backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 39 comment(s) - last by LeviBeckerson.. on May 5 at 9:09 PM

NASA decides to get up close and personal. Things will get hot. Real hot.

Though the media has been inundated with coverage on one of Earth's closest planetary neighbors, Mars, for the last few years, thanks in no small part to the durable Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, it is certainly not the only local celestial body under observation. Saturn and the Cassini probe have received a bit of coverage as well. Not much has been given, however, to the big fireball that Earth and eight or nine other planets are whirling around.

There are, in fact, several satellites studying the sun and its constant flood of exotic energy and particles as you read this. One of the most well-known is SOHO, which has been sending back reams of data and images and recently showed that large solar flares actually cause powerful starquakes on the sun. Adding to the list are several probes built by Johns Hopkins University for NASA: TIMED, which studies the effects of solar radiation on Earth's upper atmosphere; ACE, which studies samples of energetic particles between the sun and Earth; the Radiation Belt Storm Probes, which study the regions of energetic particles that become trapped by Earth's magnetic field; and the STEREO probes, which capture 3D images of Sol's unique climate.

NASA has again called upon Johns Hopkins for a solar probe. The forthrightly named Solar Probe mission promises to be one of the most dangerous sun studies to date. The probe itself will fly as close as 6.6 million kilometers to the Big Ball of Hot Fire, much closer than any previous craft and well inside Mercury's orbit. The probe will pass through the sun's outer atmosphere, taking measurements and recording data to send back to mission planners and analyzers on Earth.

The 1,000 pound craft will be, somewhat expectedly, solar powered. The instruments aboard the probe will likely be protected by a nine foot diameter, six inch thick disc made of carbon foam composites. While in the sun's corona, the probe must withstand temperatures of 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit and solar energy levels greater than 500 times that of satellites orbiting Earth.

With 30 years on the idea boards at NASA, no man-made probe has needed to be able to survive such a grueling mission. Current technology has finally allowed the engineers at Johns Hopkins to design an orbiter that fits inside the NASA budget, weighing in at a mediocre $750M. Though large, the nine figure sum is still less than some of the planet-bound missions NASA has undertaken.

The probe is planned to see a 2015 launch, and after seven years of lingering in Venus's neighborhood to shrink its orbit, see its first actual solar encounter around 2022. The actual details of the Solar Probe mission will be released by NASA later this year, along with an Announcement of Opportunity concerning the scientific payload for the vehicle. According to Johns Hopkins, the Solar Probe mission planners want to accomplish many goals, including "determine the structure and dynamics of the magnetic fields at the sources of solar wind; trace the flow of energy that heats the corona and accelerates the solar wind; determine what mechanisms accelerate and transport energetic particles; and explore dusty plasma near the sun and its influence on solar wind and energetic particle formation."

Though the Solar Probe mission will not likely get the attention of recent Mars missions, the data collected by the various existing satellites and observatories as well as future missions like it will be no less valuable in helping to understand our tiny cosmic neighborhood. Unfortunately, regardless of the quality and quantity of data collected by Solar Probe, it probably won't help prevent a future ice age.



Comments     Threshold


Question
By FITCamaro on 5/5/2008 8:13:22 AM , Rating: 3
Even with this carbon shield, I would think solar panels would burn up or melt under the intense heat. Are solar panels more resilient than I think?




RE: Question
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 5/5/2008 8:18:00 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the article at Johns Hopkins mentions that the solar panels will extend and retract, allowing it to pass "safely" through the corona without damaging the solar panels.

I'm not sure how safe you can really get in there, but they're the Smart Guys That Make Stuff.


RE: Question
By FITCamaro on 5/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Question
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 5/5/2008 8:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
Though it's definitely not my area of expertise, I'd venture a guess that going with a nuclear setup would increase the cost of the equipment something large. A solar setup is probably (and this is where someone will no doubt step in to prove me wrong) probably also lighter and easier to work with.

Too, aren't the rovers fairly small vehicles? Can they even make a nuclear power generation device that small? And if they can, why the heck don't we have 20' tall robots with laser guns? :(


RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 5/5/2008 9:41:29 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, for most missions outside the orbit of the earth, nuclear is much more feasible...and for missions to Jupiter and beyond, solar isn't even an option.

For a mission to the sun, however, I can't imagine that solar power wouldn't be more practical, given the intense flux available at that location.


RE: Question
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 5/5/2008 10:16:56 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if you can "overload" solar panels...


RE: Question
By PlasmaBomb on 5/5/2008 12:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
They will certainly be exposed to far more UV light than they would in earth orbit, so I wouldn't expect them to have a massive life time.


RE: Question
By StormEffect on 5/5/2008 12:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
I like how your name is "PlasmaBomb".


RE: Question
By djc208 on 5/5/2008 9:25:03 AM , Rating: 3
The current rovers do have nuclear heaters on board, but they don't generate power.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mer/mer-20070726...

So I would guess that the decision was probalby more design oriented due to size and weight than to the environmental impact.

It is being suggested for the larger next-generation rover however.


RE: Question
By wordsworm on 5/5/2008 8:47:13 AM , Rating: 2
I would think that the greater challenge would be in resisting the awesome gravity of the sun.


RE: Question
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 5/5/2008 8:52:19 AM , Rating: 3
That's what elliptical orbits are for! :D Remember, all orbiting really is is moving (mostly) perpendicular at a high enough speed to keep from falling into whatever is being orbited. All they have to do is build up enough steam with a few slingshots around Venus to make it go fast enough to go faster than the falling. Or something...


RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 5/5/2008 9:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
> "All they have to do is build up enough steam with a few slingshots around Venus... "

Actually, to move closer to the sun, they'll want to shed orbital energy not gain it...and if they want to use a gravity assist, they wouldn't use Venus, but a more massive planet.


RE: Question
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 5/5/2008 10:14:25 AM , Rating: 2
Just going off of what was in the JH info. :)

Though I can understand using a more massive body, shooting it out and then in doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm sure there's some crazy math involved, but it seems like it would be more difficult to carve out a good ellipse having come from so far out in the system. They wouldn't want it to be wasting time loitering around Jupiter.

I imagine that it may not have to be a large ellipse to keep it from falling into the sun, but it will have to be moving very very fast in any case. I believe it was 125 mile per second during the flybys. How would a Yugo gain that much speed other than slingshotting?


RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 5/5/2008 10:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
> "shooting it out and then in doesn't make a whole lot of sense"

Orbital mechanics is filled with such counterintuitive operations...for instance, to "slow down" in orbit you fire your thrusters to the rear-- not towards your front, as you would expect.

Reaching Venus from Earth actually requires slightly more dV than Jupiter. Also, remember that for an gravitational slingshot, the energy gained (or in this case, lost) comes directly from the gravity well of the object you use. The larger the well, the more the potential transfer. A shot around Venus is only about 1/3 as effective.

> "How would a Yugo gain that much speed other than slingshotting?"

Conversion of potential energy into kinetic, when falling inward to the sun. As fast as this satellite will be moving past the sun at perigee, it will be moving very slowly at apogee....assuming a highly elliptical orbit, of course.


What about getting off the ground?
By UppityMatt on 5/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: What about getting off the ground?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/5/2008 10:15:14 AM , Rating: 4
2,600F is only slightly hotter than the temperatures reached by tiles on the space shuttle...and since the earth's atmosphere is much denser than the outer edges of the coronasphere, those protective tiles have a more difficult job overall to do.


By Omega215D on 5/5/2008 12:32:02 PM , Rating: 3
They should just go at night then... =D

Time to go...


RE: What about getting off the ground?
By UppityMatt on 5/5/2008 12:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
My point wasn't concerning generally the temperature range, i also could have looked that up. My point is we need to invest money into a new space shuttle or delivery system. Of the five shuttles that were built (enterprise doesn't count) only three remain. I personally think that the 750 million should be invested into whatever they want to come next instead of a solar probe. The shuttles were only designed for a lifespan of 10 years, and seems the first was created in 1981 it seems like its time to start putting some funds into keeping our pilots safe.


RE: What about getting off the ground?
By FITCamaro on 5/5/2008 1:43:08 PM , Rating: 1
They're creating the "Crew Exploration Vehicle". More like Crappy Expensive Vehicle. Since Clinton killed and then scrapped the X-series prototypes, they went with a tried and true method circa the Apollo era. If we had kept funding the X prototypes to develop the fuel tanks (which were the issue), we'd probably have a newer, more high tech version of the shuttle now. Especially with all the advances in things like carbon nanotubes and what not.

So we have a "next-generation" coming. It just sucks more than what we've got.