2033 is the Perfect Year to Send Humans to Mars (With a Bonus Venus Flyby)

In the coming decade, NASA and China plan to send the first crewed missions (astronauts and taikonauts) to Mars. Both agencies hope to begin sending missions by 2033, coinciding with a Mars Opposition, followed by additional missions in 2035, 2037, and after. These missions will culminate with the creation of a Mars surface habitat that will enable future missions and research. Launch opportunities for these missions are limited because the distances between Earth and Mars vary considerably over time, ranging from about 56 million km (~35 million mi) to more than 400 million km (250 million mi).

The times when Earth and Mars are at their closest (known as a Mars Opposition) only occur once every 26 months. Moreover, using conventional propulsion methods, it takes missions six to nine months to travel between Earth and Mars. As a result, round-trip missions to Mars could take up to three years, dramatically increasing radiation exposure for the crew and the time they spend in microgravity. According to a recent study from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), 2033 will be a unique opportunity to send a crewed orbital mission to Mars that lasts just 1.6 years.

The study, which appeared in the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, was led by Humphrey “Hoppy” Price, the chief engineer of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program and the architect of the JPL plan for a minimal-architecture crewed mission to Mars. He was joined by Robert Shishko, a principal system engineer and economist at JPL’s Mission and System Architecture Section, JPL senior systems engineer Joseph Mrozinski, and JPL systems engineer Ryan Woolley.

Mars Ain’t Easy!

According to the authors, NASA’s “Journey to Mars” program and a 2033 deadline is not feasible using the architecture referenced in the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017 and the NASA Authorization Act of 2020. This was the conclusion reached by the Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI) in an independent analysis titled “Evaluation of a Human Mission to Mars by 2033.” Specifically, they identified several methods and technologies integral to the mission architecture as “high-risk.”

This included long-duration life support systems (LSS), 500-kWe-class Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP), zero boiloff (ZBO) cryogenic propellants, and liquid oxygen (LOX) produced on Mars. Refueling and reusability were also identified as “medium-risk” requirements. Other issues identified by STPI included timelines, funding, the Deep Space Transport (DST), and the difficulties imposed by parallel developments between the Artemis Program and the “Journey to Mars.” As the STPI team concluded in their report:

“STPI found that a 2033 departure date for a Mars orbital mission is infeasible under all budget scenarios and technology development and testing schedules, given NASA’s current and notional plans. 2035 may be possible under budgets that match 1.9 percent real growth, but carries high risks of schedule delays due to complex technology development, testing, and fabrication schedules for the DST; may require reducing the scope of lunar missions; and reduces NASA’s ability to mitigate risks to human health.”

The DST is an especially tricky point, according to the STPI report. As per NASA’s “Journey to Mars” architecture, this spacecraft would be integrated with the Lunar Gateway by the late 2020s. It would rely on solar-electric propulsion and either include a habitable volume or use the Orion spacecraft in lieu of. Assuming there is a small boost in funding and budget consistency during the 2030s, the STPI anticipates that the DST will not be ready to depart until 2037. Assuming that delays and budget shortfalls are a factor, they anticipate 2039 is a more realistic date.

Price and his colleagues also addressed the potential for nuclear propulsion and in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), which comes up often in the context of future missions to Mars. According to various proposals, nuclear-thermal and nuclear-electric propulsion (NTP/NEP) could reduce transit times (45 to 90 days), radiation exposure, and the amount of time astronauts spend in microgravity. Also, ISRU offers the potential for lower payloads and less propellant, since materials and fuel could be manufactured on Mars. However, they also state that these technologies pose “development challenges and risks” and probably won’t be ready by 2033.

This echoes the findings of the Ninth Community Workshop for Achievability and Sustainability of Human Exploration of Mars (AM IX) workshop. Here too, NTP/NEP was raised as a possible means of reducing transit times and the associated health risks, which was naturally met with enthusiasm by many members. However, according to AM IX Report, critics of this idea “cited studies that suggested neither NTP nor NEP would be available in the human exploration time horizon of interest.”

Launch Opportunity

What is needed, therefore, is a mission architecture that avoids the higher-risk technologies identified by the STPI’s analysis and minimizes the number of new vehicles and developments required. Accordingly, Price and his colleagues propose a round-trip mission launching in 2033 that would take advantage of a unique planetary alignment (Venus-Earth-Mars) that occurs about once every 15 years. The mission would perform a gravity assist maneuver via a Venus flyby, accelerating the spacecraft and reducing the necessary propulsion and the total mission time.

The mission would begin with the spacecraft flying to Mars, spending about 30 days in high orbit, and then returning to Earth via the Venus gravity assist. The mission would last about 570 days (1.6 years), dramatically reducing the radiation the crew is exposed to and the time spent in microgravity. Another major advantage is that this mission architecture would rely on existing technologies and vehicles that are currently in production – like the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion spacecraft – or in the study contract phase for the Artemis Program.

They also emphasize that this mission would likely be on-orbit only, meaning there would be no landing involved, but could still serve as a precursor for future missions to the surface. As the team stated in their study:

“This would be an orbit-only mission as a precursor to landing missions that would follow, similar to how the Apollo 8 lunar orbit mission was a precursor to the Apollo 11 landing mission. Having a crewed Mars lander available for a 2033 mission, although potentially feasible, is unlikely due to the funding commitments that would be needed for such an effort. However, if private commercial efforts would be able to produce a crew qualified lander by 2033, then a landing mission could be considered.”

A Mars Mission Vehicle

Price and his team include a proposal for a Mars Mission Vehicle (MMV) consisting of an Orion spacecraft and three propulsion stages that would rely on conventional engines (like the RS-72 or XLR-132) and non-cryogenic bipropellants – like nitrous oxide (N₂O₄) and monomethylhydrazine (MMH). The MMV would be launched by the SLS and commercial rockets and assembled in High Earth Orbit (HEO) or around the Moon using the Lunar Gateway. The crew would launch aboard an SLS and rendezvous with the MMV as the final element in the assembly.

The concept is an adaptation of a community-developed architecture formulated at the Fifth Community Workshop on Achievability and Sustainability of Human Exploration of Mars (AM V) workshop held in 2017. The elements include:

1. An Orion spacecraft to transport crew to the MMV in HEO and provide direct-entry Earth return
2. A Mars Transit Habitat (MTH) to provide accommodations and life support for the crew
3. An Earth Departure Stage (EDS) to perform the trans-Mars injection (TMI) burn in HEO
4. A Mars Orbit Insertion (MOI) stage

In addition, two Trans-Earth injection (TEI) stages would be sent ahead of the MMV to provide transportation back to Earth by way of a Venus flyby. A sunshade would be deployed for thermal control during this phase since the spacecraft will be within 1 Astronomical Unit (1 AU) of the Sun. As mentioned before, the mission architecture and MMV design incorporate technology that is already in production or within reach.

While only the SLS and Orion are currently in production, the authors stress that the other elements are on the drawing board for NASA and its industry partners. In particular, there’s the Mars Transfer Habitat (MTB), which NASA has been developing since it announced at the 2017 IEEE Aerospace Conference that contracts were being awarded for Deep Space Habitation (DSH) studies. Price and his teammates further estimate that an MTH could be tested at the Lunar Gateway by the late 2020s and be ready by 2033. As they write:

“The MTH is currently in NASA’s planning process to be developed and to have the first delivery version tested at the Lunar Gateway. The EDS, MOI, and trans-Earth injection (TEI) stages would be of a common design with identical components, except for the tank lengths and capacities, which would be of three different variants. The stages would be manufactured from a common assembly line using conventional space-storable hypergolic propellants with systems that are currently at a high technology readiness level (TRL).”

Mission Profile

According to the timelines established in this study, the mission would begin by mid-2028 with the launching of the MMV elements to Earth and Mars orbit. Four SLS and 13 commercial launches would be used in total, with a combined payload mass of about 1020.5 metric tons (1125 tons). First, two SLS Block 2 Cargo and ten commercial launch vehicles would send the two TEI stages toward Mars, where they would position themselves and dock together once in HMO. Second, one SLS Block 2 Cargo and three commercial launches would deliver the mission vehicle to HEO.

These would be fully assembled and ready for final inspection and validation by late 2032. Last, a single SLS would deliver the crew and their Orion spacecraft to HEO to dock with the mission vehicle. The mission would then depart for Mars in 2033 based on the following timeline:

“The crew would launch in SLS/Orion in late March or early April 2033 to dock with the mission vehicle in the departure orbit in HEO. Again, the launch date for the crew would not be critical, and so there would be flexibility to accommodate some delays. In April 2033, with a departure period of a few weeks, the TMI burn would be performed, and the mission vehicle would depart for Mars. After about a 200-day transit, the mission vehicle would arrive at Mars in November 2033 and perform the Mars orbit insertion burn into HMO.”

The mission would spend about 30 days in orbit, at which point the MOI stage would be jettisoned, and the mission vehicle would rendezvous with the two TEI stages to return home. The return phase of the mission would last about 340 days and include the Venus flyby that would put the MMV on course to loop around the Sun and return to Earth. A few days before the spacecraft reaches Earth orbit, the Orion would separate from the MTH, leaving it on a course to fly past Earth. The Orion would then perform a final burn to reenter Earth’s atmosphere and achieve splashdown.

In addition to their 570-day mission profile, Price and his colleagues also offer an alternative conjunction-class long-stay mission. This mission would still launch by April 2033 and last about 950 days (2.6 years), with a 550-day stay in Mars orbit. This profile would require fewer launches from Earth and only one TEI stage to accomplish the return portion of the mission. It would also require far less acceleration to break free of Earth’s gravity and achieve an MOI, but would also need a much larger acceleration to depart from Mars orbit and a significantly greater burn from the TEI modules.

This mission comes with some additional risks, mainly from the extended period spent in microgravity and the increased exposure to radiation. So while the 950-day mission is simpler, would cost less, and involves fewer technical challenges, these come at the cost of increased risks to human health and safety. The long-duration stay in Mars orbit also leads to the same logistical difficulties identified in NASA’s current mission proposals, not the least of which are the need for long-duration life support systems, supplies, and waste management.

Follow-up Missions

Another selling point of this study is the recommendations for follow-up missions that would commence by 2037. This (they state) would require the development and qualification of a four-person Crewed Lander and Ascent Vehicle (CLAV) that could also be built using current technologies. Price and colleagues from NASA JPL and the Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT) outlined this vehicle concept in a previous study released in 2016. In this latest study, Price and his team explain how this vehicle could allow for missions every four years and could be delivered to HMO with two SLS Block 2 launches:

“The crew could travel to HMO using the same mission profile previously described and rendezvous with the prepositioned lander. After transferring to the lander, the crew would descend to the surface, perform a science exploration mission, and return to the mission vehicle in HMO using the lander’s ascent vehicle plus a prepositioned boost stage to get from low Mars orbit to HMO. This would require the Mars ascent vehicle to rendezvous and dock with the boost stage in LMO in order to return to the mission vehicle.”

The landing mission could also be adapted to their short and long-duration mission proposals, with the stays taking place on the Martian surface rather than in orbit. Over time, these landings could lead to the build-up of infrastructure on Mars and the utilization of local resources (ISRU) for refueling, construction, science operations, and other necessities. They also anticipate an eventual transition to reusable and more advanced propulsion systems allowing for shorter transits and longer stays.

This plan stands in contrast to previous proposals by NASA, which called for the possible deployment of a space station around Mars in 2028. Proposed concepts include Lockheed Martin’s Mars Base Camp (MBC), which would be paired with a reusable Mars Lander to enable trips to and from the surface and serve as a fallback point in the event of major solar flares or other hazards. While cost assessments for the MBC are unavailable, it is a foregone conclusion that it would cost far more to construct, deploy, and assemble than the proposed CLAV.

Upsides/Downsides

One of the most obvious selling points of this mission architecture is its simplicity and cost-effectiveness compared to existing plans. In addition to the mass and performance estimates, the study provides a cost breakdown by year. In a 2015 op-ed, Dr. Olin G. Smith and Paul D. Spudis* estimated that the cost of NASA’s Journey to Mars could be as much as $1.5 trillion. Moroever, their assessment was based on a significantly larger annual budget of about $54 billion per year instead of the then-current $18 billion ($68.54 and $20.5 billion today).

In comparison, Price and his associates predict that a program lasting from 2023 to 2035 will cost $17.728 billion and would require a modest increase in funding (consistent with the STPI analysis). Their plan would also require fewer launches and less propellant, offers a Mars transfer vehicle that would be ready in time, and does away with the need for the Mars Base Camp. These advantages echo what Robert Zubrin proposed with his “Mars Direct” mission architecture, which similarly calls for direct flights to Mars, the necessary elements to be sent on ahead, and ISRU to reduce payload and mass requirements.

But perhaps the greatest selling point is that this mission would be ready to go by 2033 using technology that already exists (or will soon). No additional systems need to be invented, tested, and validated, the most notable of which would be NTP/NEP systems. Basically, the proposal offers a plan that is feasible, on budget, and on time, at least when compared to NASA’s existing mission architecture. But of course, there are some obvious drawbacks, the most obvious being that it does not allow for surface operations.

As noted in a previous article, the AM IX Report was rather ambivalent about the feasibility and value of an orbital mission to Mars, despite the fact that it would easier to prepare and ready to go sooner. As the Report’s authors wrote: “It was agreed that the opportunities offered by the 2033 launch window are not to be dismissed lightly (assuming crew readiness), but no consensus was reached as to the value of an initial orbital mission, and no consensus was reached on an initial conjunction vs. opposition mission.”

Given the cost and timelines involved, any missions to Mars are likely to seem less appealing if no surface operations are involved, regardless of the potential for follow-up missions. After all, one of the main objectives of crewed missions to Mars is to build upon the astrobiological research performed by robotic explorers going all the back to the Viking 1 and 2 missions in 1976. So while this proposed architecture would allow for missions by 2033, one has to consider if a delay might not be the preferable option.

---

Of course, the matter is complicated somewhat by the fact that missions to Mars are not so easily delayed, unlike missions to the Moon. Given the orbital mechanics involved, opportunities are largely confined to Opposition launch windows (once every 26 months). And even when Earth and Mars are at their closest, the distances involved always presents logistical, technological, and health and safety challenges. As such, any delays could push the first launch as far back as 2039 (as noted in the STPI analysis).

But it is this very insistence that NASA send the first crews to Mars by 2033, with-follow up missions every 26 months, that is creating these challenges. Consider the Artemis Program, which evolved from Phase I and II of NASA’s Journey to Mars. Prior to 2019, the plan was to use the SLS to launch the elements of the Lunar Gateway to the Moon, which would then be assembled in a halo orbit and paired with a reusable lunar lander. Crewed missions to the lunar surface would follow by 2028, at which point NASA would shift its focus to developing the DST and sending crews to Mars by 2033.

However, the decision by the Trump administration to alter the timetable to make a lunar landing happen by 2024 resulted in a significant shakeup. Due to the constrictions imposed by this deadline, as well as delays with the SLS and other mission elements, the decision was made to deprioritize the Gateway. This not only forced NASA to contract with agencies to develop a Human Landing System (HLS) and to outsource the launch services for the Gateway. Both contracts were awarded to SpaceX, which will launch the core elements of the Gateway in 2024 (using a Falcon Heavy) and land the Artemis III crew using the Starship HLS by 2025.

Given all that, it might be preferable to postpone the first crewed mission to Mars to give various technologies and proposed solutions time to mature. Otherwise, NASA will have to adjust its plans and be ready to go with a lower-cost orbital mission by 2033. The fact that the Chinese also plan to send their first crews to Mars in 2033 might seem like an incentive to “get their first.” But it is important to note that China is facing the exact same challenges and their technological readiness is no greater than NASA’s.

This is especially true where “parallel developments” with lunar exploration programs arise. According to the official guide released by the China National Space Agency (CNSA) in 2021, the creation of the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) will be a three-phase process that will last until 2035. Phase II and III of the program (2030-2035) are reliant on the Long March 9 (CZ-9) super-heavy launch vehicle being ready on time. Roscosmos was to contribute to these phases with their Angara-5, but development of this super-heavy launch vehicle has stalled (largely due to sanctions resulting from the war in Ukraine).

Alas, any major decisions regarding future missions to Mars will depend on what happens as 2033 draws nearer. That includes how the Artemis Program unfolds, what the budget environment looks like, and the development, testing, and validating of new technologies. In the meantime, it’s good to know there are options. Whichever path NASA takes, the end result is sure to be both exciting and inspiring!

*Smith was a former manager of shuttle systems engineering at NASA’s Johnson Space Center, while Spudis was a staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI). They passed away in 2020 and 2018, respectively.

Further Reading: Aerospace Research Central (ARC)

The post 2033 is the Perfect Year to Send Humans to Mars (With a Bonus Venus Flyby) appeared first on Universe Today.

Low Gravity Simulator Lets You Jump Around in Lunar Gravity

When the Apollo astronauts landed on the Moon, they had to perform tasks in 1/6th of Earth’s gravity. At first, walking and working in this low gravity environment posed some challenges. However, the astronauts soon adapted and figured out that hopping like a bunny made it easier to get around.

The Artemis astronauts will also need to adapt to life on the Moon, and to that end, ESA has built a unique facility in a 17-meter (55 ft.) refurbished ventilation shaft.  

A participant uses the MoLo facility in Milan, Italy which simulates lunar gravity. Credit: ESA.

Called the Movement in Low gravity environments (MoLo), the program operates at the LOOP (Locomotion On Other Planets) facility in Milan, Italy. The cavedium (vent shaft) laboratory has a special chair that simulates lunar gravity. It is equipped with a bungee rope suspension system which allows subjects to jump up to 6 meters in the air. Scientists monitor the subjects’ movements, observing how they jump, balance, and land to better understand how best to live and work on the Moon. The chair can also be modified to simulate Mars, which has 38% of Earth’s gravity.

If it sounds like fun, it is. I’ve had the chance to use the 1/6th Gravity Chair at Space Camp in Huntsville, Alabama, which I’ll talk about below.

However, the MoLo studies aren’t just for fun, but for serious science. The study team consists of experts from several different universities and research centers and they are evaluating the movement and balance of each test subject as they jump and perform various other forms of locomotion.

The scientists are looking for how the body responds to reduced gravity levels as well as for things like how that lower gravity can impair balance. (Take a look at the video below of the Apollo astronauts walking, hopping and falling on the Moon!)

The scientists also study what methods of locomotion are the most efficient gait in different gravities. Among the various results, they have already shown what the Apollo astronauts proved, that bouncing on the Moon is actually the most “economical” of gaits, as opposed to on Earth, which is walking.

If the study reveals that balance is impaired due to reduced gravity levels, the scientists want to also figure out and define effective countermeasure systems to prevent falls and balance problems on the lunar and Martian surfaces. Additionally, they will try to determine what exercises are most effective to help astronauts mitigate or prevent deconditioning of muscles and bones that occurs in lower gravities. Perhaps the hopping on the Moon is beneficial not only for improved locomotion, but for keeping bones and muscles strong, too.

The participants using the low gravity chair have electromyography (EMG) sensors placed on their legs to measure muscle activity. Additionally, participants wear special reflective markers that allow for full 3D motion analysis with special sensors that provides data to special software that can reconstruct the participant’s body movements.

ESA said the next step of the study will happen during parabolic flights, where both lunar and Mars gravity can be simulated.  During the rollercoaster flight, all body parts are affected equally, allowing the team to study the effects of lower gravity on human balance.

That’s me walking “on the Moon” at ?@SpaceCampUSA? in the 1/6th gravity chair. Awesome experience! pic.twitter.com/XECDETWRpa

— Nancy Atkinson (@Nancy_A) March 30, 2023

The 1/6^th Gravity Chair at Space Camp is more for fun than science, but it was an awesome experience. There are two different uses for these chairs at Space Camp: one is for the attendees to experience walking and hopping in lunar gravity, and the other is part of the simulated missions that are the hallmarks of Space Camp.  

Nancy Atkinson waits for her turn in the 1/6^th Gravity Chair at Space Camp in Huntsville, Alabama to perform an EVA during a simulated lunar mission. Credit: Space Camp USA.

I was part of a lunar mission where during a lunar EVA (complete with a space suit) my crewmate and I had to construct a solar array “on the Moon” working in simulated 1/6th gravity. I found it quite easy to climb up the scaffolding to attach our solar panels to the array in the simulated lower gravity. It was an incredible amount of fun! I highly recommend Space Camp, for both kids (4^th grade to high school) and adults.

At Space Camp USA, performing an EVA using the 1/6th Gravity Chairs to build a solar array ‘on the Moon’. Credit: Space Camp USA.

Learn more about the LOOP facility here.

The post Low Gravity Simulator Lets You Jump Around in Lunar Gravity appeared first on Universe Today.

Now We Know How a Solar Storm Took Out a Fleet of Starlinks

On March 23rd, sky observers marveled at a gorgeous display of northern and southern lights. It was reminder that when our Sun gets active, it can spark a phenomenon called “space weather.” Aurorae are among the most benign effects of this phenomenon.

At the other end of the space weather spectrum are solar storms that can knock out satellites. The folks at Starlink found that out the hard way in February 2022. On January 29th that year, the Sun belched out a class M 1.1 flare and related coronal mass ejection. Material from the Sun traveled out on the solar wind and arrived at Earth a few days later. On February 3, Starlink launched a group of 49 satellites to an altitude only 130 miles above Earth’s surface. They didn’t last long, and now solar physicists know why.

A group of researchers from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and the Catholic University of America took a closer look at the specifics of that storm. Their analysis identified a mass of plasma that impacted our planet’s magnetosphere. The actual event was a halo coronal mass ejection from an active region in the northeast quadrant of the Sun.

A SOHO image of the coronal mass ejection headed out (lower right from the Sun). Several days later it collided with Earth’s magnetic field, which helped thicken the atmosphere. That produced atmospheric drag which affected the Starlink satellites. Courtesy NASA/SOHO.

The material traveled out at around 690 kilometers per second as a shock-driving magnetic cloud. Think of it as a long ropy mass of material writhing its way through space. As it traveled, it expanded and at solar-facing satellites—including STEREO-A, which took a direct hit from it—made observations. Eventually, the cloud smacked into Earth’s magnetosphere creating a geomagnetic storm.

How Starlink Satellites Experienced the Effects Space Weather

One of the side effects of space weather that can affect satellites is warming in a region called the “thermosphere”. That increased the density of the upper atmosphere over a short amount of time and caused it to swell up. A denser atmosphere causes a phenomenon called “atmospheric drag”. Essentially, the thicker atmosphere slows down anything moving through. It also heats things up.

The atmosphere thickened enough that it affected the newly launched Starlink stations. They started to experience atmospheric drag, which caused them to deorbit and burn up on the way down. It was an expensive lesson in space weather and provided people on Earth with a great view of what happens when satellites fall back to Earth. It was also that could have been avoided if they’d delayed their launch to account for the ongoing threat.

Video captured over Puerto Rico of Starlink satellites plunging through Earth’s atmosphere on February 7, 2022. Courtesy KevinIZooropa.

How Does Space Weather Work?

The Sun constantly sends a stream of charged particles called the solar wind. This stream varies in density, speed, and temperature. Occasionally, the Sun will also belch out clouds of plasma in what’s called a ‘coronal mass ejection’. Sometimes it also sends out solar flares. All the material it loses travels away on the solar wind.

During periods when the Sun is more active, those clouds of plasma can come pretty frequently. If they impact Earth, the results can vary from a pretty auroral display all the way to commercial satellite disruptions and power blackouts on the ground. The loss of the Starlink satellites was a particularly massive effect of space weather.

Artist’s impression of the solar wind from the sun (left) interacting with Earth’s magnetosphere (right). Such activity worked to thicken the atmosphere, which worked to drag down the Starlink satellites. Credit: NASA

Current Space Weather Effects

At the moment, the Sun’s activity is increasing as it heads into a period called “solar maximum”. We can expect more auroral displays, along with CMEs and flares. With the strong outbursts come threats to our technology. Obviously, communications and other satellites are in danger. So are astronauts on the International Space Station.

But, the threats aren’t just in space. Earth-based power grids, communication lines, and other technologies are also at risk. For example, when a geomagnetic storm hits, it sets up huge circulating electrical currents between Earth and space. These are called “geomagnetically induced currents”. At the very least, they can short out power lines and grids. When those go down, so do the Internet, computer systems, telephone systems, and other crucial services. The average person would immediately experience a power outage, at the very least. But, airlines, banks, and other systems would be down until power and communications could be restored. There’s a great need to strengthen our technology against solar storms.

Starlink Lessons Learned?

The loss of the Starlink satellites cost the company millions of dollars. The company elected to launch, even though the space weather community warned about the effects of a geomagnetic storm. For years now, solar physicists have been warning about the effects of space weather. Most satellite companies pay attention to reports from such places as the Space Weather Prediction Center. If they get enough warning ahead of time, they can take steps to protect their equipment. Astronauts on the ISS can take shelter until the storm passes. And, power companies and others can follow forecasts of such storms so they can take whatever action is needed in the event of a strong event.

Solar physicists continue to study these solar outbursts in hopes of coming up with a foolproof prediction system. At the moment, when something erupts from the Sun, we get notifications from a fleet of satellites. Those give us minutes to hours of “heads-up” time to prepare for the worst. NASA and other agencies continue to improve solar studies and prediction methods so that companies launching satellites to low-Earth orbit can take steps to protect their investments.

For More Information

The Solar Cause of the 2022 February 3 Geomagnetic Storm that Led to the Demise of the Starlink Satellites
Space Weather Prediction Center
Space Weather FX (Video)

The post Now We Know How a Solar Storm Took Out a Fleet of Starlinks appeared first on Universe Today.

Gravitational Waves From Colliding Neutron Stars Matched to a Fast Radio Burst

Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) were first detected in 2007 (the Lorimer Burst) and have remained one of the most mysterious astronomical phenomena ever since. These bright radio pulses generally last a few milliseconds and are never heard from again (except in the rare case of Repeating FRBs). And then you have Gravitational Waves (GW), a phenomenon predicted by General Relativity that was first detected on September 14th, 2015. Together, these two phenomena have led to a revolution in astronomy where events are detected regularly and provide fresh insight into other cosmic mysteries.

In a new study led by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery (OzGrav), an Australian-American team of researchers has revealed that FRBs and GWs may be connected. According to their study, which recently appeared in the journal Nature Astronomy, the team noted a potential coincidence between a binary neutron star merger and a bright non-repeating FRB. If confirmed, their results could confirm what astronomers have expected for some time – that FRBs are caused by a variety of astronomical events.

The research team included physicists from OzGrav, the University of Western Australia, the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR) at Curtin University, and the Nevada Center for Astrophysics (NCfA) at the University of Nevada. The study was led by Alexandra Moroianu, a postgraduate student from UWA’s School of Physics, Mathematics, and Computing, who worked with researchers at OzGrav, ICRAR, and NCfA to study a GW event that happened to coincide with an FRB (a very unlikely coincidence).

The possible causes of FRBs have been debated since they were first detected, with candidates ranging from black holes, neutron stars, and magnetars to possible extraterrestrial transmissions. To date, over 1000 FRBs have been detected thanks to dedicated radio telescopes, like the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) and the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP). Over time, young magnetars became the most favored candidate by astrophysicists, though recent observations have bolstered the idea that FRBs could have a variety of progenitors.

This includes mergers between neutron stars in compact binary systems. Astronomers have long predicted that these mergers. Clancy W. James, an astrophysicist with ICRAR and co-author of the study, explained in a recent article that appeared in The Conversation:

“Astronomers have long predicted that two neutron stars – a binary – merging to produce a black hole should also produce a burst of radio waves. The two neutron stars will be highly magnetic, and black holes cannot have magnetic fields. The idea is the sudden vanishing of magnetic fields when the neutron stars merge and collapse to a black hole produces a fast radio burst. Changing magnetic fields produce electric fields – it’s how most power stations produce electricity. And the huge change in magnetic fields at the time of collapse could produce the intense electromagnetic fields of an FRB.”

To test this theory, Moroianu and her colleagues examined GW190425, a GW event detected on April 25th, 2019, by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO), the Virgo Collaboration, and CHIME. This event was only the second time astronomers detected GWs caused by the inspiral of two non-spinning neutron stars (BNS). Based on the signal properties, the LIGO team estimated that these stars were 1.72 and 1.63 times as massive as the Sun and formed a “supramassive neutron star.”

Using CHIME data first released two years after the event, Moroianu identified a non-repeating fast radio burst (FRB 20190425A), which occurred only two and a half hours after GW190425 and originated from the same spot in the sky. However, confirming that the two were related was rather challenging since one of LIGO’s detectors picked up the GW event (LIGO Livingston). In addition, NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope was blocked by Earth at the time, which prevented the detection of gamma rays (which would have confirmed that the two events were related).

Nevertheless, the team was able to determine the FRB’s distance by tracing the amount of gas it passed through. This is characteristic of fast radio bursts, where high-frequency radio waves travel through the interstellar medium (ISM) faster than frequency waves. “Because we know the average gas density of the universe, we can relate this gas content to distance, which is known as the Macquart relation,” James added. “And the distance traveled by FRB 20190425A was a near-perfect match for the distance to GW190425. Bingo!”

The authors acknowledge that this coincidence does not prove that FRBs result from neutron star mergers, but it does lend credence to the theory that BNSs could also be a progenitor. Despite the evidence they provide, they also estimate the odds of the two signals being caused by the same event are about 1 in 200. What is needed, at this point, is to find additional examples of FRBs and GW events coinciding. The odds of detecting such events will improve considerably when the recently-upgraded Virgo and Kamioka Gravitational Wave Detector (KAGRA) come back online this May.

With their improved sensitivity, these observatories and their LIGO counterparts (LIGO Hanford and LIGO Livingston) are expected to detect thousands of events in the coming decades. Meanwhile, CHIME, the SKA, and other FRB detectors continue to exponentially increase the number of recorded FRB events, providing a robust basis for comparison. However, as James indicated, we may not have to wait long before more evidence is found:

“The key piece of evidence that would confirm or refute our theory – an optical or gamma-ray flash coming from the direction of the fast radio burst – vanished almost four years ago. In a few months, we might get another chance to find out if we are correct. In a few months, we may find out if we’ve made a key breakthrough – or if it was just a flash in the pan.”

Further Reading: The Conversation

The post Gravitational Waves From Colliding Neutron Stars Matched to a Fast Radio Burst appeared first on Universe Today.

Plans are Underway to Build a 30 Cubic Kilometer Neutrino Telescope

How do astronomers look for neutrinos? These small, massless particles whiz through the universe at very close to the speed of light. They’ve been studied since the 1950s and detecting them provides work for a range of very interesting observatories.

There’s IceCube in Antarctica (below), which uses a cubic kilometer of ice at the South Pole as its collector. Another neutrino detector, called KM3Net, is under development deep beneath the surface of the Mediterranean sea. It joins existing detectors around the world.

This image shows a visual representation of one of the highest-energy neutrino detections superimposed on a view of the IceCube Lab at the South Pole. Credit: IceCube Collaboration

Now, a consortium of Chinese scientists has plans to develop another deepwater neutrino “telescope” that will be more extensive than any current technology online today.

According to lead researcher Chen Mingjun at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the facility will be the largest neutrino observatory in operation. “It will be a 30-cubic-kilometer detector comprising over 55,000 optical modules suspended along 2,300 strings,” said Chen.

Why Study Neutrinos?

Neutrinos come from a number of sources across the universe. Astronomers know that energetic events produce them, such as a supermassive star explosion. Often, a rush of neutrinos alerts astronomers to the fact that a supernova has exploded. They reach Earth before the light from the catastrophic event can get here.

Neutrinos (along with cosmic rays) also come from the Sun, from stellar explosions, from objects called blazars, and there were even neutrinos created in the Big Bang. On Earth, they emanate from the decay of radioactive materials beneath the surface, and from nuclear reactors and particle accelerators.

Black-hole-powered galaxies called blazars are the most common sources detected by NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. They are sources of neutrinos and cosmic rays. Credits: M. Weiss/CfA

Neutrino astronomy is a way to use these particles (as well as cosmic rays) to search out their sources and understand the physics behind them. Neutrinos offer a chance for astronomers to “see” processes that they can’t catch any other way. That includes activity in the Sun’s core, the hidden cores of galaxies, gamma-ray bursts, and the events in starburst galaxies.

How to Detect Neutrinos

Spotting and measuring these fast-moving, nearly mass-less particles isn’t an easy task. They don’t interact very easily with regular matter, which makes them difficult to pin down. Depending on where they originate, neutrinos can travel through many light-years of space before interacting with interstellar gas and dust, or a planet, or star. Once they do, they pass almost completely unimpeded. But, they do interact briefly with matter. That interaction produces other detectable reactions and particles.

Super-Kamiokande, a neutrino detector in Japan, holds 50,000 tons of ultrapure water surrounded by light tubes. Credit: Super-Kamiokande Observatory

Since they’re such slippery objects, neutrino detectors have to have a large “collecting area” to detect enough for study. The first neutrino observatories were built underground. That isolated the detectors from local radiation “pollution.” Detection requires extremely sensitive equipment and even the best ones on Earth only measure a relative few.

Some neutrino observatories use a fluid called tetrachloroethylene to “capture” clues to neutrinos passing through. You might know this material better as dry cleaning fluid. When a neutrino hits a chlorine 37 atom in the tank, it converts it to an argon-37 atom. That’s what the instruments detect.

Another way to measure neutrinos is through what’s called a Cherenkov detector. The name refers to Cherenkov radiation, which is emitted whenever charged particles such as electrons or muons move through water, heavy water, or ice. The charged particle generates this radiation as it moves through the detector fluid. That’s the method IceCube, KM4Net, Lake Baikal, and others use. The Chinese underwater detector will improve on this method and go hunting for neutrinos on a much larger scale.

Linking Neutrino and Cosmic Ray Sources

The aim of building such an extensive telescope is to detect high-energy neutrinos, but Chen thinks that there may be a link to cosmic rays. He expects that the neutrinos the facility detects will contribute to solving a century-old scientific puzzle of the origin of cosmic rays.

In the early 1900s, scientists discovered that energetic particles constantly bombard Earth. Since then, astronomers have tracked neutrinos as well as gamma rays from space. In 2021, China’s Large High-Altitude Air Shower Observatory (LHAASO) in Sichuan province detected 12 sources of gamma rays. These probably came from the same sources as some cosmic rays.

A schematic diagram of the high-energy underwater neutrino telescope under development by Chinese scientists. Courtesy Chinese Academy of Sciences

Chen said one popular hypothesis is that the high-energy neutrinos and gamma rays are potentially produced simultaneously when high-energy cosmic rays originate. “If we can detect the two particles together, we can determine the origin of the cosmic rays,” said Chen. The team wants to see if neutrino collisions in their detector produce secondary particles. These should emit light signals for their underwater detectors to see. Some research already hints at this possibility, and Chen believes that neutrino detection could trace the origin of this mystery space radiation.

Next Steps

Most members of the team have spent years in the study of cosmic rays, particularly through project LHAASO. Now they’re gearing up to do the same with neutrinos in a whole new facility. There’s no doubt hunting extraterrestrial neutrinos from deep water will present new challenges. Underwater equipment and operations are very costly. In addition, the team has to develop a detector that can be completely waterproofed. However, work is underway, and the team just completed the first sea trial to test the detecting system at a depth of 1,800 meters underwater.

For More Information

Scientists Mull Building Underwater Telescope to Detect Cosmic Rays
KM3NeT
IceCube Neutrino Observatory
LHAASO Dark Matter Search

The post Plans are Underway to Build a 30 Cubic Kilometer Neutrino Telescope appeared first on Universe Today.

China Hints at Its Goals for a Lunar Base

In June 2021, China announced it was partnering with Russia to launch a lunar exploration program that would rival NASA’s Artemis Program. This program would include robotic landers, orbiters, and crewed missions that would culminate with the creation of an outpost around the Moon’s southern polar region – the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS). While the details are still scant, periodic updates have provided a “big-picture” idea of what this lunar outpost will look like.

Case in point, at a recent national space conference, a team of scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) presented a list of objectives for the ILRS. According to China Science Daily, these objectives will include Moon-based astronomy, Earth observation, and lunar in-situ resource utilization (ISRU). In addition, the CAS scientists indicated that China plans to establish a basic model for a lunar research station based on two planned exploration missions by 2028, which will subsequently expand into an international base.

Zou Yongliao, the head of the lunar and deep space exploration division of the CAS, revealed these goals. According to Zou, while plans for the ILRS are still a work in progress, scientists have already made progress in developing specific objectives for scientific research and operations on the Moon. Similar to what NASA has in store, the main objectives include studying the Moon’s composition, formation, and evolution. This research began in earnest with sample-return missions and Moon rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts, which indicated similarities between Earth and the Moon.

Illustration of NASA astronauts and the elements of the Artemis Base Camp operating around the Moon’s southern polar region. Credit: NASA

These same rocks also provided the first evidence of water on the Moon, which future crewed missions intend to explore further. Locating and assessing where critical resources like water ice are located is vital to human exploration on the Moon and could eventually lead to the creation of permanent lunar settlements. Attention was also given to scientific experiments that the ILRS will enable, including growing plants in lunar gravity and ISRU operations involving lunar minerals and solar energy. This research will also have implications for long-duration stays on the Moon and even lunar settlement.

Outposts on the far side of the Moon also present opportunities for astronomy, not the least of which is radio astronomy. Radio telescopes on the Moon will be unencumbered by interference on Earth, while optical telescopes won’t have to contend with light pollution or atmospheric distortion. According to Zou, specific objectives will include exploring star formation, stellar activities, Earth observation, and Solar dynamics. These studies will allow scientists to learn more about “space weather” and how to predict major solar eruptions (solar flares).

Zou and his colleagues also noted that the Moon is the “main field” of deep space exploration and that constructing a lunar research station was a “historical necessity.” This is consistent with China’s near- and long-term priorities for space exploration. Like NASA’s “Moon to Mars” architecture, this plan involves creating the infrastructure that will allow for a program of “sustainable exploration and development” while also enabling the crewed exploration of Mars in the 2030s.

While no mention was made concerning Russia’s continued participation in the ILRS program (which has become doubtful with the war in Ukraine), it seems clear at this point that China is prepared to go it alone. This should come as no surprise since the original plan involved China doing the majority of the heavy lifting. Without the Russian Soyuz-2 and Angara-5 launchers, China will likely turn to its own Long March 5 rockets and the super-heavy reusable launch vehicle they currently have in development.

Artist rendering of an Artemis astronaut exploring the Moon’s surface during a future mission. Credit: NASA

Similarly, in lieu of Russia’s proposed Luna-25, Luna-26, and Luna-27 missions (assuming they are further delayed), China is more than capable of relying on its own Chang’e program, which will send two additional missions to the Moon (Chang’e-6 and Chang’e-7) in 2024 and 2026 (respectively). In short, China’s space program is making considerable progress and looks to be on track for making crewed lunar missions by the end of the decade (or soon after). This latest announcement and the scientific objectives outlined at the conference reflect that confidence.

Further Reading: Xinhua

The post China Hints at Its Goals for a Lunar Base appeared first on Universe Today.

Artemis II is Literally Coming Together

In November 2024, NASA’s Artemis II mission will launch from Cape Canaveral, carrying a crew of four astronauts around the Moon before returning home. This will be the first crewed mission of the program, paving the way for Artemis III and the long-awaited return to the Moon in 2025. These missions will rely on the Orion spacecraft and the Space Launch System (SLS) super-heavy launch vehicle. At NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, teams of engineers have just finished integrating all five major structures that make up the core stage of the Artemis II rocket.

This included joining the engine section to the rest of the rocket stage, which technicians performed on March 17th. Located at the base of the 64.6-meter (212-foot) core stage, the engine section is the rocket’s most complex and intricate part. In addition to avionics, thousands of sensors, miles of electrical cables, and propellant lines, the engine section is a crucial attachment point for the four RS-25 engines and two solid rocket boosters, two pieces of technology from the Space Shuttle Era.

The next step will see the technicians integrate the four RS-25s into the engine section to complete the core stage. Between these four thrusters and the solid rocket boosters, the core stage will produce 3.99 million kg (8.8 million lbs) of thrust at liftoff. Once the engines are added, the crews at Michoud will begin integrating the core stage with its solid rocket boosters and the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle, which consists of the spacecraft’s crew and service modules, the Launch Abort System, and the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage.

In terms of payload, a crewed SLS will be able to transport between 95.25 and 118 metric tons (105 to 130 US tons) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and 34.5 to 39 metric tons (38 to 43 US tons) to the Moon. The rocket is vital to NASA’s Artemis Program, which will land the “first woman and first person of color” on the Moon by 2025. The long-term goal is to create a program of “sustained lunar exploration and development,” including the Lunar Gateway and Artemis Base Camp. In addition to lunar exploration, this infrastructure will enable crewed missions to Mars in the coming decade.

Everything is coming together for Artemis II, literally and figuratively!

Credit: NASA

The post Artemis II is Literally Coming Together appeared first on Universe Today.