meteorite impacts through acoustic signal correlation.
  • VF Events: InSight detected 70 very high-frequency (VF) events, with 59 having good distance estimates.
  • Impact Quakes: Impact-generated quakes are characterized by shorter durations compared to typical marsquakes.
This figure from the research shows envelopes of recorded VF quality B events sorted by distance. The graph plots data from 120 seconds before to 1,100 seconds after the event. The events are aligned by their first signal (Pg) arrival. The blue lines represent the second signal arrival (Sg.) The six red events are confirmed impact events. For those impact events, the black lines show where the “chirp” signal arrives. The chirp signal is a unique marker that indicates an impact event has occurred. Image Credit: Zenhäusern, Wójcicka et al. 2024.
This figure from the research shows envelopes of recorded VF quality B events sorted by distance. The graph plots data from 120 seconds before to 1,100 seconds after the event. The events are aligned by their first signal (Pg) arrival. The blue lines represent the second signal arrival (Sg.) The six red events are confirmed impact events. For those impact events, the black lines show where the “chirp” signal arrives. The chirp signal is a unique marker that indicates an impact event has occurred. Image Credit: Zenhäusern, Wójcicka et al. 2024.

New Impact Rate Estimate

The data from SEIS led to a significant finding: Mars experiences between 280 and 360 meteoroid impacts annually, creating craters greater than 8 meters in diameter. This rate is five times higher than previous estimates based on orbital imagery alone, highlighting the effectiveness of seismology in measuring impact rates.

Impact Frequency and Crater Formation

  • Impact Rate: Between 280 and 360 meteoroids strike Mars each year, forming craters larger than 8 meters.
  • Comparison: This rate is five times higher than estimates from orbital images.
  • Crater Size: Larger craters are formed almost daily, with significant blast zones around them.

Implications for Geological History

Impact rates are crucial for understanding the geological history of planetary surfaces. Earth’s surface is constantly reshaped by geological activity, but bodies like the Moon and Mars rely on impact rates to determine surface ages. Mars’ impact rate provides insights into its geological history and helps compare it with other celestial bodies.

Understanding Surface Ages

  • Surface Ages: Impact rates help determine the age of planetary surfaces.
  • Comparison: Mars’ impact rate can be compared with data from the Moon and other bodies.
  • Geological History: Provides a deeper understanding of Mars’ geological history.
NASA's InSight lander put its seismometer on Mars on December 19, 2018. They called this seismometer SEIS. Later, they covered SEIS with a protective shell. This shell protects it from wind. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
NASA’s InSight lander put its seismometer on Mars on December 19, 2018. They called this seismometer SEIS. Later, they covered SEIS with a protective shell. This shell protects it from wind. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Challenges in Measuring Impact Rates

Accurately measuring impact rates on Mars presents challenges due to its unique environment. Mars’ gravity, proximity to the asteroid belt, and frequent dust storms complicate observations. Seismology, as demonstrated by SEIS, offers a more reliable method to overcome these challenges.

Factors Affecting Impact Rate Measurement

  • Gravity: Mars’ gravity influences the number of meteoroids striking its surface.
  • Asteroid Belt: Proximity to the asteroid belt increases the frequency of meteoroids.
  • Dust Storms: Dust storms can obscure craters, making orbital observations difficult.
  • Surface Types: Varied surface regions affect the visibility of craters.

Broader Implications for the Solar System

Understanding Mars’ impact rate extends beyond the red planet. It provides valuable data for the entire Solar System, helping to determine the absolute ages of surfaces and offering insights into the history of other celestial bodies.

Solar System Impact Rates

  • Solar System: Mars’ impact rate helps determine surface ages throughout the Solar System.
  • Historical Insights: Offers a clearer understanding of the Solar System’s history.

Safety Considerations for Future Missions

The high frequency of meteorite impacts on Mars poses potential hazards for future robotic and human missions. Understanding these impacts is crucial for mission planning and ensuring the safety of equipment and personnel.

Mission Planning and Safety

  • Hazards: Frequent impacts and large blast zones pose risks.
  • Planning: Accurate impact rate data is essential for safe mission planning.
  • Future Missions: Ensures the safety of robotic and human explorers.
This figure from the research shows crater size and seismic moment for the six confirmed impacts near the InSight lander. Circles show single craters. Triangles show the effective diameter of crater clusters. The vertical error bars show the uncertainty in seismic moment magnitude. This magnitude is calculated using standard error propagation techniques. The horizontal error bars come from the resolution of HiRISE images. These images are used to determine the crater sizes. Image Credit: Zenhäusern, Wójcicka et al. 2024.
This figure from the research shows crater size and seismic moment for the six confirmed impacts near the InSight lander. Circles show single craters. Triangles show the effective diameter of crater clusters. The vertical error bars show the uncertainty in seismic moment magnitude. This magnitude is calculated using standard error propagation techniques. The horizontal error bars come from the resolution of HiRISE images. These images are used to determine the crater sizes. Image Credit: Zenhäusern, Wójcicka et al. 2024.

Conclusion

NASA’s InSight Mars Lander and its SEIS instrument have revolutionized our understanding of meteorite impacts on Mars. The data collected over four years has provided a new estimate for impact rates, revealing that Mars experiences almost daily impacts. This information is vital for understanding Mars’ geological history, planning future missions, and ensuring the safety of explorers.

Tables

Table 1: SEIS Data Summary

Parameter Value
Total Seismic Events 1300+
Confirmed Meteorite Impacts 6
VF Events 70
Annual Impact Rate 280-360 meteoroids
Crater Size (Daily) >8 meters
Crater Size (Monthly) ~30 meters

Table 2: Impact Rate Comparison

Method Estimated Impact Rate (Annual)
Orbital Imagery ~60-70
Seismology (SEIS) 280-360
Increase Factor 5x

Hashtags

#Mars, #NASA, #InSight, #SEIS, #MeteoriteImpacts, #MarsExploration, #Seismology, #SpaceScience, #AsteroidBelt, #FutureMissions, #GeologicalHistory, #SolarSystem, #SpaceSafety, #PlanetaryScience

Keep Reading
By
Space Exploration

Event Horizon Telescope: Discovering What’s Next in the Universe

By

Event Horizon Telescope: Discovering What’s Next in the Universe

Key Takeaways

The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) is a global network of radio telescopes working together to form a massive virtual telescope. EHT captured the first-ever image of a black hole in the galaxy M87 in April 2019. The EHT targets supermassive black holes like those in the Milky Way and M87. Planned enhancements to the EHT will improve its resolution and allow for the study of more black holes. A recent paper highlights twelve promising supermassive black hole targets for future EHT observations.

Summary

  • The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) is an international collaboration.
  • Uses a technique called interferometry to connect multiple telescopes.
  • Captured the first image of a black hole in M87 in April 2019.
  • Black holes are regions with strong gravitational forces.
  • Formed from the remnants of massive stars.
  • Surrounded by the event horizon where no information or matter can escape.
  • The EHT aims to enhance its array with new dishes and upgrades.
  • Enhancements will enable simultaneous observations at multiple frequencies.
  • A paper by Xinyue Alice Zhang identifies twelve promising black hole targets.
  • Targets include galaxies like IC1459, NGC4261, and M84.
  • These targets are mostly elliptical or lenticular galaxies.
The ALMA array is in Chile. Once ALMA was added to the Event Horizon Telescope, its power increased by a factor of 10. Image ALMA (ESONAOJNRAO), O. Dessibourg
The ALMA array is in Chile. Once ALMA was added to the Event Horizon Telescope, its power increased by a factor of 10. Image ALMA (ESONAOJNRAO), O. Dessibourg

The Event Horizon Telescope: Discovering What’s Next in the Universe

The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) is a groundbreaking international collaboration that uses a global network of radio telescopes to observe some of the most enigmatic objects in the universe—supermassive black holes. By connecting multiple telescopes through a technique known as interferometry, the EHT creates a massive virtual telescope, providing unprecedented resolution and detail.

The Historic First Image

In April 2019, the EHT achieved a significant milestone by capturing the first-ever image of a black hole, located at the center of the galaxy M87. This image provided visual confirmation of the existence of black holes and offered a glimpse into the mysterious event horizon, the boundary beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.

Understanding Black Holes

Black holes, such as the one in M87, are regions in space where gravitational forces are so strong that nothing can escape. They form from the remnants of massive stars that collapse under their gravity, creating a singularity with infinite density. The surrounding event horizon marks the point of no return for matter and information.

Enhancing the EHT

To improve the quality of images and study a larger number of black holes, several extensions to the EHT array are planned. These enhancements will involve adding new dishes and upgrading existing telescopes. Once completed, the EHT will be capable of simultaneous observations in the frequency range of 86-230-345 GHz, allowing for more detailed studies of black holes.

Magnetically Arrested Disks

Recent theoretical studies suggest that models with dynamically significant magnetic fields, known as Magnetically Arrested Disks (MAD), may power the jet mechanisms of black holes. These models have important implications for understanding the relationship between supermassive black holes and the evolution of their host galaxies.

Future Targets for the EHT

A recent paper by Xinyue Alice Zhang and her team from the Center for Astrophysics at Harvard & Smithsonian highlights twelve promising supermassive black hole targets for the EHT. The team conducted an exhaustive analysis starting with the ETHER database, which lists 3.8 million sources. They narrowed this down to sources with a flux density sufficient for optical mass measurements.

The twelve target galaxies identified include:

These galaxies are primarily elliptical or lenticular, making them suitable for future EHT observations.

Expanding Our Understanding

The enhancements to the EHT and the identification of new targets promise to expand our understanding of black holes and their role in the universe. With improved resolution and more targets, the EHT will continue to push the boundaries of astrophysics, providing deeper insights into these mysterious cosmic phenomena.

Table 1: Key Facts about the Event Horizon Telescope

Fact Detail
Collaboration International
Technique Interferometry
First Black Hole Image April 2019, M87
Frequency Range (Upcoming) 86-230-345 GHz
Main Targets Supermassive Black Holes
Recent Enhancement Addition of ALMA array

Table 2: Promising Future Targets for the EHT

Galaxy Type Notable Feature
IC1459 Elliptical Suitable for mass measurements
NGC4261 Elliptical Prominent flux density
NGC2663 Elliptical Large angular size
NGC315 Elliptical High flux density
NGC1218 Elliptical Significant mass measurement data
NGC5077 Lenticular Good candidate for optical measurements
NGC4552 Elliptical High-resolution potential
3C 317 Lenticular Large angular size and suitable flux density
NGC45elliptical94 Elliptical Prominent in ETHER database
NGC3998 Lenticular High signal strength
NGC3894 Elliptical Suitable for detailed study
M84 Elliptical Known for significant black hole mass

The Future of Black Hole Research

The Event Horizon Telescope represents a significant leap forward in our ability to study black holes. With ongoing enhancements and a growing list of potential targets, the EHT will continue to provide valuable insights into the nature of black holes and their influence on the universe.

Conclusion

The Event Horizon Telescope has already made historic strides in astrophysics by capturing the first image of a black hole. With planned enhancements and a focus on new targets, the EHT is poised to further our understanding of these mysterious cosmic giants. The future of black hole research is bright, with the EHT leading the way in uncovering the secrets of the universe.

Reference

Accessing a New Population of Supermassive Black Holes with Extensions to the Event Horizon Telescope

Hashtags

#EventHorizonTelescope, #BlackHoles, #Astrophysics, #EHT, #SpaceScience, #M87, #Interferometry, #SupermassiveBlackHoles, #GalaxyResearch
Keep Reading
By
Space Exploration

Big Red Spot on Jupiter: A Historical Overview from the 1800s

By
Great spot of Jupiter, storm, on the planet. Elements of this image were furnished by NASA for any purpose Big Red Spot on Jupiter

Big Red Spot on Jupiter: A Historical Overview from the 1800s

Key Takeaways

Jupiter’s Great Red Spot (GRS) is a massive, long-lived storm larger than Earth. First observed in the 1600s, the GRS has a complex and debated history. The storm is an anti-cyclonic vortex with wind speeds exceeding 400 km/h. Historical records and modern simulations suggest the GRS we see today likely formed in the mid-1800s. New research combines historical data with computer simulations to explore the GRS’s formation mechanisms.

Summary

  • Jupiter’s GRS: A massive, iconic storm larger than Earth, observed since the 1600s.
  • First Observations: Early sightings by astronomers like Giovanni Cassini and others in the 1600s and 1700s.
  • Lost Track: The GRS wasn’t observed for 118 years until its reappearance in the mid-1800s.
  • Historical Records: Early drawings and observations provide valuable data on the GRS’s appearance and movement.
  • Modern Observations: Spacecraft like Voyager, Galileo, and Juno have provided detailed images and data.
  • Wind Shear: Jupiter’s atmosphere contains winds running in opposite directions, creating conditions for the GRS.
  • Simulations: Supercomputer simulations explore possible formation mechanisms of the GRS.
  • Conclusion: The GRS likely formed from a South Tropical Disturbance (STrD) around the mid-1800s, acquiring its current form over time.

The Great Red Spot on Jupiter: How It Probably Formed in the Early 1800s

Jupiter’s Great Red Spot (GRS) is one of the most fascinating and enduring features of our Solar System. This massive storm, larger than Earth, has been observed by astronomers for centuries, with its formation and longevity still a topic of debate. The GRS is an enormous anti-cyclonic storm, rotating counter-clockwise with wind speeds exceeding 400 km/h (250 mph). It’s a striking feature that has captivated humans since at least the 1800s, and possibly earlier. Understanding its history and formation requires a look at both historical observations and modern scientific research.

Early Observations of the Great Red Spot

The earliest observations of the GRS may date back to 1632 when a German Abbott used his telescope to observe Jupiter. Thirty-two years later, another astronomer reported seeing a large spot moving from east to west across the planet. By 1665, the renowned astronomer Giovanni Cassini examined Jupiter and noted the presence of a storm at the same latitude as the current GRS. Cassini and his contemporaries observed this storm continuously until 1713, referring to it as the Permanent Spot.

Despite these early records, the GRS disappeared from astronomical observations for 118 years, only to be rediscovered in 1831 by astronomer S. Schwabe. He observed a clear, oval structure at the same latitude, which many believe marks the first sighting of the current GRS. This gap in observations has led to questions about the continuity of the storm and its relation to the earlier Permanent Spot.

These images from the research show how the GRS formed. a is a drawing by T. E. R. Phillips in 1931–1932 of the STrD. The red arrows indicate the flow direction. The longitude scale is indicated. b and c are maps drawn from images taken by the New Horizons spacecraft. The yellow arrows mark position-velocity changes in the STrD. The STrD trapped winds. It created a long cell that generated the Great Red Spot. Image Credit: Sánchez-Lavega et al. 2024.
These images from the research show how the GRS formed. a is a drawing by T. E. R. Phillips in 1931–1932 of the STrD. The red arrows indicate the flow direction. The longitude scale is indicated. b and c are maps drawn from images taken by the New Horizons spacecraft. The yellow arrows mark position-velocity changes in the STrD. The STrD trapped winds. It created a long cell that generated the Great Red Spot. Image Credit: Sánchez-Lavega et al. 2024.

The Role of Historical Records

Historical records play a crucial role in understanding the GRS. Early drawings and descriptions by astronomers like Cassini provide valuable insights into the size, structure, and movement of the storm. However, interpreting these records is challenging due to the variable appearance of the GRS over time. Changes in size, albedo, and contrast with surrounding clouds have made it difficult to definitively link the Permanent Spot observed by Cassini with the current GRS.

A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters, led by Professor Agustín Sánchez-Lavega of the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao, Spain, attempts to bridge this gap. The research combines historical records with computer simulations to better understand the formation and evolution of the GRS.

Modern Observations and Technology

Modern technology has revolutionized our understanding of the GRS. Space telescopes and spacecraft have provided detailed images and data that were unimaginable in Cassini’s time. NASA’s Voyager 1 spacecraft captured the first detailed image of the GRS in 1979, revealing intricate wave patterns within the storm. Subsequent missions, including Galileo and Juno, have provided even more detailed observations.

Juno, in particular, has made significant contributions to our understanding of the GRS. Its close flybys of Jupiter have allowed scientists to capture high-resolution images and measure the depth of the storm. Juno’s instruments have shown that the GRS is relatively shallow, with a vertical extent of about 500 km, compared to its vast horizontal dimensions.

A new view of Jupiter and its GRS. Credit: NASA/SwRI/MSSS/Navaneeth Krishnan S © CC BY
A new view of Jupiter and its GRS. Credit: NASA/SwRI/MSSS/Navaneeth Krishnan S © CC BY

The Mechanisms Behind the Great Red Spot

Jupiter’s atmosphere is characterized by powerful winds blowing in opposite directions at different latitudes. North of the GRS, winds blow westward at speeds of 180 km/h, while south of the storm, winds flow eastward at 150 km/h. This wind shear creates the conditions necessary for the formation and maintenance of the GRS.

Researchers have used supercomputer simulations to explore various mechanisms that could produce the GRS under these conditions. One hypothesis involves the eruption of a gigantic superstorm, similar to those observed on Saturn, while another suggests that smaller vortices created by wind shear merged to form the GRS. However, these simulations did not fully match the characteristics of the current GRS.

A New Hypothesis: The South Tropical Disturbance

A more promising explanation emerged from simulations involving the South Tropical Disturbance (STrD), an instability in Jupiter’s winds. The researchers found that the STrD could trap winds and create an elongated cell that eventually evolved into the GRS. This process likely began in the mid-1800s, when the GRS was much larger than it is today.

The simulations show that over time, the GRS would rotate more rapidly and become more compact as it shrank, eventually resembling the current storm. This hypothesis aligns with historical observations and modern data, suggesting that the GRS we see today is about 150 years old.

This research figure compares the Permanent Spot (PS) and today's GRS. a, b, and c are Cassini's drawings from 1677, 1690, and 1691. d is a 2023 GRS image. Image Credit: Sánchez-Lavega et al. 2024.
This research figure compares the Permanent Spot (PS) and today’s GRS. a, b, and c are Cassini’s drawings from 1677, 1690, and 1691. d is a 2023 GRS image. Image Credit: Sánchez-Lavega et al. 2024.

Detailed Analysis of Historical Observations

To support their hypothesis, the researchers analyzed historical records in detail. They compared drawings and descriptions of the Permanent Spot from the 1600s and 1700s with observations of the GRS from the 1800s onwards. They also examined photographs and telescopic images from the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Table 1: Comparison of Historical Observations

Year Observer Description Notes
1665 Giovanni Cassini Large spot at GRS latitude Named it the Permanent Spot
1831 S. Schwabe Oval structure at GRS latitude First modern observation of the GRS
1879 A. A. Common Clear photograph of GRS Confirms presence of a large storm
1890 Observatory Lick Yellow filter photograph Detailed image showing GRS structure

These historical records provide a timeline of the GRS’s appearance and changes over the centuries. By comparing these records with modern observations, researchers can better understand the storm’s evolution.

Modern Spacecraft Observations

Spacecraft missions have been instrumental in studying the GRS. NASA’s Voyager 1 provided the first detailed image in 1979, revealing the storm’s complex structure. The Galileo spacecraft, which orbited Jupiter from 1995 to 2003, captured additional images and data. More recently, the Juno spacecraft has provided the most detailed observations yet, including measurements of the storm’s depth and high-resolution images.

Table 2: Key Spacecraft Observations

Spacecraft Year Key Observations
Voyager 1 1979 First detailed image of GRS
Galileo 1995-2003 Extensive imaging and data collection
Juno 2016-Present High-resolution images and depth measurements

These observations have provided critical data on the GRS’s structure, composition, and dynamics. They have also revealed changes in the storm over time, such as its shrinking size and increasing rotation speed.

The Future of GRS Research

As technology continues to advance, our understanding of the GRS will deepen. Future spacecraft missions and advanced telescopes will provide even more detailed observations, allowing scientists to study the storm in unprecedented detail. Additionally, improved computer simulations will help researchers test new hypotheses and refine existing models.

Conclusion

Jupiter’s Great Red Spot is a remarkable and enduring feature of our Solar System. Its formation and longevity have intrigued astronomers for centuries. By combining historical records with modern observations and simulations, researchers have developed a plausible explanation for the GRS’s formation in the mid-1800s. This iconic storm, with its swirling red clouds and powerful winds, continues to captivate scientists and the public alike.

Hashtags

#Jupiter, #GreatRedSpot, #Astronomy, #Space, #NASA, #Voyager, #Galileo, #Juno, #SpaceScience, #PlanetaryScience, #SolarSystem
Keep Reading
By
Space Exploration

NASA’s Edward C. Stone, Voyager Visionary, Dies at 88

By
Edward-C.-Stone

NASA’s Edward C. Stone, Voyager Visionary, Dies at 88

Key Takeaways

Edward C. Stone, a luminary in space exploration and former director of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, passed away on June 9, 2024, at age 88. Known for his leadership of the Voyager mission, Stone enhanced our understanding of the solar system and interstellar space. He also held a significant academic role at Caltech and received numerous accolades, including the National Medal of Science.

Stone served as the director of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) from 1991 to 2001. He contributed to nine NASA missions as principal investigator or science instrument lead. Stone’s work on Voyager helped reveal significant discoveries about Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Under his leadership, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 became the first human-made objects to enter interstellar space.He w as instrumental in engaging the public with scientific discoveries. Stone received numerous awards, including the National Medal of Science and the Shaw Prize in Astronomy.

Summary

  • Edward C. Stone, a prominent space scientist, died on June 9, 2024, at age 88.
  • He led the Voyager mission, NASA’s longest-running mission, which launched in 1977.
  • Stone’s leadership contributed to major discoveries about the outer planets and interstellar space.
  • He was the director of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory from 1991 to 2001.
  • Stone was involved in multiple NASA missions, including the Parker Solar Probe and Cassini.
  • He was a professor at Caltech and served as vice provost for special projects.
  • Stone received numerous accolades, including the National Medal of Science and the Shaw Prize in Astronomy.
  • He is survived by his two daughters, Susan and Janet, and two grandsons.
  • Stone was known for his ability to engage the public with scientific discoveries.

Remembering Edward C. Stone

Edward C. Stone, former director of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and longtime project scientist of the agency’s Voyager mission, died on June 9, 2024, at the age of 88. He was preceded in death by his wife, Alice Stone, whom he met at the University of Chicago. They are survived by their two daughters, Susan and Janet Stone, and two grandsons.

Early Life and Education

Edward Carroll Stone Jr. was born on January 23, 1936, in Knoxville, Iowa. The eldest of two sons of Edward Carroll Stone Sr. and Ferne Elizabeth Stone, he grew up in the nearby commercial center of Burlington. His father was a construction superintendent who delighted in showing his son how to take things apart and put them back together again. This early exposure to mechanics fostered Stone’s curiosity and passion for understanding the world around him.

After high school, Stone enrolled in Burlington Junior College to study physics and went on to the University of Chicago for graduate school. Shortly after he was accepted, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, marking the beginning of the Space Age. Stone joined a team at the university that was building science instruments to launch into space.

Career Highlights

Stone is best known for his work on NASA’s longest-running mission, Voyager. The twin spacecraft launched in 1977 and are still exploring deep space today. He served as Voyager’s sole project scientist from 1972 until his retirement in 2022. Under Stone’s leadership, the mission took advantage of a celestial alignment that occurs just once every 176 years to visit Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

During their journeys, the spacecraft revealed significant discoveries, such as the first active volcanoes beyond Earth on Jupiter’s moon Io and an atmosphere rich with organic molecules on Saturn’s moon Titan. Voyager 2 remains the only spacecraft to fly by Uranus and Neptune, revealing Uranus’ unusual tipped magnetic poles and the icy geysers erupting from Neptune’s moon Triton.

Now more than 15 billion miles (24 million kilometers) from Earth, Voyager 1 is the most distant human-made object. Voyager 2, traveling slightly slower and in a different direction, is more than 12 billion miles (20 billion kilometers) from Earth. Both probes are exploring interstellar space, the region outside the heliosphere, which is a protective bubble created by the Sun’s magnetic field and the outward flow of charged particles.

“Becoming Voyager project scientist was the best decision I made in my life,” Stone said in 2018. “It opened a wonderful door of exploration.”

Ed Stone became project scientist for the Voyager mission in 1972. This was five years before launch. He served in the role for a total of 50 years. During that time, he also served as director of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. This laboratory manages the Voyager mission for the agency. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Ed Stone became project scientist for the Voyager mission in 1972. This was five years before launch. He served in the role for a total of 50 years. During that time, he also served as director of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. This laboratory manages the Voyager mission for the agency. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Stone was particularly proud of the way Voyager quickened the pace of scientific analysis and took advantage of opportunities to engage the public. When Voyager 1 and 2 made their close flybys of the giant planets between 1979 and 1989, Stone was overseeing 11 teams of scientists, all accustomed to releasing their results at a slower pace through peer-reviewed journals.

Stone took the lead in tailoring the peer-review process to the faster pace of the mission’s planetary encounters. In the early afternoon, after data had come down, teams of scientists would decide what they thought their best results were for the day and hold up their conclusions for feedback in front of the whole science steering group. Based on that discussion, Stone would choose the most interesting results to present to the media and the public the next morning.

“It was a very exciting time, and everyone was making discoveries,” said Stamatios “Tom” Krimigis of the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. “Ed’s approach showed us how much public interest there really was in what Voyager was doing, but it also resulted in better science.”

Voyager’s high profile lifted Stone’s profile as well. In 1991, roughly two years after the mission completed its planetary flybys, Stone became director of JPL, serving until 2001. Under his leadership, JPL was responsible for more than two dozen missions and instruments. Highlights of Stone’s tenure included landing NASA’s Pathfinder mission with the first Mars rover, Sojourner, in 1996 and launching the NASA-ESA (European Space Agency) Cassini/Huygens mission in 1997.

Ed Stone, left, talks to reporters. This was at a news conference to announce findings from Voyager 2’s flyby of Uranus in 1986. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Ed Stone, left, talks to reporters. This was at a news conference to announce findings from Voyager 2’s flyby of Uranus in 1986. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

“Ed Stone was a leader who dared mighty things in space. He was a dear friend to all who knew him, and a cherished mentor to me personally,” said Nicola Fox, associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “Ed took humanity on a planetary tour of our solar system and beyond, sending NASA where no spacecraft had gone before.”

Scientific Contributions

Stone served on nine NASA missions as either principal investigator or a science instrument lead and on five others as a co-investigator. These roles primarily involved studying energetic ions from the Sun and cosmic rays from the galaxy. He had the distinction of being one of the few scientists involved with both the mission that has come closest to the Sun (NASA’s Parker Solar Probe) and the one that has traveled farthest from it (Voyager).

“Ed will be remembered as an energetic leader and scientist who expanded our knowledge about the universe — from the Sun to the planets to distant stars — and sparked our collective imaginations about the mysteries and wonders of deep space,” said Laurie Leshin, JPL director and Caltech vice president. “Ed’s discoveries have fueled exploration of previously unseen corners of our solar system and will inspire future generations to reach new frontiers.”

Achievements and Awards

Among Stone’s many awards, the National Medal of Science from President George H.W. Bush stands out as the most prominent. In 2019 he won the Shaw Prize in Astronomy, with an award of $1.2 million, for his leadership in the Voyager project. As the citation noted, the project “has over the past four decades, transformed our understanding of the four giant planets and the outer solar system, and has now begun to explore interstellar space.”

He was also proud to have a middle school named after him in Burlington, Iowa, as an inspiration to young learners. Stone’s contributions have left an indelible mark on the scientific community and beyond.

Ed Stone, second from left, and other members of the Voyager team pose with a model of the spacecraft in 1977, the year the twin probes launched. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Ed Stone, second from left, and other members of the Voyager team pose with a model of the spacecraft in 1977, the year the twin probes launched. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Legacy

Edward C. Stone’s legacy is a testament to the power of curiosity, perseverance, and the human spirit’s quest for knowledge. His work has inspired countless scientists and space enthusiasts, shaping our understanding of the universe and pushing the boundaries of exploration.

“Thank you, Ed, for everything,” said Nicola Fox. “Your legacy has left a tremendous and profound impact on NASA, the scientific community, and the world.”

Tables of Achievements and Missions

Table 1: Key Achievements of Edward C. Stone

Year Achievement
1972 Became Voyager Project Scientist
1977 Voyager 1 and 2 launched
1989 Completion of Voyager planetary flybys
1991-2001 Director of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory
1996 Landing of Mars Pathfinder mission
1997 Launch of Cassini/Huygens mission
2001 Stepped down as JPL Director
2012 Voyager 1 entered interstellar space
2019 Awarded Shaw Prize in Astronomy
2022 Retired from Voyager Project Scientist role

Table 2: NASA Missions Involving Edward C. Stone

Mission Role Key Contributions
Voyager 1 and 2 Project Scientist First active volcanoes on Io, atmosphere on Titan
Parker Solar Probe Science Instrument Lead Study of the Sun’s energetic particles
Cassini/Huygens Director of JPL Saturn orbiter, probe landing on Titan
Mars Pathfinder Director of JPL First Mars rover, Sojourner
Spitzer Space Telescope Director of JPL Infrared astronomy
Various satellite missions Principal Investigator Study of galactic cosmic rays and solar particles

Conclusion

Edward C. Stone’s life and career were marked by a relentless pursuit of knowledge and an unwavering dedication to space exploration. His leadership of the Voyager mission, his role as director of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and his numerous contributions to our understanding of the solar system and beyond have left an enduring legacy. Stone’s work not only advanced scientific discovery but also inspired the public and future generations of scientists to look to the stars.

His achievements remind us of the vast potential of human ingenuity and the importance of exploring the unknown. As we remember Edward C. Stone, we celebrate a visionary whose impact on space exploration will be felt for generations to come.

Hashtags

#EdwardCStone, #NASA, #VoyagerMission, #SpaceExploration, #JPL, #Caltech, #InterstellarSpace, #ScienceLeadership, #Astronomy, #SpaceScience

Keep Reading
By
Satellite Technology

Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency: Lunar Lander Fails to Check In

By
An artist's conception shows Japan's SLIM lander on the moon. Credit: ISAS/JAXA Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency

Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency: Lunar Lander Fails to Check In

Key Takeaways

The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) successfully landed its Smart Lander for Investigating Moon (SLIM) on January 19th, 2024. JAXA is the fifth national space agency to achieve a soft landing on the Moon. SLIM faced technical difficulties, including upending shortly after landing and power issues during lunar nights. SLIM survived three consecutive lunar nights but lost communication on May 27th, 2024. JAXA plans to attempt reestablishing communication after the current lunar night ends. SLIM’s mission included two rovers, LEV-1 and LEV-2, which continue to transmit data independently.

Summary

  • January 19th, 2024: JAXA’s SLIM lands on the Moon.
  • JAXA: Becomes the fifth space agency to land on the Moon.
  • Technical Issues: SLIM upended shortly after landing and faced power problems.
  • Lunar Cycle: Moon’s day/night cycle impacts solar panel-based missions.
  • SLIM’s Survival: Survived three lunar nights but lost contact on May 27th, 2024.
  • Communication Efforts: JAXA uses an unplanned ground station antenna for reestablishing contact.
  • Future Plans: Attempt to reestablish communication post-lunar night.
  • Rovers: LEV-1 and LEV-2, separated from SLIM, operate autonomously and continue to send data.

The SLIM Mission: An Overview

On January 19th, 2024, the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) achieved a significant milestone by successfully landing its Smart Lander for Investigating Moon (SLIM) on the lunar surface. This achievement placed JAXA among the elite group of national space agencies that have accomplished a soft landing on the Moon. The other agencies in this distinguished group are NASA, the Soviet space program (Interkosmos), the European Space Agency (ESA), and the China National Space Agency (CNSA).

SLIM’s Technical Difficulties

Despite the successful landing, SLIM experienced several technical difficulties shortly after its arrival on the lunar surface. One of the initial challenges was the lander upending itself, which posed significant risks to its stability and operation. Furthermore, as the lunar night approached, SLIM began to experience power issues.

On the Moon, a single day or night lasts for about fourteen Earth days. This prolonged darkness significantly affects missions that rely on solar panels for power. Nevertheless, SLIM managed to reorient its solar panels and recharge its batteries, allowing it to survive three consecutive lunar nights. However, on May 27th, 2024, JAXA announced that they had lost communication with SLIM as another lunar night began.

Communication Challenges

JAXA’s official statement, released via its X account (formerly Twitter), explained the situation:

The command transmission to restore communication was performed using an unplanned ground station antenna, with the cooperation of JAXA’s tracking network. The agency hopes to reestablish communication once the current lunar night ends later this month, expecting that the lander will recharge and reset itself.

SLIM’s Rovers: LEV-1 and LEV-2

In addition to the main lander, the SLIM mission included two rovers: the Lunar Excursion Vehicle-1 (LEV-1) and Lunar Excursion Vehicle-2 (LEV-2). These rovers separated from SLIM in lunar orbit and landed independently on the same day. LEV-1 is celebrated as the world’s first “hopping exploration rover,” while LEV-2 is the world’s smallest and lightest rover.

Rover Missions

During the four months since their landing, LEV-1 has conducted various scientific operations, including measuring local temperatures, mapping topography, and capturing images of the lunar surface. The rovers operate autonomously and can transmit data to Earth without relying on the SLIM lander. Consequently, even as JAXA works to restore communication with SLIM, they continue to receive valuable data from LEV-1 and LEV-2.

The Importance of SLIM’s Mission

The SLIM mission represents a significant step forward in lunar exploration for Japan and contributes valuable scientific data to the global community. By successfully landing and deploying autonomous rovers, JAXA has demonstrated its capability to conduct complex space missions and gather crucial information about the Moon’s environment.

Table 1: Key Events of the SLIM Mission

Date Event
January 19th, 2024 SLIM lands on the Moon
February 2024 SLIM reorients solar panels
March 2024 SLIM survives first lunar night
April 2024 SLIM survives second lunar night
May 27th, 2024 SLIM loses communication

Challenges and Future Prospects

The challenges faced by SLIM feature the essential difficulties of space exploration, particularly missions to the Moon. The harsh lunar environment, with its extreme temperature variations and prolonged periods of darkness, presents significant obstacles for any mission relying on solar power.

However, the experience gained from the SLIM mission will undoubtedly inform future lunar exploration efforts by JAXA and other space agencies. The successful operation of the LEV-1 and LEV-2 rovers, despite the issues faced by SLIM, highlights the potential for robotic exploration and the importance of redundancy in mission design.

JAXA’s Commitment to Lunar Exploration

JAXA’s ongoing efforts to restore communication with SLIM demonstrate its commitment to the mission and the broader goal of lunar exploration. As the agency works to overcome these challenges, the data collected by the rovers continues to provide valuable insights into the lunar environment.

Table 2: SLIM Mission Scientific Objectives

Objective Description
Surface Imaging Capture high-resolution images of the lunar surface
Temperature Measurement Record local temperature variations
Topography Mapping Create detailed maps of the lunar terrain
Autonomous Navigation Test the rovers’ ability to navigate the lunar surface autonomously
Environmental Data Collection Gather data on the lunar environment

As JAXA awaits the end of the current lunar night to attempt reestablishing communication with SLIM, the mission’s scientific achievements and the operational success of the rovers remain a testament to the agency’s capabilities. The insights gained from this mission will pave the way for future lunar exploration and contribute to our understanding of the Moon.

In conclusion, the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency’s SLIM mission marks a significant milestone in lunar exploration. Despite the technical difficulties faced by the lander, the successful operation of the autonomous rovers continues to provide valuable data. JAXA’s efforts to restore communication with SLIM stress their commitment to overcoming challenges and advancing our understanding of the lunar environment.

Hashtags

#JAXA, #LunarMission, #SLIM, #LunarExploration, #SpaceExploration, #MoonMission, #SpaceScience, #RoboticExploration, #LunarRovers, #SpaceTechnology, #ScientificResearch, #JapanSpaceAgency
Keep Reading
By
Space-Based Navigation

Planets That Are Similar to Earth

By
Fantasy solar system, scifi universe 3D illustration Planets That Are Similar to Earth

Planets That Are Similar to Earth

Key Takeaway

Astronomers have discovered numerous exoplanets that share characteristics with Earth, such as being rocky and residing in the habitable zone of their parent stars. These discoveries, largely facilitated by NASA’s Kepler space telescope, bring us closer to finding an Earth-like planet capable of supporting life.

Summary

  • Scientists have identified over 4,000 exoplanets since 1995.
  • The Kepler space telescope, launched in 2009, played a significant role in these discoveries.
  • To be considered potentially habitable, a planet must be small and rocky, and orbit within its star’s habitable zone.
  • Factors like atmospheric composition and stellar activity will be considered as telescope technology improves.
  • Notable Earth-like exoplanets include:
    • Gliese 667Cc: 22 light-years away, 4.5 times Earth’s mass, orbits a red dwarf.
    • Kepler-22b: 600 light-years away, 2.4 times Earth’s size, first Kepler planet in the habitable zone.
    • Kepler-69c: 2,700 light-years away, 70% larger than Earth, potentially in the habitable zone.
    • Kepler-62f: 1,200 light-years away, 40% larger than Earth, within the habitable zone.
    • Kepler-186f: 500 light-years away, 10% larger than Earth, on the outer edge of the habitable zone.
    • Kepler-442b: 1,194 light-years away, 33% larger than Earth, may support photosynthesis.
    • Kepler-452b: 1,400 light-years away, 60% larger than Earth, orbits a sun-like star.
    • Kepler-1649c: 300 light-years away, similar size to Earth, orbits in the habitable zone.
    • Proxima Centauri b: 4 light-years away, 1.27 times Earth’s mass, exposed to high UV radiation.
    • TRAPPIST-1e: Part of a system with seven Earth-sized planets, potentially the most habitable.

Earth-like Exoplanets: A Journey Beyond Our Solar System

The quest to find planets similar to Earth has been a long-standing dream for astronomers. Since the confirmation of the first exoplanet orbiting a sun-like star in 1995, over 4,000 such planets have been discovered. This remarkable journey has been largely propelled by NASA’s Kepler space telescope, which has significantly expanded our understanding of the universe and the potential for finding another “Earth.”

The Role of the Kepler Space Telescope

Launched in 2009, the Kepler space telescope was designed with a singular mission: to determine how common Earth-like planets are in our galaxy. Kepler’s observations have revealed that small, rocky worlds like our own are indeed abundant in the Milky Way. According to NASA, more than half of the exoplanet discoveries have been made by Kepler.

Criteria for Earth-like Planets

For a planet to be considered potentially habitable, it must meet several criteria:

  1. Size and Composition: The planet must be relatively small and rocky.
  2. Habitable Zone: It must orbit within the “Goldilocks” zone of its star, where conditions are just right for liquid water to exist on the surface.

Future advancements in telescope technology will allow scientists to consider additional factors, such as the planet’s atmospheric composition and the activity level of its parent star.

Notable Earth-like Exoplanets

1. Gliese 667Cc

Gliese 667Cc lies a mere 22 light-years from Earth. Discovered using the European Southern Observatory’s 3.6-meter telescope in Chile, this exoplanet is at least 4.5 times as massive as Earth. Despite its close orbit around a red dwarf star, which completes in just 28 days, it resides in the habitable zone. However, the proximity to its star raises concerns about potential exposure to stellar flares.

Gliese 667Cc
Gliese 667Cc

2. Kepler-22b

Kepler-22b, located 600 light-years away, was the first planet found by the Kepler telescope within the habitable zone of its star. With a size 2.4 times that of Earth, it remains unclear if Kepler-22b is rocky, liquid, or gaseous. Its 290-day orbit around a G-class star, smaller and cooler than our sun, suggests similarities to Earth’s orbital period.

Kepler-22b
Kepler-22b

3. Kepler-69c

Approximately 2,700 light-years from Earth, Kepler-69c is about 70% larger than our planet. It completes an orbit around its star every 242 days, positioning it in a comparable location to Venus in our solar system. However, its host star’s luminosity, about 80% that of the sun, places Kepler-69c within the habitable zone.

Kepler-69c
Kepler-69c

4. Kepler-62f

Kepler-62f, at 1,200 light-years away, is about 40% larger than Earth. It orbits a much cooler star with a 267-day period, placing it firmly within the habitable zone. This planet’s size suggests it could be rocky and possibly hold oceans.

Kepler-62f
Kepler-62f

5. Kepler-186f

Kepler-186f, only 10% larger than Earth, is located 500 light-years away. It resides on the outer edge of its star’s habitable zone, receiving just one-third of the energy from its star that Earth gets from the sun. This red dwarf star ensures Kepler-186f is not a true Earth twin but remains a significant discovery.

“The discovery of Kepler-186f confirms that planets the size of Earth exist in the habitable zones of stars other than our sun.” – Elisa Quintana, NASA scientist

Kepler-186f
Kepler-186f

6. Kepler-442b

Kepler-442b, discovered in 2015, is 33% larger than Earth and completes an orbit every 112 days. Located 1,194 light-years away, it is considered capable of sustaining a large biosphere. Research published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society indicates that Kepler-442b receives sufficient radiation for photosynthesis, making it a strong candidate for habitability.

Kepler-442b
Kepler-442b

7. Kepler-452b

Kepler-452b, discovered in 2015, is the first near-Earth-size planet found orbiting a sun-like star. This planet, 60% larger than Earth, orbits its star (Kepler-452) within the habitable zone. Kepler-452 is very similar to our sun, and Kepler-452b’s 385-day orbit closely matches Earth’s. The likelihood of it being rocky is high, making it a prime candidate for further study.

Kepler-452b
Kepler-452b

8. Kepler-1649c

Initially misidentified by a computer algorithm, Kepler-1649c was later confirmed as a planet during a reanalysis of Kepler Space Telescope data in 2020. This exoplanet, located 300 light-years away, is only 1.06 times larger than Earth and orbits in the habitable zone of its star. It receives about 75% of the light that Earth gets from the sun, suggesting potential habitability.

Kepler-1649c
Kepler-1649c

9. Proxima Centauri b

Proxima Centauri b, just four light-years away, is the closest known exoplanet to Earth. Discovered in 2016, it has a mass 1.27 times that of Earth and resides in the habitable zone of its star, Proxima Centauri. However, its close proximity to the star results in significant exposure to ultraviolet radiation, posing challenges for potential habitability.

Proxima Centauri b
Proxima Centauri b

10. TRAPPIST-1e

The TRAPPIST-1 system, located about 40 light-years away, contains seven Earth-sized planets orbiting a single star. Among these, TRAPPIST-1e is considered the most likely to support life. Despite early evaporation of water on most of these planets, a 2018 study found that TRAPPIST-1e could hold more water than Earth’s oceans.

TRAPPIST-1e
TRAPPIST-1e

The discovery of Earth-like exoplanets marks a significant milestone in our quest to find life beyond our solar system. With the ongoing advancements in telescope technology, the dream of finding a true “alien Earth” becomes increasingly tangible. As we continue to explore the cosmos, each new discovery brings us closer to understanding our place in the universe.

Tables

Table 1: Characteristics of Notable Earth-like Exoplanets

Exoplanet Distance (light-years) Size Compared to Earth Orbital Period (days) Parent Star Type Habitable Zone
Gliese 667Cc 22 4.5 times 28 Red Dwarf Yes
Kepler-22b 600 2.4 times 290 G-class Yes
Kepler-69c 2,700 1.7 times 242 Sun-like Yes
Kepler-62f 1,200 1.4 times 267 Red Dwarf Yes
Kepler-186f 500 1.1 times 130 Red Dwarf Edge
Kepler-442b 1,194 1.33 times 112 K-class Yes
Kepler-452b 1,400 1.6 times 385 Sun-like Yes
Kepler-1649c 300 1.06 times 19.5 Red Dwarf Yes
Proxima Centauri b 4 1.27 times 11.2 Red Dwarf Yes
TRAPPIST-1e 40 Earth-sized 6 Red Dwarf Yes

Table 2: Comparison of Orbital Characteristics

Exoplanet Orbital Period (days) Distance to Star (AU) Star’s Luminosity (% of Sun) Potential for Photosynthesis
Gliese 667Cc 28 0.125 1.4% Low
Kepler-22b 290 0.85 80% Moderate
Kepler-69c 242 0.64 80% Moderate
Kepler-62f 267 0.72 21% Moderate
Kepler-186f 130 0.4 10% Low
Kepler-442b 112 0.409 5.7% High
Kepler-452b 385 1.05 90% High
Kepler-1649c 19.5 0.082 20% Moderate
Proxima Centauri b 11.2 0.0485 0.0015% Low
TRAPPIST-1e 6 0.028 0.052% Moderate

References

  • “The nature of the TRAPPIST-1 exoplanets.” Astronomy and Astrophysics (2018). Read more
  • “Kepler Planet-Detection Mission: Introduction and First Results.” Science (2010). Read more

Hashtags

#Exoplanets, #EarthlikePlanets, #Astronomy, #SpaceExploration, #KeplerMission, #Habitability, #AlienEarth, #NASA, #SpaceScience #Planets That Are Similar to Earth
Keep Reading
By
Satellite Technology

Bepicolombo Mission to Mercury

By
An artist's impression shows the European Space Agency and JAXA's BepiColombo mission operating around Mercury. Bepicolombo Mission to Mercury

Bepicolombo Mission to Mercury

Key Takeaways

BepiColombo is a joint mission by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) to study Mercury. The mission comprises two spacecraft: the Mercury Planetary Orbiter (MPO) and the Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter (MMO). BepiColombo aims to map Mercury’s surface, analyze its magnetic field, and study its exosphere and core. Launched on October 20, 2018, BepiColombo is expected to arrive at Mercury in 2025. The mission will provide insights into the planet’s formation, geology, and its extreme environment.

Summary

  • Joint Mission: Collaboration between ESA and JAXA.
  • Spacecraft: Two orbiters – MPO and MMO.
  • Launch Date: October 20, 2018.
  • Arrival at Mercury: Expected in 2025.
  • Mission Goals:
    • Map Mercury’s surface.
    • Study Mercury’s magnetic field.
    • Investigate the planet’s exosphere and core.
  • Significance:
    • Understand planetary formation.
    • Study Mercury’s geology and extreme conditions.
  • Scientific Instruments: Includes cameras, spectrometers, magnetometers, and particle analyzers.
  • Challenges: High temperatures, intense solar radiation, and gravitational influences.

The BepiColombo Mission to Mercury

The BepiColombo mission is a collaborative effort between the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), aiming to explore Mercury, the least explored terrestrial planet in our solar system. Named after Giuseppe “Bepi” Colombo, an Italian scientist who significantly contributed to the study of Mercury, the mission marks a significant milestone in planetary science.

Mission Objectives

The primary objectives of the BepiColombo mission are to:

  1. Map Mercury’s Surface: High-resolution imaging and spectral mapping to study the planet’s surface composition and geological history.
  2. Analyze the Magnetic Field: Understanding Mercury’s internal magnetic field and its interaction with the solar wind.
  3. Study the Exosphere: Investigating the thin, tenuous atmosphere of Mercury.
  4. Investigate the Core: Gaining insights into the structure and composition of Mercury’s core.

Spacecraft Components

The BepiColombo mission consists of two main spacecraft:

  1. Mercury Planetary Orbiter (MPO): Built by ESA, the MPO is designed to study Mercury’s surface and internal composition. It carries a suite of instruments including cameras, spectrometers, and a laser altimeter.
  2. Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter (MMO): Developed by JAXA, the MMO focuses on studying Mercury’s magnetic environment. It is equipped with magnetometers, particle analyzers, and plasma detectors.
This simple schematic shows the three separate spacecraft that combine to create the BepiColombo mission.
This simple schematic shows three separate spacecraft that make up the BepiColombo mission. Image Credit: ESA

Scientific Instruments

The BepiColombo mission boasts a variety of scientific instruments:

  • Cameras: For high-resolution imaging of Mercury’s surface.
  • Spectrometers: To analyze the chemical composition of the surface and exosphere.
  • Magnetometers: To measure Mercury’s magnetic field.
  • Particle Analyzers: To study the composition and dynamics of the exosphere.
  • Laser Altimeter: For precise topographic mapping.

Launch and Journey

BepiColombo was launched on October 20, 2018, from the European Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, aboard an Ariane 5 rocket. The mission is expected to arrive at Mercury in 2025, after a seven-year journey that includes multiple gravity-assist flybys of Earth, Venus, and Mercury. These flybys are critical for adjusting the spacecraft’s trajectory and reducing its speed for orbital insertion around Mercury.

Challenges of the Mission

Exploring Mercury poses several unique challenges:

  • Extreme Temperatures: Mercury’s proximity to the Sun results in surface temperatures ranging from -290°F (-180°C) to 800°F (430°C). The spacecraft must endure these extremes and maintain the functionality of its instruments.
  • Intense Solar Radiation: The spacecraft must be protected from the Sun’s intense radiation, which is about ten times stronger than what Earth experiences.
  • Gravitational Influences: Navigating the spacecraft to Mercury requires precise calculations to account for the gravitational pull of the Sun and other celestial bodies.

Mission Goals and Scientific Return

The BepiColombo mission is expected to revolutionize our understanding of Mercury. Some key scientific goals include:

  • Mapping Mercury’s Surface: The MPO’s high-resolution cameras and spectrometers will create detailed maps of Mercury’s surface, revealing its geological history and surface composition.
  • Understanding the Magnetic Field: The MMO will provide valuable data on Mercury’s magnetic field, helping scientists understand its origin and structure.
  • Studying the Exosphere: The mission will investigate the composition and dynamics of Mercury’s thin exosphere, offering clues about its interaction with the solar wind.
  • Investigating the Core: By studying Mercury’s gravitational field and rotational dynamics, scientists hope to gain insights into the planet’s internal structure and core composition.

Significance of the Mission

The BepiColombo mission holds great significance for planetary science. By studying Mercury, scientists can gain a better understanding of:

  • Planetary Formation: Insights into how terrestrial planets, including Earth, formed and evolved.
  • Geological Processes: Understanding the geological history and surface processes on Mercury.
  • Extreme Environments: Studying how planetary environments close to the Sun are shaped and maintained.

Key Milestones

  • 2018: Launch of BepiColombo.
  • 2020: First flyby of Earth.
  • 2021-2022: Flybys of Venus.
  • 2023-2024: Multiple flybys of Mercury.
  • 2025: Orbital insertion around Mercury.

Collaborative Efforts

The BepiColombo mission is a testament to international collaboration. ESA and JAXA have pooled their expertise and resources to tackle the formidable challenges of exploring Mercury. This partnership extends to numerous scientific institutions and universities worldwide, which contribute to the mission’s scientific payload and data analysis.

BepiColombo’s solar-electric propulsion system without the solar arrays
This schematic shows the components of BepiColombo’s solar-electric propulsion system without the solar arrays. There are four T6 gridded ion thrusters mounted on gimbals. The system has three tanks holding 1,400 kg of xenon gas, a high-pressure regulator, four flow control units, and two power processing units. It also includes several metres of high-voltage harness and piping needed to connect everything. Image Credit: ESA

Scientific Instruments Overview

Here is a detailed look at some of the key instruments onboard the BepiColombo spacecraft:

Table 1: Scientific Instruments on MPO

Instrument Function
Mercury Radiometer and Thermal Imaging Spectrometer (MERTIS) Maps surface temperature and composition.
Mercury Gamma-ray and Neutron Spectrometer (MGNS) Analyzes elemental composition of the surface.
Spectrometers and Imagers for MPO BepiColombo Integrated Observatory SYStem (SIMBIO-SYS) High-resolution imaging and spectral mapping.
Mercury Laser Altimeter (BELA) Measures surface topography.
Italian Spring Accelerometer (ISA) Measures non-gravitational forces acting on the spacecraft.

Table 2: Scientific Instruments on MMO

Instrument Function
Mercury Magnetometer (MMO-MAG) Studies Mercury’s magnetic field.
Plasma Wave Investigation (PWI) Analyzes plasma waves and their interaction with the magnetic field.
Mercury Sodium Atmospheric Spectral Imager (MSASI) Studies sodium in Mercury’s exosphere.
Mercury Dust Monitor (MDM) Measures dust particles in Mercury’s vicinity.
Solar Intensity X-ray and Particle Spectrometer (SIXS) Monitors solar X-rays and energetic particles.

Data and Discoveries

The data collected by BepiColombo will be crucial in addressing several unanswered questions about Mercury. For instance, the mission will investigate:

  • Surface Features: Detailed mapping to identify geological formations such as craters, cliffs, and volcanic plains.
  • Volcanism and Tectonics: Studying evidence of past volcanic and tectonic activity.
  • Polar Regions: Investigating the presence of water ice in permanently shadowed craters at Mercury’s poles.
  • Magnetosphere Dynamics: Understanding how Mercury’s magnetosphere interacts with the solar wind.

The success of the BepiColombo mission will pave the way for future missions to Mercury and other inner planets. It will also enhance our understanding of exoplanets in close orbits around their parent stars, as these environments can be analogs to Mercury’s extreme conditions.

The BepiColombo mission represents a monumental effort in space exploration and scientific discovery. By delving into the mysteries of Mercury, the mission promises to unlock secrets about the formation and evolution of terrestrial planets. The data gathered will not only expand our knowledge of Mercury but also provide broader insights into planetary science and the conditions that shape our solar system.

Hashtags

#BepiColombo, #MercuryMission, #SpaceExploration, #ESA, #JAXA, #PlanetaryScience, #Mercury, #Astronomy, #SpaceScience, #InterplanetaryMission

References

Keep Reading
By
Pin It
error: Content is protected !!

On this website we use first or third-party tools that store small files (<i>cookie</i>) on your device. Cookies are normally used to allow the site to run properly (<i>technical cookies</i>), to generate navigation usage reports (<i>statistics cookies</i>) and to suitable advertise our services/products (<i>profiling cookies</i>). We can directly use technical cookies, but <u>you have the right to choose whether or not to enable statistical and profiling cookies</u>. <b>Enabling these cookies, you help us to offer you a better experience</b>.

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy