Contributing writer Tim Reyes is a former NASA software engineer and analyst who has supported development of orbital and lander missions to the planet Mars since 1992. He has an M.S. in Space Plasma Physics from University of Alabama, Huntsville.
In honor of Dr. Stephen Hawking, the COSMOS center will be creating the most detailed 3D mapping effort of the Universe to date. Credit: BBC, Illus.: T.Reyes
Dr. Stephen Hawking delivered a disturbing theory in 1974 that claimed black holes evaporate. He said black holes are not absolutely black and cold but rather radiate energy and do not last forever. So-called “Hawking radiation” became one of the physicist’s most famous theoretical predictions. Now, 40 years later, a researcher has announced the creation of a simulation of Hawking radiation in a laboratory setting.
The possibility of a black hole came from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. Karl Schwarzchild in 1916 was the first to realize the possibility of a gravitational singularity with a boundary surrounding it at which light or matter entering cannot escape.
This month, Jeff Steinhauer from the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, describes in his paper, “Observation of self-amplifying Hawking radiation in an analogue black-hole laser” in the journal Nature, how he created an analogue event horizon using a substance cooled to near absolute zero and using lasers was able to detect the emission of Hawking radiation. Could this be the first valid evidence of the existence of Hawking radiation and consequently seal the fate of all black holes?
This is not the first attempt at creating a Hawking radiation analogue in a laboratory. In 2010, an analogue was created from a block of glass, a laser, mirrors and a chilled detector (Phys. Rev. Letter, Sept 2010); no smoke accompanied the mirrors. The ultra-short pulse of intense laser light passing through the glass induced a refractive index perturbation (RIP) which functioned as an event horizon. Light was seen emitting from the RIP. Nevertheless, the results by F. Belgiorno et al. remain controversial. More experiments were still warranted.
The latest attempt at replicating Hawking radiation by Steinhauer takes a more high tech approach. He creates a Bose-Einstein condensate, an exotic state of matter at very near absolute zero temperature. Boundaries created within the condensate functioned as an event horizon. However, before going into further details, let us take a step back and consider what Steinhauer and others are trying to replicate.
Artists illustrations of black holes are guided by descriptions given to them by theorists. There are many illustrations. A black hole has never been seen up close. However, to have Hawking radiation, all the theatrics of accretion disks and matter being funneled off a companion star are unnecessary. Just a black hole in the darkness of space will do. (Illustration: public domain)
The recipe for the making Hawking radiation begins with a black hole. Any size black hole will do. Hawking’s theory states that smaller black holes will more rapidly radiate than larger ones and in the absence of matter falling into them – accretion, will “evaporate” much faster. Giant black holes can take longer than a million times the present age of the Universe to evaporate by way of Hawking radiation. Like a tire with a slow leak, most black holes would get you to the nearest repair station.
So you have a black hole. It has an event horizon. This horizon is also known as the Schwarzchild radius; light or matter checking into the event horizon can never check out. Or so this was the accepted understanding until Dr. Hawking’s theory upended it. And outside the event horizon is ordinary space with some caveats; consider it with some spices added. At the event horizon the force of gravity from the black hole is so extreme that it induces and magnifies quantum effects.
All of space – within us and surrounding us to the ends of the Universe includes a quantum vacuum. Everywhere in space’s quantum vacuum, virtual particle pairs are appearing and disappearing; immediately annihilating each other on extremely short time scales. With the extreme conditions at the event horizon, virtual particle and anti-particles pairs, such as, an electron and positron, are materializing. The ones that appear close enough to an event horizon can have one or the other virtual particle zapped up by the black holes gravity leaving only one particle which consequently is now free to add to the radiation emanating from around the black hole; the radiation that as a whole is what astronomers can use to detect the presence of a black hole but not directly observe it. It is the unpairing of virtual particles by the black hole at its event horizon that causes the Hawking radiation which by itself represents a net loss of mass from the black hole.
So why don’t astronomers just search in space for Hawking radiation? The problem is that the radiation is very weak and is overwhelmed by radiation produced by many other physical processes surrounding the black hole with an accretion disk. The radiation is drowned out by the chorus of energetic processes. So the most immediate possibility is to replicate Hawking radiation by using an analogue. While Hawking radiation is weak in comparison to the mass and energy of a black hole, the radiation has essentially all the time in the Universe to chip away at its parent body.
This is where the convergence of the growing understanding of black holes led to Dr. Hawking’s seminal work. Theorists including Hawking realized that despite the Quantum and Gravitational theory that is necessary to describe a black hole, black holes also behave like black bodies. They are governed by thermodynamics and are slaves to entropy. The production of Hawking radiation can be characterized as a thermodynamic process and this is what leads us back to the experimentalists. Other thermodynamic processes could be used to replicate the emission of this type of radiation.
Using the Bose-Einstein condensate in a vessel, Steinhauer directed laser beams into the delicate condensate to create an event horizon. Furthermore, his experiment creates sound waves that become trapped between two boundaries that define the event horizon. Steinhauer found that the sound waves at his analogue event horizon were amplified as happens to light in a common laser cavity but also as predicted by Dr. Hawking’s theory of black holes. Light escapes from the laser present at the analogue event horizon. Steinhauer explains that this escaping light represents the long sought Hawking radiation.
Publication of this work in Nature underwent considerable peer review to be accepted but that alone does not validate his findings. Steinhauer’s work will now withstand even greater scrutiny. Others will attempt to duplicate his work. His lab setup is an analogue and it remains to be verified that what he is observing truly represents Hawking radiation.
An artists illustration of the early Universe. Image Credit: NASA
There’s nothing more out of this world than quasi-stellar objects or more simply – quasars. These are the most powerful and among the most distant objects in the Universe. At their center is a black hole with the mass of a million or more Suns. And these powerhouses are fairly compact – about the size of our Solar System. Understanding how they came to be and how — or if — they evolve into the galaxies that surround us today are some of the big questions driving astronomers.
Now, a new paper by Yue Shen and Luis C. Ho – “The diversity of quasars unified by accretion and orientation” in the journal Nature confirms the importance of a mathematical derivation by the famous astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington during the first half of the 20th Century, in understanding not just stars but the properties of quasars, too. Ironically, Eddington did not believe black holes existed, but now his derivation, the Eddington Luminosity, can be used more reliably to determine important properties of quasars across vast stretches of space and time.
A quasar is recognized as an accreting (meaning- matter falling upon) super massive black hole at the center of an “active galaxy”. Most known quasars exist at distances that place them very early in the Universe; the most distant is at 13.9 billion light years, a mere 770 million years after the Big Bang. Somehow, quasars and the nascent galaxies surrounding them evolved into the galaxies present in the Universe today. At their extreme distances, they are point-like, indistinguishable from a star except that the spectra of their light differ greatly from a star’s. Some would be as bright as our Sun if they were placed 33 light years away meaning that they are over a trillion times more luminous than our star.
An artists illustration of the central engine of a quasar. These “Quasi-stellar Objects” QSOs are now recognized as the super massive black holes at the center of emerging galaxies in the early Universe. (Photo Credit: NASA)
The Eddington luminosity defines the maximum luminosity that a star can exhibit that is in equilibrium; specifically, hydrostatic equilibrium. Extremely massive stars and black holes can exceed this limit but stars, to remain stable for long periods, are in hydrostatic equilibrium between their inward forces – gravity – and the outward electromagnetic forces. Such is the case of our star, the Sun, otherwise it would collapse or expand which in either case, would not have provided the stable source of light that has nourished life on Earth for billions of years.
Generally, scientific models often start simple, such as Bohr’s model of the hydrogen atom, and later observations can reveal intricacies that require more complex theory to explain, such as Quantum Mechanics for the atom. The Eddington luminosity and ratio could be compared to knowing the thermal efficiency and compression ratio of an internal combustion engine; by knowing such values, other properties follow.
Several other factors regarding the Eddington Luminosity are now known which are necessary to define the “modified Eddington luminosity” used today.
The new paper in Nature shows how the Eddington Luminosity helps understand the driving force behind the main sequence of quasars, and Shen and Ho call their work the missing definitive proof that quantifies the correlation of a quasar properties to a quasar’s Eddington ratio.
They used archival observational data to uncover the relationship between the strength of the optical Iron [Fe] and Oxygen[O III] emissions – strongly tied to the physical properties of the quasar’s central engine – a super-massive black hole, and the Eddington ratio. Their work provides the confidence and the correlations needed to move forward in our understanding of quasars and their relationship to the evolution of galaxies in the early Universe and up to our present epoch.
Astronomers have been studying quasars for a little over 50 years. Beginning in 1960, quasar discoveries began to accumulate but only through radio telescope observations. Then, a very accurate radio telescope measurement of Quasar 3C 273 was completed using a Lunar occultation. With this in hand, Dr. Maarten Schmidt of California Institute of Technology was able to identify the object in visible light using the 200 inch Palomar Telescope. Reviewing the strange spectral lines in its light, Schmidt reached the right conclusion that quasar spectra exhibit an extreme redshift and it was due to cosmological effects. The cosmological redshift of quasars meant that they are at a great distance from us in space and time. It also spelled the demise of the Steady-State theory of the Universe and gave further support to an expanding Universe that emanated from a singularity – the Big Bang.
Dr. Maarten Schmidt, Caltech, with Donald Lynden-Bell, were the first recipients of the Kavli Prize in Astrophysics, “for their seminal contributions to understanding the nature of quasars”. While in high school, this author had the privilege to meet Dr. Schmidt at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History after his presentation to a group of students. (Photo Credit: Caltech)
The researchers, Yue Shen and Luis C. Ho are from the Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics at Peking University working with the Carnegie Observatories, Pasadena, California.
Artist's illustration of a rotating neutron star, the remnants of a super nova explosion. Credit: NASA, Caltech-JPL
A research team led by Caltech astronomers of Pasadena California have discovered an ultraluminous X-ray (ULX) source that is pulsating. Their analysis concluded that the source in a nearby galaxy – M82 – is from a rotating neutron star, a pulsar. This is the first ULX source attributed to a pulsar.
Matteo Bachetti of the Université de Toulouse in France first identified the pulsating source and is the lead author of the paper, “An ultraluminous X-ray source powered by an accreting neutron star” in the journal Nature. Caltech astronomer Dr. Fiona Harrison, the team leader, stated “This compact little stellar remnant is a real powerhouse. We’ve never seen anything quite like it. We all thought an object with that much energy had to be a black hole.”
What is most extraordinary is that this discovery places even more strain on theories already hard pressed to explain the existence of ultraluminous X-Ray sources. The burden falls on the shoulder of the theorists.
The NuStar Space Telescope launched into Earth orbit by a Orbital Science Corp. Pegasus rocket, 2012. The Wolter telescope design images throughout a spectral range from 5 to 80 KeV. (Credit: NASA/Caltech-JPL)
The source of the observations is the NuSTAR space telescope, a SMEX class NASA mission. It is a Wolter telescope that uses grazing incidence optics, not glass (refraction) or mirrors (reflection) as in visible light telescopes. The incidence angle of the X-rays must be very shallow and consequently the optics are extended out on a 10 meter (33 feet) truss. NuSTAR records its observations with a time stamp such as taking a video of the sky. The video recording in high speed is not in visible everyday light but what is called hard x-rays. Only gamma rays are more energetic. X-rays emanate from the most powerful sources and events in the Universe. NuStar observes in the energy range of X-Rays from 5 to 80 KeV (electron volt)while the famous Chandra space telescope observes in the .1 to 10 KeV range. Chandra is one NASA’s great space telescope, was launched by the Space Shuttle Columbia (STS-93) in 1999. Chandra has altered our view of the Universe as dramatically as the first telescope constructed by Galileo. NuSTAR carries on the study of X-rays to higher energies and with greater acuity.
ULX sources are rare in the Universe but this is the first pulsating ULX. After analysis, they concluded that this is not a black hole but rather its little brother, a spinning neutron star as the source. More specifically, this is an accreting binary pulsar; matter from a companion star is being gravitationally attracted by and accreting onto the pulsar.
The prime example of a pulsar – the Crab Nebula Pulsar, M1. These actual observations show the expansion of shock waves emanating from the Pulsar interacting with the surrounding nebula. The Crab Pulsar actually pulsates 30 times per second, not seen here, a result of its rotation rate and the relative offset of the magnetic pole. Charndra X-Rays (left), Hubble Visible light (right). (Credit: NASA, JPL-Caltech)
Take a neutron star and spin it up to anywhere from 700 rotations per second to a mere one rotation every 10 seconds. Now you have a neutron star called a pulsar. Spinning or not, these are the remnants of supernovae, stellar explosions that can outshine a galaxy of 300 billion stars. Just one teaspoon of neutron star material weighs 10 million tons (9,071,847,400 kg). That is the same weight as 900 Great Pyramids of Giza all condensed to one teaspoon. As incredible a material and star that a neutron star is, they were not thought to be the source of any ultraluminous X-Ray sources. This view has changed with the analysis of observations by this research team utilizing NuSTAR. The telescope name – NuSTAR – stands for Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array.
There is nothing run of the mill about black holes. Dr. Stephen Hawking only conceded after 25 years, in 2004 (the Thorne-Hawking Bet) that Black Holes exist. And still today it is not absolutely certain. Recall the Universe Today weekly – Space Hangout on September 26 – “Do Black Holes exist?” and the article by Jason Major, “There are no such things as Black Holes.”
Pulsars stars are nearly as exotic as black holes, and all astronomers accept the existence of these spinning neutron stars. There are three final states of a dying star. Stars like our Sun at the end of their life become very dense White Dwarf stars, about the size of the Earth. Neutron stars are the next “degenerate” state of a dying exhausted star. All the electrons have merged with the protons in the material of the star to become neutrons. A neutron star is a degenerate form of matter effectively made up of all neutron particles. Very dense, these stars are really small, the size of cities, about 16 miles in diameter. The third type of star in its final state is the Black Hole.
The Crab Nebula was first observed in the 1700s and is catalogued Messier object, M1. The remant explosion of a SuperNova that Chinese astronomers observed in 1054 A.D, it holds the second Pulsar discovered (1968).
A spinning neutron star creates a magnetic field, the most powerful of such fields in the Universe. They are like a dipole of a bar magnet and because of how magnetic fields confine the hot gases – plasma – of the neutron star, constant streams of material flow down and light streams out from the magnetic poles.
Recently, the Earth has had incredible northern lights, aurora. These lights are also from hot gases — a plasma — at the top of our atmosphere. Likewise, hot energetic particles from the Sun are funneled down into the magnetic poles of the Earth’s field that creates the northern lights. For spinning neutron stars – pulsars – the extreme light from the magnetic poles are like beacons. Just like our Earth, the magnetic poles and the spin axis poles do not coincide. So the intense beacon of light will rotate around and periodically point at the Earth. The video of the first illustration describes this action.
Messier object – M82, the Cigar Nebula, nicknamed for the shape seen through telescopes of the 1800s. This is the location of the newly discovered Pulsar.
The light beacons from pulsars are very bright but theory, until now, has been supported by observations. No ultraluminous X-ray sources should be pulsars. The newly discovered pulsar is outputting 100 times more energy than any other. Discoveries like the one by these astronomers utilizing NuSTAR is proof that there remains more to discover and understand and new telescopes will be conceived to help resolve questions raised by NuSTAR or Chandra.
Five orbiters from India, the European Union and the United States will nestle behind the Mars as comet Siding Springs passes at a speed of 200,000 km/hr (125,000 mph). At right, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impacts on Jupiter, the Chelyabinsk Asteroid over Russia. (Credits: NASA,ESA, ISRO)
It was 20 years ago this past July when images of Jupiter being pummeled by a comet caught the world’s attention. Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 had flown too close to Jupiter. It was captured by the giant planet’s gravity and torn into a string of beads. One by one the comet fragments impacted Jupiter — leaving blemishes on its atmosphere, each several times larger than Earth in size.
Until that event, no one had seen a comet impact a planet. Now, Mars will see a very close passage of the comet Siding Spring on October 19th. When the comet was first discovered, astronomers quickly realized that it was heading straight at Mars. In fact, it appeared it was going to be a bulls-eye hit — except for the margin of error in calculating a comet’s trajectory from 1 billion kilometers (620 million miles, 7 AU) away.
It took several months of analysis for a cataclysmic impact on Mars to be ruled out. So now today, Mars faces just a cosmic close shave. But this comet packs enough energy that an impact would have globally altered Mars’ surface and atmosphere.
So what should we Earthlings gather from this and other events like it? Are we next? Why or why not should we be prepared for impacts from these mile wide objects?
For one, ask any dinosaur and you will have your answer.
An illustration of the Siding Spring comet in comparison to the Comet 67P atop Los Angeles. The original image was the focus of Bob King’s article – “What Comets, Parking Lots and Charcoal Have in Common“. (Credit: ESA, anosmicovni)
One can say that Mars was spared as were the five orbiting spacecraft from India (Mars Orbiter Mission), the European Union (Mars Express) and the United States (MOD, MRO, MAVEN). We have Scottish-Australian astronomer Robert McNaught to thank for discovering the comet on January 3, 2013, using the half meter (20 inch) Uppsala Southern Schmidt Telescope at Siding Spring, Australia.
Initially the margin of error in the trajectory was large, but a series of observations gradually reduced the error. By late summer 2014, Mars was in the clear and astronomers could confidently say the comet would pass close but not impact. Furthermore, as observations accumulated — including estimates of the outpouring of gases and dust — comet Siding Spring shrunk in size, i.e. the estimates of potentially tens of kilometers were down to now 700 meters (4/10th of a mile) in diameter. Estimates of the gas and dust production are low and the size of the tail and coma — the spherical gas cloud surrounding the solid body — are small and only the outer edge of both will interact with Mars’ atmosphere.
The mass, velocity and kinetic energy of celestial bodies can be deceiving. It is useful to compare the Siding Spring comet to common or man-made objects.
Yet, this is a close call for Mars. We could not rule out a collision for over six months. While this comet is small, it is moving relative to Mars at a speed of 200,000 kilometers/hour (125,000 mph, 56 km/sec). This small body packs a wallop. From high school science or intro college Physics, many of us know that the kinetic energy of an object increases by the square of the velocity. Double the velocity and the energy of the object goes up by 4, increase by 3 – energy increases by 9.
So the close shave for Mars is yet another wake up call for the “intelligent” space faring beings of the planet Earth. A wake up call because the close passage of a comet could have just as easily involved Earth. Astronomers would have warned the world of a comet heading straight for us, one that could wipe out 70% of all life as happened 65 million years ago to the dinosaurs. Replace dinosaur with humans and you have the full picture.
Time would have been of the essence. The space faring nations of the world — those of the EU, and Russia, the USA, Japan and others — would have gathered and attempted to conceive some spacecrafts with likely nuclear weapons that could be built and launched within a few months. Probably several vehicles with weapons would be launched at once, leaving Earth as soon as possible. Intercepting a comet or asteroid further out would give the impulse from the explosions more time to push the incoming body away from the Earth.
There is no way that humanity could sit on their collective hands and wait for astronomers to observe and measure for months until they could claim that it would just be a close call for Earth. We could imagine the panic it would cause. Recall the scenes from Carl Sagan’s movie Contact with people of every persuasion expressing at 120 decibels their hopes and fears. Even a small comet or asteroid, only a half kilometer – a third of a mile in diameter would be a cataclysmic event for Mars or Earth.
But yet, in the time that has since transpired from discovery of the comet Siding Spring (1/3/2013), the Chelyabinsk asteroid (~20 m/65 ft) exploded in an air burst that injured 1500 people in Russia. The telescope that discovered Comet Siding Spring was decommissioned in late 2013 and the Southern Near-Earth Object Survey was shutdown. This has left the southern skies without a dedicated telescope for finding near-Earth asteroids. And proposals such as the Sentinel project by the B612 Foundation remain underfunded.
We know of the dangers from small celestial bodies such as comets or asteroids. Government organizations in the United States and groups at the United Nations are discussing plans. There is plenty of time to find and protect the Earth but not necessarily time to waste.
Phobos. From where did it arise or arrive? Is it dry or wet? Should we flyby or sample and return? Should it be Boots or Bots? (Photos: NASA, Illus.:T.Reyes)
Ask any space enthusiast, and almost anyone will say humankind’s ultimate destination is Mars. But NASA is currently gearing up to go to an asteroid. While the space agency says its Asteroid Initiative will help in the eventual goal of putting people on Mars, what if instead of going to an asteroid, we went to Mars’ moon Phobos?
Three prominent planetary scientists have joined forces in a new paper in the journal Planetary and Space Science to explain the case for a mission to the moons of Mars, particularly Phobos.
“Phobos occupies a unique position physically, scientifically, and programmatically on the road to exploration of the solar system,” say the scientists. In addition, the moons may possibly be a source of in situ resources that could support future human exploration in circum-Mars space or on the Martian surface. But a sample return mission first could provide details on the moons’ origins and makeup.
The Martian moons are riddles, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.Phobos and its sibling Deimos seem like just two asteroids which were captured by the planet Mars, and they remain the last objects of the inner solar system not yet studied with a dedicated mission. But should the moons be explored with flybys or sample-return? Should we consider “boots or bots”?
The publications and mission concepts for Phobos and Deimos are numerous and go back decades. The authors of “The Value of a Phobos Sample Return,” Murchie, Britt, and Pieters, explore the full breadth of questions of why and how to explore Phobos and Deimos.
Dr. Murchie is the principal investigator of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter’s CRISM instrument, a visible/infrared imaging spectrometer. He is a planetary scientist from John Hopkins’ Applied Physics Lab (APL) which has been at the forefront of efforts to develop a Phobos mission. Likewise, authors Dr. Britt, from the University of Central Florida, and Dr. Pieters, from Brown University, have partnered with APL and JPL in Phobos/Deimos mission proposals.
An MRO HiRise image of the Martian moon Phobos. Taken on March 23, 2008. Phobos has dimensions of 27 × 22 × 18 km, while Deimos is 15 × 12.2 × 11 km. Both were discovered in 1877 at the US Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C. (Photo: NASA/MRO/HiRISE)
APL scientists are not the only ones interested in Phobos or Deimos. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Ames Research Center and the SETI Institute have also proposed several missions to the small moons. Every NASA center has been involved at some level.
But the only mission to actually get off the ground is the Russian Space Agency’s Phobos-GRUNT[ref]. The Russian mission was launched November 9, 2011, and two months later took a bath in the Pacific Ocean. The propulsion system failed to execute the burns necessary to escape the Earth’s gravity and instead, its orbit decayed despite weeks of attempts to activate the spacecraft. But that’s a whole other story.
The Russian-led mission Phobos-Grunt did not end well; under Pacific swells to be exact. Undaunted Russian scientists are pressing for Phobos-Grunt 2 (illus.), an improved lander with sample-return. Proposed for 2020s (Credit: CNES)
“The Value of a Phobos Sample Return” first discusses the origins of the moons of Mars. There is no certainty. There is a strong consensus that Earth’s Moon was born from the collision of a Mars-sized object with Earth not long after Earth’s formation. This is just one possibility for the Martian moons. Murchie explains that the impacts that created the large basins and craters on Mars could have spawned Phobos and Deimos: ejecta that achieved orbit, formed a ring and then coalesced into the small bodies. Alternative theories claim that the moons were captured by Mars from either the inner or outer solar system. Or they could have co-accreted with Mars from the Solar Nebula. Murchie and the co-authors describe the difficulties and implications of each scenario. For example, if captured by Mars, then it is difficult to explain how their orbits came to be “near-circular and near-equatorial with synchronous rotational periods.”
To answer the question of origins, the paper turns to the questions of their nature. Murchie explains that the limited compositional knowledge leaves several possibilities for their origins. They seem like D-type asteroids of the outer asteroid belt. However, the moons of Mars are very dry, void of water, at least on their surfaces as the paper discusses in detail. The flybys of Phobos and Deimos by NASA and ESA spacecraft are simply insufficient for drawing any clear picture of their composition or structure, let alone their origins, Murchie and co-authors explain.
If the moons were captured then they have compositions different from Mars; however if they accreted with or from Mars, then they share similar compositions with the early Mars when forming, or from Martian crustal material, respectively.
The paper describes in some detail the problem that billions of years of Martian dust accumulation presents. Every time Mars has been hit by a large asteroid, a cloud of debris is launched into space. Some falls back to the planet but much ends up in orbit. Each time, some of the debris collided with Phobos and Deimos; Murchie uses the term “Witness plate” to describe what the two moons are to Mars. There is an accumulation of Martian material and also material from the impactors covering the surfaces of the moons. Flyby images of Phobos show a reddish surface similar to Mars, and numerous tracks along the surface as if passing objects struck, plowed or rolled along. However, the reddish hue could be weathering from Solar flux over billions of years.
The paper continues with questions of the composition and how rendezvous missions could go further to understanding the moons makeup and origins, however, it is sample return that would deliver, the pay dirt. Despite how well NASA and ESA engineers have worked to shrink and lighten the instruments that fly, orbit, and land on Mars, returning a sample of Phobos to labs on Earth would permit far more detailed analysis.
SpaceX and Elon Musk claim that they will mount human flight to Mars before 2030. Many others remain less optimistic with hopes of human flights before 2040. (Illustrations: Total Recall, 1990, early artist illustration c.1950s )
Science Fiction writers and mission designers have imagined Phobos, in particular, as a starting point for the human exploration and colonization of Mars. A notable contemporary work is “Red Mars” by Kim Stanley Robinson; however, the story line is dated due to the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the external tanks Robinson clustered to form the colonization vessel. While this paper by Murchie et al. is purely scientific, fiction writers have used the understanding that Phobos is far easier to reach from Earth than is the surface of Mars (see Delta-V chart below).
A diagram showing the stair-step energy needed to travel to places beyond the Earth. Delta-V is the speed in km/sec required to reach a destination. As shown, the Delta-Vs are cumulative. Note that it takes an extra 5 km/sec beyond Phobos to reach the Martian surface; a prime reason for making the journey to the moons of Mars. (Credit: Wikipedia, Delta-V)
Phobos, orbiting at 9,400 kilometers (5,840 miles), and Deimos, at 23,500 km (14,600 miles), above Mars avoids the need for the 7-odd minutes of EDL terror – Entry, Descent, and Landing — and pulling oneself out of the Martian gravity well to return to Earth. Furthermore, there is the interest in using Phobos as a material resource – water, material for rocket fuel or building materials. “The Value of a Phobos Sample Return” discusses the potential of Phobos as a resource for space travelers – “In Situ Resource Utilization” (ISRU), in the context of its composition, how the solar flux may have purged the moons of water or how Martian impact debris covers materials of greater interest and value to explorers.
With so many questions and interests, what missions have been proposed and explored? The Murchie paper describes a half dozen missions but there are several others that have been conceived and proposed to some level over several decades.
At present, there is at least one mission actively pursuing funds. The SETI and Ames proposed “Phobos and Deimos & Mars Environment” (PADME) mission led by Dr. Pascal Lee is competing for Discovery program funding. Such projects must limit cost to $425 million or less and be capable of launching in less than 3 years. They are proposing a launch date of 2018 on a SpaceX Falcon 9. The PADME mission design would reuse Ames LADEE hardware and expertise, however, it does not go so far as what Murchie and co-authors argue – returning a sample from Phobos. PADME would maintain in a synchronized orbit with Phobos and then Deimos foe repeated flybys. The mission is likely to cost in the range of $300 million. Stardust, a relevant mission due to its sample return capsule, launched in 1999 and had costs which likely reached a similar level by end of mission in 2012.
The Russian Space Agency is attempting to gain funding for Phobos-Grunt 2 but possible launch dates continue to be moved back – 2020, 2022, and now possibly 2024.
Return of the Stardust sample inside the Lockheed-Martin developed sample-return capsule. Seen here upon successful landing in the Utah desert. (Credit: NASA/Stardust)
Additionally, each of this papers’ authors has mission proposals described. Dr. Pieters, JPL, and Lockheed-Martin proposed the Aladdin mission; Dr. Britt at APL, also with Lockheed-Martin, proposed the mission Gulliver; both would re-use the Stardust sample-return capsule (photo, above). Dr. Murchie also describes his APL/JPL mission concept called MERLIN (Mars–Moon Exploration, Reconnaissance and Landed Investigation).
Phobos and Deimos are the last two of what one would call major objects of the inner Solar System that have not had dedicated missions of exploration. Several bodies of the Asteroid Belt have been targeted with flybys and Dawn is nearing its second target, the largest of the Asteroids, Ceres.
So sooner rather than later, a spacecraft from some nation (not necessarily the United States) will target the moons of Mars. Targeted Phobos/Deimos missions are also likely to include both flyby missions and one or more sample-return missions. A US-led mission with sample-return in the Discovery program will be strained to meet both criteria – $425 million cost cap and 3 year development period.
Those utilizing the Lockheed-Martin (LM) Stardust design have a proven return capsule and spacecraft buses (structure, mechanisms and avionics) for re-use for cost and time savings. This includes five generations of the LM flight software that holds an incredible legacy of mission successes starting with Mars Odyssey/Genesis/Spitzer to now Maven.
All three proposals by this paper’s authors could be re-vamped and proposed again and compete against each other. All three could use Lockheed-Martin past designs. Cooperation in writing this paper may be an indicator that they will join forces, combine concepts, and share investigator positions on a single NASA-led project. The struggle for federal dollars remains a tough, tight battle and with the human spaceflight program struggling to gain a new footing after Space Shuttle, dollars for inter-planetary missions are likely to remain very competitive. However, it appears a Phobos-Deimos mission is likely within the next ten years.
Illustration of the Rosetta Missions Philae lander on final approach to a comet surface. (Photo: ESA)
ESA Rosetta mission planners have selected November 12th, one day later than initially planned, for the historic landing of Philae on a comet’s surface. The landing on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko will be especially challenging for the washing machine-sized lander. While mission scientists consider their choice of comet for the mission to be an incredibly good one for scientific investigation and discovery, the irregular shape and rugged terrain also make for a risky landing. The whole landing is not unlike the challenge one faces in shooting a moving target in a carnival arcade game; however, this moving target is 20 kilometers below and it is also rotating.
At 8:35 GMT (3:35 AM EST), the landing sequence will begin with release of Philae by Rosetta at an altitude of 20 kilometers above the comet. The expected time of touchdown is seven hours later – 15:35 GMT (10:35 AM EST). During the descent, Philae’s ROLIS camera will take a continuous series of photos. The comet will complete more than half a rotation during the descent; comet P67’s rotation rate is 12.4 hours. The landing site will actually be on the opposite side of the comet when Philae is released and will rotate around, and if all goes as planned, meet Philae at landing site J.
Before November 12th, mission planners will maintain the option of landing at Site C. If the alternate site is chosen, the descent will begin at 13:04 GMT also on November 12 but from an altitude of 12.5 kilometers, a 4 hour descent time.
NAVCAM image of the comet on 21 September, which includes a view of primary landing site J. Click for more details and link to context image. (Credits: ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM)
Rosetta will eject Philae with an initial velocity of approximately 2 1/2 kilometers per hour. Because the comet is so small, its gravity will add little additional speed to Philae as it falls to the surface. Philae is essentially on a ballistic trajectory and does not have any means to adjust its path.
The actions taken by Philae’s onboard computer begin only seconds from touchdown. It has a landing propulsion system but unlike conventional systems that slow down the vehicle for soft landing, Philae’s is designed to push the lander snugly onto the comet surface. There is no guarantee that Philae will land on a flat horizontal surface. A slope is probably more likely and the rocket will force the small lander’s three legs onto the slope.
A model of the comet P67/Churyumov-Gerasimenko created using images from the Rosetta OSIRIS narrow field camera. Mouse click on the image to start the animated GIF. (Credit: ESA)
Landing harpoons will be fired that are attached to cables that will be pulled in to also help Philae return upright and attach to the surface. Philae could actually bounce up or topple over if the rocket system and harpoons fail to do their job.
The Philae Lander anchoring harpoon with the integrated MUPUS-accelerometer and temperature sensor. (Credit: “Philae Lander Fact Sheet”, ESA)
However, under each of the three foot pads, there are ice screws that will attempt to drill and secure Philae to the surface. This will depend on the harpoons and/or rockets functioning as planned, otherwise the action of the drills could experience resistance from hard ground and simply push the lander up rather than secure it down. Philae also has a on-board gyro to maintain its attitude during descent, and an impact dampener on the neck of the vehicle which attaches the main body to the landing struts.
Ten landing sites were picked, then down-selected to five, and then finally on September 15th, they selected Site J on the head of the smaller lobe – the head of the rubber duck, with site C as a backup. Uncertainty in the release and the trajectory of the descent to the comet’s surface means that the planners needed to find a square kilometer area for landing. But comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko simply offered no site with that much flat area clear of cliffs and boulders. Philae will be released to land at Site J which offers some smooth terrain but only about a quarter of the area needed to assure a safe landing. Philae could end up landing on the edge of a cliff or atop a large boulder and topple over.
A ‘color’ view of Comet 67P, from a September 24, 2014 NavCam image. Credits: ESA/Rosetta/NavCam – Processing by Elisabetta Bonora & Marco Faccin.
The Rosetta ground control team will have no means of controlling and adjusting Philae during the descent. This is how it had to be because the light travel time for telecommunications from the spacecraft to Earth does not permit real-time control. The execution time and the command sequence will be delivered to Rosetta days before the November 12th landing. And ground control must maneuver Rosetta with Philae still attached to an exact point in space where the release of Philae must take place. Any inaccuracy in the initial release point will be translated all the way down to the surface and Philae would land some undesired distance away from Site J. However, ground controllers have a month and a half to practice simulations of the landing many times over with a model of the comet’s nucleus. With practice and more observational data between now and the landing, the initial conditions and model of the comet in the computer simulation will improve and raise the likelihood of a close landing to Site J.
Previous Universe Today articles on Rosetta’s Philae:
Rosetta's Philae lander is Like a modern-day Swiss Army Knife, now prepared for a November 11th dispatch to a comet's surface.
When traveling to far off lands, one packs carefully. What you carry must be comprehensive but not so much that it is a burden. And once you arrive, you must be prepared to do something extraordinary to make the long journey worthwhile.
The previous Universe Today article “How do you land on a Comet?” described Philae’s landing technique on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. But what will the lander do once it arrives and gets settled in its new surroundings? As Henry David Thoreau said, “It is not worthwhile to go around the world to count the cats in Zanzibar.” So it is with the Rosetta lander Philae. With the stage set – a landing site chosen and landing date of November 11th, the Philae lander is equipped with a carefully thought-out set of scientific instruments. Comprehensive and compact, Philae is a like a Swiss Army knife of tools to undertake the first on-site (in-situ) examination of a comet.
Now, consider the scientific instruments on Philae which were selected about 15 years ago. Just like any good traveler, budgets had to be set which functioned as constraints on the instrument selection that could be packed and carried along on the journey. There was a maximum weight, maximum volume, and power. The final mass of Philae is 100 kg (220 lbs). Its volume is 1 × 1 × 0.8 meters (3.3 × 3.3 × 2.6 ft) about the size of a four burner oven-range. However, Philae must function on a small amount of stored energy upon arrival: 1000 Watt-Hours (equivalent of a 100 watt bulb running for 10 hours). Once that power is drained, it will produce a maximum of 8 watts of electricity from Solar panels to be stored in a 130 Watt-Hour battery.
Side view schematics of the inner structure of the lander compartment showing the location of COSAC, PTOLEMY, the CONSERT antennas, the SESAME dust sensor and ÇIVA cameras. Philae is about the size of a dishwasher or four burner oven. (Credits: “Capabilities of Philae, the Rosetta Lander, J. Biele, S. Ulamec, September 2007)
Without any assurance that they would land fortuitously and produce more power, the Philae designers provided a high capacity battery that is charged, one time only, by the primary spacecraft solar arrays (64 sq meters) before the descent to the comet. With an initial science command sequence on-board Philae and the battery power stored from Rosetta, Philae will not waste any time to begin analysis — not unlike a forensic analysis — to do a “dissection” of a comet. Thereafter, they utilize the smaller battery which will take at least 16 hours to recharge but will permit Philae to study 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko for potentially months.
There are 10 science instrument packages on the Philae lander. The instruments use absorbed, scattered, and emitted light, electrical conductivity, magnetism, heat, and even acoustics to assay the properties of the comet. Those properties include the surface structure (the morphology and chemical makeup of surface material), interior structure of P67, and the magnetic field and plasmas (ionized gases) above the surface. Additionally, Philae has an arm for one instrument and the Philae main body can be rotated 360 degrees around its Z-axis. The post which supports Philae and includes a impact dampener.
CIVA and ROLIS imaging systems. CIVA represents three cameras which share some hardware with ROLIS. CIVA-P (Panoramic) is seven identical cameras, distributed around the Philae body but with two functioning in tandem for stereo imaging. Each has a 60 degree field of view and uses as 1024×1024 CCD detector. As most people can recall, digital cameras have advanced quickly in the last 15 years. Philae’s imagers were designed in the late 1990s, near state-of-the-art, but today they are surpassed, at least in number of pixels, by most smartphones. However, besides hardware, image processing in software has advanced as well and the images may be enhanced to double their resolution.
CIVA-P will have the immediate task, as part of the initial autonomous command sequence, of surveying the complete landing site. It is critical to the deployment of other instruments. It will also utilize the Z-axis rotation of the Philae body to survey. CIVA-M/V is a microscopic 3-color imager (7 micron resolution) and CIVA-M/I is a near infra-red spectrometer (wavelength range of 1 to 4 microns) that will inspect each of the samples that is delivered to the COSAC & PTOLEMY ovens before the samples are heated.
The CIVA micro-camera. Mass: less than 100 grams, Power: less than 2 Watts, Minimum Operating Temperature: -120C (Credit:ESA, Philae Lander Fact Sheet)
ROLIS is a single camera, also with a 1024×1024 CCD detector, with the primary role of surveying the landing site during the descent phase. The camera is fixed and downward pointing with an f/5 (f-ratio) focus adjustable lens with a 57 degree field of view. During descent it is set to infinity and will take images every 5 seconds. Its electronics will compress the data to minimize the total data that must be stored and transmitted to Rosetta. Focus will adjust just prior to touchdown but thereafter, the camera functions in macro mode to spectroscopically survey the comet immediately underneath Philae. Rotation of the Philae body will create a “working circle” for ROLIS.
The multi-role design of ROLIS clearly shows how scientists and engineers worked together to overall reduce weight, volume, and power consumption, and make Philae possible and, together with Rosetta, fit within payload limits of the launch vehicle, power limitations of the solar cells and batteries, limitations of the command and data system and radio transmitters.
Philae’s APXS – Alpha Proton X-Ray Spectrometer (Credit: Inst. for Inorganic Chemistry & Analytical Chemistry, Max-Planck Institute for Chemistry)
APXS. This is a Alpha Proton X-ray Spectrometer. This is a near must-have instrument of the space scientist’s Swiss Army Knife. APXS spectrometers have become a common fixture on all Mars Rover missions and Philae’s is an upgraded version of Mars Pathfinder’s. The legacy of the APXS design is the early experiments by Ernest Rutherford and others that led to discovering the structure of the atom and the quantum nature of light and matter.
This instrument has a small source of Alpha particle emission (Curium 244) essential to its operation. The principles of Rutherford Back-scattering of Alpha particles is used to detect the presence of lighter elements such as Hydrogen or Beryllium (those close to an Alpha particle in mass, a Helium nucleus). The mass of such lighter elemental particles will absorb a measurable amount of energy from the Alpha particle during an elastic collision; as happens in Rutherford back-scattering near 180 degrees. However, some Alpha particles are absorbed rather than reflected by the nuclei of the material. Absorption of an Alpha particle causes emission of a proton with a measurable kinetic energy that is also unique to the elemental particle from which it came (in the cometary material); this is used to detect heavier elements such as magnesium or sulfur. Lastly, inner shell electrons in the material of interest can be expelled by Alpha particles. When electrons from outer shells replace these lost electrons, they emit an X-Ray of specific energy (quantum) that is unique to that elementary particle; thus, heavier elements such as Iron or Nickel are detectable. APXS is the embodiment of early 20th Century Particles Physics.
CONSERT.COmet Nucleus Sounding Experiment by Radio wave Transmission, as the name suggests, will transmit radio waves into the comet’s nucleus. The Rosetta orbiter transmits 90 MHz radio waves and simultaneously Philae stands on the surface to receive with the comet residing between them. Consequently, the time of travel through the comet and the remaining energy of the radio waves is a signature of the material through which it propagated. Many radio transmissions and receptions by CONSERT through a multitude of angles will be required to determine the interior structure of the comet. It is similar to how one might sense the shape of a shadowy object standing in front of you by panning one’s head left and right to watch how the silhouette changes; altogether your brain perceives the shape of the object. With CONSERT data, a complex deconvolution process using computers is necessary. The precision to which the comet’s interior is known improves with more measurements.
MUPUS.Multi-Purpose Sensor for Surface and Subsurface Science is a suite of detectors for measuring the energy balance, thermal and mechanical properties of the comet’s surface and subsurface down to a depth of 30 cm (1 foot). There are three major parts to MUPUS. There is the PEN which is the penetrator tube. PEN is attached to a hammering arm that extends up to 1.2 meters from the body. It deploys with sufficient downward force to penetrate and bury PEN below the surface; multiple hammer strokes are possible. At the tip, or anchor, of PEN (the penetrator tube) is an accelerometer and standard PT100 (Platinum Resistance Thermometer). Together, the anchor sensors will determine the hardness profile at the landing site and the thermal diffusivity at the final depth [ref]. As it penetrates the surfaces, more or less deceleration indicates harder or softer material. The PEN includes an array of 16 thermal detectors along its length to measure subsurface temperatures and thermal conductivity. The PEN also has a heat source to transmit heat to the cometary material and measure its thermal dynamics. With the heat source off, detectors in PEN will monitor the temperature and energy balance of the comet as it approaches the Sun and heats up. The second part is the MUPUS TM, a radiometer atop the PEN which will measure thermal dynamics of the surface. TM consists of four thermopile sensors with optical filters to cover a wavelength range from 6-25 µm.
SD2 Sample Drill and Distribution device will penetrate the surface and subsurface to a depth of 20 cm. Each retrieved sample will be a few cubic millimeters in volume and distributed to 26 ovens mounted on a carousel. The ovens heat the sample which creates a gas that is delivered to the gas chromatographs and mass spectrometers that are COSAC and PTOLEMY. Observations and analysis of APXS and ROLIS data will be used to determine the sampling locations all of which will be on a “working circle” from the rotation of Philae’s body about its Z-axis.
COSACCometary Sampling and Composition experiment. The first gas chromatograph (GC) I saw was in a college lab and was being used by the lab manager for forensic tests supporting the local police department. The intent of Philae is nothing less than to perform forensic tests on a comet hundred of million of miles from Earth. Philae is effectively Sherlock Holmes’ spy glass and Sherlock is all the researchers back on Earth. The COSAC gas chromatograph includes a mass spectrometer and will measure the quantities of elements and molecules, particularly complex organic molecules, making up comet material. While that first lab GC I saw was closer to the size of Philae, the two GCs in Philae are about the size of shoe boxes.
Philae’s two Gas Chromatographs (GC). Left: COSAC, integrated into Philae, Right: PTOLEMY in an engineering lab. (Credit: ESA)
PTOLEMY. An Evolved Gas Analyzer [ref], a different type of gas chromatograph. The purpose of Ptolemy is to measure the quantities of specific isotopes to derive the isotopic ratios, for example, 2 parts isotope C12 to one part C13. By definition, isotopes of an element have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei. One example is the 3 isotopes of Carbon, C12, C13 and C14; the numbers being the number of neutrons. Some isotopes are stable while others can be unstable – radioactive and decay into stable forms of the same element or into other elements. What is of interest to Ptolemy investigators is the ratio of stable isotopes (natural and not those affected by, or that result from, radioactive decay) for the elements H, C, N, O and S, but particularly Carbon. The ratios will be telltale indicators of where and how comets are created. Until now, spectroscopic measurements of comets to determine isotopic ratios have been from a distance and the accuracy has been inadequate for drawing firm conclusions about the origin of comets and how comets are linked to the creation of planets and the evolution of the Solar Nebula, the birthplace of our planetary system surrounding the Sun, our star. An evolved gas analyzer will heat up a sample (~1000 C) to transform the materials into a gaseous state which a spectrometer can very accurately measure quantities. A similar instrument, TEGA (Thermal Evolved Gas Analyzer) was an instrument on Mars Phoenix lander.
SESAMESurface Electrical Sounding and Acoustic Monitoring Experiment This instrument involves three unique detectors. The first is the SESAME/CASSE, the acoustic detector. Each landing foot of Philae has acoustic emitters and receivers. Each of the legs will take turns transmitting acoustic waves (100 Hertz to KiloHertz range) into the comet which the sensors of the other legs will measure. How that wave is attenuated, that is, weakened and transformed, by the cometary material it passes through, can be used along with other cometary properties gained from Philae instruments, to determine daily and seasonal variations in the comet’s structure to a depth of about 2 meters. Also, in a passive (listening) mode, CASSE will monitor sound waves from creaks, groans inside the comet caused potentially by stresses from Solar heating and venting gases.
Next is the SESAME/PP detector – the Permittivity Probe. Permittivity is the measure of the resistance a material has to electric fields. SESAME/PP will deliver an oscillating (sine wave) electric field into the comet. Philae’s feet carry the receivers – electrodes and AC sine generators to emit the electric field. The resistance of the cometary material to about a 2 meter depth is thus measured providing another essential property of the comet – the permittivity.
Philae SESAME/DIM, Dust Impact Monitor. The monitor can measure particle size and velocity. Later as comet P67’s activity rises, it can continue to return total particle flux. (Credit: ESA)
The third detector is called SESAME/DIM. This is the comet dust counter. There were several references used to compile these instrument descriptions. For this instrument, there is, what I would call, a beautiful description which I will simply quote here with reference. “The Dust Impact Monitor (DIM) cube on top of the Lander balcony is a dust sensor with three active orthogonal (50 × 16) mm piezo sensors. From the measurement of the transient peak voltage and half contact duration, velocities and radii of impacting dust particles can be calculated. Particles with radii from about 0.5 µm to 3 mm and velocities from 0.025–0.25 m/s can be measured. If the background noise is very high, or the rate and/or the amplitudes of the burst signal are too high, the system automatically switches to the so called Average Continuous mode; i.e., only the average signal will be obtained, giving a measure of the dust flux.” [ref]
ROMAPRosetta Lander Magnetometer and Plasma detector also includes a third detector, a pressure sensor. Several spacecraft have flown by comets and an intrinsic magnetic field, one created by the comet’s nucleus (the main body) has never been detected. If an intrinsic magnetic field exists, it is likely to be very weak and landing on the surface would be necessary. Finding one would be extraordinary and would turn theories regarding comets on their heads. Low and behold Philae has a fluxgate magnetometer.
Philae ROMAP, Tri-Axial Fluxgate Magnetometer and Plasma Monitor (Credit: ESA/MPS)
The Earth’s magnetic (B) field surrounding us is measured in the 10s of thousands of nano-Teslas (SI unit, billionth of a Tesla). Beyond Earth’s field, the planets, asteroids, and comets are all immersed in the Sun’s magnetic field which, near the Earth, is measured in single digits, 5 to 10 nano-Tesla. Philae’s detector has a range of +/- 2000 nanoTesla; a just in case range but one readily offered by fluxgates. It has a sensitivity of 1/100th of a nanoTesla. So, ESA and Rosetta came prepared. The magnetometer can detect a very minute field if it’s there. Now let’s consider the Plasma detector.
Much of the dynamics of the Universe involves the interaction of plasma – ionized gases (generally missing one or more electrons thus carrying a positive electric charge) with magnetic fields. Comets also involve such interactions and Philae carries a plasma detector to measure the energy, density and direction of electrons and of positively charged ions. Active comets are releasing essentially a neutral gas into space plus small solid (dust) particles. The Sun’s ultraviolet radiation partially ionizes the cometary gas of the comet’s tail, that is, creates a plasma. At some distance from the comet nucleus depending on how hot and dense that plasma is, there is a standoff between the Sun’s magnetic field and the plasma of the tail. The Sun’s B field drapes around the comet’s tail kind of like a white sheet draped over a Halloween trick-or-treater but without eye holes.
The structure of an active comet. In early 2015, 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko will wake up. The heat of the Sun will increase gas and dust production which will interact with Solar UV radiation and the Solar Wind. The Sun’s magnetic field will be draped around the coma and tail of the comet. (Photo: ESA)
So at P67’s surface, Philae’s ROMAP/SPM detector, electrostatic analyzers and a Faraday Cup sensor will measure free electrons and ions in the not so empty space. A “cold” plasma surrounds the comet; SPM will detect ion kinetic energy in the range of 40 to 8000 electron-volts (eV) and electrons from 0.35 eV to 4200 eV. Last but not least, ROMAP includes a pressure sensor which can measure very low pressure – a millionth or a billionth or less than the air pressure we enjoy on Earth. A Penning Vacuum gauge is utilized which ionizes the primarily neutral gas near the surface and measures the current that is generated.
Philae will carry 10 instrument suites to the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko but altogether the ten represent 15 different types of detectors. Some are interdependent, that is, in order to derive certain properties, one needs multiple data sets. Landing Philae on the comet surface will provide the means to measure many properties of a comet for the fist time and others with significantly higher accuracy. Altogether, scientists will come closer to understanding the origins of comets and their contribution to the evolution of the Solar System.
MRO image of Gale Crater illustrating the landing location and trek of the Rover Curiosity. Curiosity's images and data show that the Gale Crater held water for much longer than thought. (Credits: NASA/JPL, illustration, T.Reyes)
Scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory have announced that the Mars Science Lab (MSL), Curiosity Rover, has reached the base of the central peak inside Gale Crater, Aeolis Mons also known as Mount Sharp. Mount Sharp is a prime objective of NASA’s Curiosity journey. The mountain is like a layer cake, holding a chronology of past events, one after the other, stacked upon each other over billions of years. It took two years and one month to reach this present point and what lies ahead is the beginning of an upward trek towards the peak of Mount Sharp, 5500 meters (18,000 feet) above the floor of Gale Crater. However, it is worth a look back and to consider what Mount Sharp represents to the mission.
For over 17 years, NASA robotic spacecraft have maintained a constant presence above or upon the surface of Mars. The Mars Pathfinder mission arrived on July 4, 1997, then quickly followed by Mars Global Surveyor on September 11 and since this time, there has always been at least one active Mars mission.
“Seven Minutes of Terror” – the Entry, Descent and Landing (EDL) of the Mars Science Lab (MSL) – Mars Curiosity Rover. (Credit: NASA/JPL)
On November 26, 2011, the voyage of Mars Curiosity Rover began as a trek across 320 million kilometers (200 million miles) of the inner Solar System and culminated in the coined “Seven Minutes of Terror”. For seven long minutes, the MSL, the Mars Curiosity Rover, plowed straight into the Martian atmosphere – the entry, deployed a parachute – the descent, to slow down to about 320 km/hour (200 mph) then the Sky Crane with Rover under foot was released – the landing. With only seconds before an imminent hard impact, the Sky Crane hit the breaks, firing its rockets, then released Curiosity Rover on a tether. This was the Entry, Descent and Landing (EDL). All the while, it was the computer inside the Rover in control. When the tether was cut, the Sky Crane was forced to switch to a simpler processor within its system to complete a final scuttling of itself a few hundred meters away.
The Sky Crane gently lowered Curiosity to the landing point, christened Bradbury Station after the celebrated science fiction writer, Ray Bradbury, writer of the Martian Chronicles(c.1950), who passed away at age 91, 61 days before the landing on August 5, 2012. (recommended video – R. Bradbury reading “If Only We had been Taller” at the public event marking the arrival of Mariner 9 at Mars, November 12, 1971)
The ultimate Selfie – a self-protrait taken on anoher planet. This is the capability of the Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) camera, one of 5 instruments on the turret at the end of the 2.1 meter (7 ft), 30 kg (66 lb) Robotic Arm. On numerous occasions, Curiosity has taken self-portraits, many as mosaics. This on is on Sol (Mars day) 85, post landing, showing Curiosity with its destination – Aeolis Mons (Mt. Sharp) in the background. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS/Ken Kremer/Marco Di Lorenzo, “Curiosity Celebrates 90 Sols Scooping Mars and Snapping Amazing Self-Portrait with Mount Sharp“)September 27, 2012: A rock outcrop called Link pops out from a Martian surface taken by the 100-millimeter Mast Camera on NASA’s Curiosity Mars rover September 2, 2012. Rounded gravel fragments, or clasts, up to a couple inches (few centimeters) in size are in a matrix of white material. The outcrop characteristics are consistent with a sedimentary conglomerate, or a rock that was formed by the deposition of water and is composed of many smaller rounded rocks cemented together. Scientists enhanced the color in this version to show the Martian scene as it would appear under the lighting conditions we have on Earth, which helps in analyzing the terrain. (NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS/Handout/Reuters)Mars Curiosity at the “John Klein” site in Yellow Knife Bay on January 10, 2013 (Mars Sol 153). The Mastcam mosaic was taken from 5 meters (16 ft). The area is full of fractures and veins with intervening rock with concretions (small spherical concentrations of minerals). The enlargements show particular areas of interest. (A) Ridge-like veins protruding from the surface. (B) Shows discontinuities in the veins that likely extend beneath the surface. (C) Shows a hole developed in the sand that overlies a fracture, implying infiltration of sand down into the fracture system. To this author, the area around (A) seems similar to the remnants of dried mud chips or scales one finds in the dry areas of estuaries on Earth. (Credits: NASA/JPL)
What has followed in the last 25 months since the landing is simply staggering. Mars Curiosity Rover, with the most advanced array of instruments and tools ever delivered to a celestial body, has already delivered an immense trove of images and scientific data that is improving and changing our understanding of Mars.
HIRISE images from the orbiting MRO spacecraft are used to show the old and new routes of NASA’s Mars Curiosity rover. The new route provides excellent access to many features in the Murray Formation. And it will eventually pass by the Murray Formation’s namesake, Murray Buttes, previously considered to be the entry point to Mt. Sharp. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Univ. of Arizona)
Curiosity had been making progress towards an entry point to Mount Sharp called Murray Buttes, however, because of challenges that the terrain posed – sand dunes and treacherous rocks, they have chosen to enter at Pahrump Hills. Furthermore, the new entry to the lower slopes of Mount Sharp are considered scientifically more interesting. The boundary between the mountain and the crater-floor deposits is not an exact one but NASA scientists explained the reason for the announcement at this point:
“Both entry points lay along a boundary where the southern base layer of the mountain meets crater-floor deposits washed down from the crater’s northern rim.” The terrain is now primarily material from the mountain from here on upward.
Image taken by the MastCam of Curiosity Rover on August 23, 2012 which shows the buttes representing the base of Mount Sharp, including Murray Buttes. Today, two years later, Mars Curiosity now stands at entry points in the region of the buttes at 6.6 km (direct line distance). In the middle of the image is the boulder-strewn area in which much of Curiosity’s wheel damage occurred. At top are the expansive series of sendiments that is the great interest of Mars researchers. (Credit: NASA/JPL)
Mount Sharp is anything but the normal central peak of an impact crater. Gale crater at 154 km (96 miles) in diameter is what is called a complex crater. Beyond a certain size, depending on the gravity of the planet, craters will have a central peak. It is similar to the spike of water which is thrust upwards when you drop an object into a pool of water. Like the spike of water, an impact, thrusts regolith upwards and it collapses and coalesces into a central peak. However, with Mount Sharp there is something more. If the peak was nothing but a central impact peak, NASA with Mars Curiosity would not be trekking inside Gale Crater.
As data and analysis has accumulated from not just Mars Curiosity Rover but rather from all the active Mars missions, the models and hypotheses describing the structure and morphology on Mars have become more complex. This model and explanation of how Mount Sharp built up over billions of years uses deposition of ice and dust. Click to enlarge and review the five steps to making a layer cake mountain – Mount Sharp. (Credit: Illustration presented by Paul Niles (NASA Johnson Space Center) and Joseph Michalski (Planetary Science Insitute, UK)at the 43rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, The Woodlands, Texas)
Mars scientists believe that Gale crater after its creation was completely filled with sedimentary material from a series of huge floods passing over the surrounding terrain or by dust and ice deposits such as happened at the Martian polar caps. The deposition over 2 billion years left a series sedimentary layers that filled the crater.
Following the deposition of the layers, there was a long period of erosion which has finally led to the condition of the crater today. The erosion by some combination of aeolean (wind) forces and water (additional flooding), scooped out the huge crater, re-exposing most of the original depth. However, covering the original central peak are many sedimentary layers of debris. Gale crater’s original central peak actually remains completely hidden and covered by sedimentation. This is what has attracted scientists with Curiosity to the base of Mount Sharp.
The trek of NASA’s Curiosity Rover from Bradbury Station (landing site, Sol 1) up to Martian Sol 743. The announcement that Curiosity had reached the base of Mt. Sharp is Sol 746. On Martian Sol 675, the Rover took its first step beyond its landing ellipse. (Credit: NASA/JPL)
Within the sedimentary layers covering Mount Sharp, there is a sequential record of the events that laid down the layers. Embedded in each of those layers is a record of the environmental conditions on Mars going back over 2 billion years. At the base are the oldest sedimentary layers and as Curiosity climbs the flanks of the mountain, it will step forward in time. The advanced instrumentation residing on and inside Curiosity will be able to analyze each layer for material content and also determine its age. Each layer and its age will reveal information such as how much water was present, whether the water was alkaline or acidic, if there is any organic compounds. The discovery of organic compounds on Mount Sharp could be, well, Earth shaking. There are organic compounds and then there are organic compounds that are linked to life and this search for organics is of very high importance to this mission.
Already, over the two year trek, Curiosity has seen numerous signs of the flow of water and sedimentation. At its first major waypoint, Glenelg, Curiosity stepped into an area called Yellow Knife Bay that showed numerous signs of past water. There were veins of magnesium salt deposits embedded in the soil, sedimentation and even conglomerate rock such as that found in river beds.
In late 2013, wear and tear accelerated on Curiosity’s wheels, the result of crossing boulder-strewn terrain. Clearly signs of punctures, tears and dents are seen in the photo taken by Curiosity performing a self-inspection. While it certainly raised alarm, mission planners remain confident that it can be handled and will not limit the duration of the mission.(Credits: NASA/JPL)
There is another side to the terrain that Curiosity is traversing. The crater floor, essentially a flood plain has been particularly hard on the mobility system of Curiosity. This is to say that the sharp rocks it continues to encounter under foot are taking a toll on the wheels. Curiosity is now being operated in reverse in order to reduced the impact forces on its wheels.
Furthermore, while scientists are helping to choose the path of the rover, the Curiosity drivers who must assess the field ahead must find paths with fewer sharp rocks in order to slow the damage being done. The Mars Curiosity team is concerned but remain confident that the mobility system will be capable of surviving the ten year life span of the rover’s power supply. So, the momentous occasion is hardly a time to pause and reflect, the trek moves upward, northward to see what the layers on Mount Sharp will reveal.
There are competing hypotheses on how Mount Sharp evolved. Here are two worthy web pages with additional reading.
After a ten year journey, Rosetta and Philae will attempt the first soft landing upon a comet's surface. (Credits: ESA, Composite, T.Reyes)
ESA has announced that on September 15, the team from the Rosetta mission will reveal the landing site for the Philae lander. After traveling on a 10-year, 6.4 billion kilometer journey, Rosetta has been gently captured by comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, an oddly-shaped and mysterious two-lobed comet. Yet, how will the small Philea attempt the landing? Very carefully, because a second chance is not possible. Philae cannot pull up and try again.
In contrast to NASA’s Deep Impact mission which directed a high speed impactor onto the surface of comet Tempel 1, ESA’s Philae lander is designed to execute the first soft landing. The landing must be as gentle as any landing that a respectable bird might accomplish. Philae’s nominal landing speed is about 1.0 meter/sec, that is, 2.2 mph. But like the Deep Impact impactor, Philae is flying solo. Software onboard will function alone without assistance from ground control.
The circumstances surrounding this momentous event – the first landing on a comet – has quite an amazing history and geography. Philae is truly a European Union mission with the design distributed across Europe, spanning from Hungary to Finland to Spain, Ireland to Italy and including UK and Germany.
As is common, the project development spanned several years. A sample return mission was considered the next step after ESA’s Giotto mission that studied Halley’s Comet, but Rosetta evolved out of the cancelled NASA mission Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby (CRAF). ESA could not afford a sample return mission on its own, so Rosetta used the CRAF design but without sample return. Instead it would rendezvous and orbit a comet and include a lander.
Rosetta’s mission began on March 2, 2004 from the Guiana Space Centre in French Guiana and it now flies quietly alongside a comet 400 million kilometers from Earth. 67p is falling towards the Sun and perihelion will be on August 13, 2015.
Escape from Devil’s Island, 14 Km off the coast from the Guiana Space Centre is no longer through the jungles of South America. For Rosetta, it was straight up, then eastward and then finally into a Solar orbit to catch 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. (Photo Credit: ESA)Illustration of Philae on a cometary surface. The actual surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is actually as dark as a barbecue briquette. (Credit: ESA)An illustration of the elements of the Philae landing dynamics. (Credit: “Simulation of the Landing of Rosetta Philae on Comet 67P”, M. Hilchenbach, et al., Max Planck Institute)
The technology of Philae is 1990s technology. However, the landing mechanisms may not be much different if designed today. Consider that the 7 minutes of terror – Entry, Descent and Landing of the Mars Rovers (MER) was also accomplished with 1990s computer hardware and you can express some relief and assurance that such technology is up to the task of landing on a comet.
Illustration and Photo of Philae Pendulum Tests. The force of impact on the wall simulates the force due to descent velocity, comet’s gravity and cold thrusters upon touchdown. (Credit: Simulation of the Landing of Rosetta Philae on Comet 67P, M. Hilchenbach, et al., Max Planck Institute)
How will the team make their choice of landing spots? The performance specifications of the lander and the mechanisms it can employ to attach to the surface sets definite constraints on the choice of landing location.
The landing mechanisms are: landing legs with ice screws, propulsion system and harpoons. The legs were designed with the intent of landing softly. The harpoons are designed to secure Philae to the surface. The gravity of the comet is so weak, Philae could bounce off the surface or roll over. The purpose of the harpoons — to be fired at the moment of contact — is to prevent bouncing off the surface or tipping over. The direction and strength of gravity at the landing site will not be absolutely known so there is the risk of roll over after landing, albeit very slowly. Tipping over is mitigated by screws under the footpads to penetrate the surface immediately after landing.
The Philae Lander anchoring harpoon with the integrated MUPUS-accelerometer and temperature sensor. (Credit: “Philae Lander Fact Sheet”, ESA)
Philae also has a flywheel for stabilization during descent and landing and a dampening system between the landing legs’ carriage and the probe’s body. The dampener is meant to make the landing inelastic — meaning no bouncing. However, there is a set limit to how much the probe’s body can tilt (or twist) upon surface contact. Any tilt will impose a rotating force on the probe which will need to be countered by the propulsion pushing down and the harpoons. Philae does not carry a stick of bubble gum or any duct tape, which have been known by Earthlings to come in handy in a pinch.
Clean Room photo of Philae with Principal Investigator Dr. Helmut Rosenbauer, Director at the Max-Planck-Institute for Aeronomy. Philae’s mass is 100 kg including 21 kg of instrument payload It’s dimensions are 1 × 1 × 0.8 meters (3.3 × 3.3 × 2.6 ft) Photo Credit: Max Planck Institute, Filser)
The Philae design was actually developed with a different comet in mind, 46P/Wirtanen, which is smaller (~.5 to 1 mile) than 67P. So the speed at landing on the surface was nominally 0.5 m/sec, however, now with the larger 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, the landing speed could be 2 or 3 times greater. In December 2002, there was an Ariane 5 launch failure, one month before launch of Rosetta and Philae to comet Wirtanen. Because of the necessary failure investigation, the launch was scrubbed and the only launch window to undertake the trajectory to Wirtanen was lost. The present comet 67P was then chosen. Mission engineers were aware of the mass difference and consequently had to modify Philae’s landing gear to withstand the greater forces upon landing on 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
Philae illustration showing the landing feet ice screws and the two harpoons (blue), below the center pedestal (dampener) (Credit: ESA)
Knowing the comet’s gravity, rotation axis and period are critical. Rosetta mission planners are working feverishly to determine the direction of gravity at the possible landing sites.
Philae has a simple cold gas propulsion system and its purpose is not to slow down the descent, as we often imagine for landers, but rather to push the lander onto the surface. Rosetta will accurately push off Philae at the right time, speed and direction to reach the landing spot.
So imagine if you will that it is the mid-1990s and you are designing a lander. It must accomplish the landing on its own, without help from Earth — except for what is built into the mechanisms and software. Philae’s software operates on a simple computer chip in the Command, Data and Management System (CDMS) jointly developed and tested in Hungary – Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Germany – the Max Planck Institute. The Hungarian Institute also constructed the Power Subsystem (PSS) which is critical to Philae’s success. The PSS must produce and store power while enduring extremes in temperature and periods of no sunlight.
The computer processing power is about the same as that of a 1990s hand calculator, however, the chips used were radiation hardened to survive space conditions. Philae’s systems will be watching and making navigation corrections throughout the descent. Nothing fancy, this is a simple and straightforward execution with a modest control system on board. Nevertheless, it has everything necessary to accomplish the soft landing on a comet.
When studying the design, I first imagined that Philae would make a long descent and the comet would make a full rotation. But rather, Rosetta will be navigated to somewhere between 2 to 10 km above the comet surface then release Philae. Because of the comet’s odd shape, the probes could be 4 km above the surface at one time and then just 2 km at another, due to the rotation of the comet. The odd rotating shape means that the gravity field effecting the descent will be constantly changing. One might compare the effects of 67P’s gravity on Philae as similar to the motion of a well thrown knuckleball (e.g., Wakefield, Wilhelm). Catchers resort to using a larger catchers mitt and likewise, the landing zone (or ellipse) is 1 square kilometer, sizable considering 67P’s dimensions are 3.5 × 4 km (2.2 × 2.5 miles).
Five candidate landing sites on 67P as viewed from three perspectives. Down selection from 10 to 5 was announced August 25. The final selection is to be announced by September 14th for the landing scheduled on November 11th. (Photo Credit: ESA)
There is a also a modest tug of war going on between the mission planners and the researchers. For any mission that lands on a surface, for example, landers on Mars, there is the need to weigh safety against the return on investment. For the latter, the return is scientific return: measurements and observations of the most incredibly fascinating places you can imagine. For Philae, it gets one chance to land and one location to study, in contrast to the Mars Rovers which have traversed diverse terrain away from its landing site.
If anyone recalls the lander simulations that one could play on a computer or even a hand calculator, the simulations for Philae are a bit more challenging. Mission planners must have a good estimate of the comet’s gravity field, as strange as it is. They must know the rotation axis and rate of the comet accurately, and also know the relative position of Rosetta and Philae at the beginning of the descent.
The steps for the landing are: 1) release Philae towards the comet, 2) Descent: the comet is rotating and its gravity is weirdly pulling on the little probe during descent. Sounds like fun and one can be certain that mission planners are loving it. The descent that is undertaken is likely to be about 2 hours long. With a rotation period of 12.7 hours, the comet will rotate about 20%. But wait, there’s more. Rosetta is moving too and its orbital motion will be carried by Philae. This motion will offset the comet’s rotation to some degree.
Artist’s illustration of Philae upon touchdown. The lander is capable of landing on up to 30% slopes. (Credits: ESA)
3) Touchdown is when the CDMS will earn its badge of honor. Upon touchdown, the control system will fire the cold thrusters to push Philae snugly onto the surface. At the same time, the two harpoons will be fired to, hopefully, pierce and latch onto the cometary surface. To further prevent bounce or tipping, the dampener will absorb energy of the touchdown. Philae is likely to have some transverse velocity on touchdown and this will translate into a torque and a tipping action which the Harpoons and cold thrusters will reckon with.
So one can imagine that all the variables and possibilities have been considered by the mission planners. But not so fast. This is Humanity’s first visit to the surface of a comet. The name Rosetta and Philae were chosen because comets are like a Rosetta Stone that is revealing the secrets of our origins – the early formation of the planets. Carl Sagan explained that we are all made of star stuff but more recently, about 4.3 billion years ago, it was comet stuff that may have delivered the building blocks of life and possibly even the water that fills our oceans. We do not know for certain but studying, landing upon, touching and analyzing 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko will increase our understanding of the link between comets and the Earth.
The Journey of the Rosetta probe to the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Image, linked to the ESA animation of the 10 year journey. (Credit: ESA)
End of flight fragmentation of the Nov. 18, 2012, fireball over the San Francisco Bay Area (shown in a horizontally mirrored image to depict the time series from left to right). The photographs were taken from a distance of about 40 miles (65 km). Image Credit: Robert P. Moreno Jr., Jim Albers and Peter Jenniskens
What’s the chance of that thump you just heard in your house was a meteorite hitting your roof? That was the case for one family in Novato, California during a fireball event that took place in the north bay area near San Francisco on October 17, 2012.
Researchers have now released new results from analysis of the meteor that fell to Earth, revealing that the “Novato meteorite” was part of numerous collisions over a span of 4 billion years.
There is nothing ordinary about a meteorite whether it just spent 4.4 billion years all alone or spent such time in a game of cosmic pinball, interacting with other small or large bodies of our Solar System. On any given night one can watch at least a couple of meteors overhead burning up, lighting up the sky but never reaching the Earth below. However, in less than two years, Dr. Peter Jenniskens, SETI Institute’s renowned meteor expert was effectively host to two meteorites within a couple hours drive from his office in Mountain View, California.
The first was the Sutter Mill meteorite, a fantastic carbonaceous chondrite full of organic compounds. The second was the Novato meteorite, identified as a L6 chondrite fragmental breccia. which is the focus of new analysis, to be released in a paper in the August issue of Meteoritics and Planetary Science. Early on, it was clear that this meteorite had been a part of a larger asteroidal parent body that had undergone impact shocks.
Analysis of the meteorite was spearheaded by Jenniskens who initially determined the trajectory and orbit of the meteoroid from the Cameras for Allsky Meteor Surveillance (CAMS) which he helped establish in the greater San Francisco bay area. Jenniskens immediately released information about the fireball to local news agencies to ask for the public’s help with the hopes of finding pieces of the meteorite. One resident recalled hearing something hit her roof, and with the help of neighbors, they investigated and soon found the first fragment in their backyard.
Finding fragments was the first step, and over a two year period, the analysis of the Novato meteorite was spread across several laboratories around the world with specific specialties.
Novato N04, found by Bob Verish. The fourth of six fragments of the Novato fireball recovered. Fusion crust from entry into the Earth’s atmosphere is clearly evident. A 1 centimeter cube is shown for size comparison. (Image Credit, B. Verish, cams.seti.org)
Dr. Jenniskens, along with 50 co-authors, have concluded that the Novato meteorite had been involved in more impacts than previously thought. Dr. Qingzhu Yin, professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the University of California, Davis stated, “We determined that the meteorite likely got its black appearance from massive impact shocks causing a collisional resetting event 4.472 billion years ago, roughly 64-126 million years after the formation of the solar system.”
The predominant theory of the Moon’s formation involves an impact of the Earth by a Mars-sized body. The event resulted in the formation of the Moon but also the dispersal of many fragments throughout the inner Solar System. Dr. Qingzhu Yin continued, “We now suspect that the moon-forming impact may have scattered debris all over the inner solar system and hit the parent body of the Novato meteorite.”
Additionally, the researcher discovered that the parent body of the Novato meteorite experienced a massive impact event approximately 470 million years ago. This event dispersed many asteroidal fragments throughout the Asteroid Belt including a fragment from which resulted the Novato meteorite.
The Novato meteorite strewn field determined by Dr. Jenniskens team’s analysis of CAMS allsky images. (Illustration Credit, P. Jenniskens, NASA, SETI – cams.seti.org)
The trajectory analysis completed earlier by Dr. Jenniskens pointed the Novato meteorite back to the Gefion asteroid family. Dr. Kees Welten, cosmochemist at UC Berkeley, was able to further pinpoint the time, drawing the conclusion, “Novato broke from one of the Gefion family asteroids nine million years ago.” His colleague at Berkeley, cosmochemist Dr. Kunihiko Nishiizumialso added, “but may have been buried in a larger object until about one million years ago.”
There was more that could be revealed about history of the Novato meteorite. Dr. Derek Sears a meteoriticist working for the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute in Sonoma, California and stationed at NASA Ames Reserach Center applied his expertise in thermoluminescence. Dr. Sears was involved in the analysis of Lunar regolith returned by the Apollo astronauts using this analysis method.
“We can tell the rock was heated, but the cause of the heating is unclear,” said Dr. Sears, “It seems that Novato was hit again.” As stated in the NASA press release, “Scientists at Ames measured the meteorites’ thermoluminescence – the light re-emitted when heating of the material and releasing the stored energy of past electromagnetic and ionizing radiation exposure – to determine that Novato may have had another collision less than 100,000 years ago.”
From this apparent final collision one hundred thousand years ago, the Novato meteoroid completed over 10,000 orbits of the Sun and with its final Solar orbit, intercepted the Earth, entering our atmosphere and mostly burning up over California. The meteoroid is estimated to have measured 14 inches across (35 cm) and have weighed 176 pounds (80 kg). What reached the ground likely amounted to less than 5 lbs. (~ 2 kg). Only six fragments were recovered and many more remain buried or hidden in Sonoma and Napa counties.
Besides the analysis that revealed the series of likely impact events in the meteoroids history, a team led by Dr. Dan Glavin from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center undertook analysis in search of amino acids, the building blocks of life. They detected non-protein amino acids in the meteorite that are very rare on Earth. Dr. Jenniskens emphasized that the quick recovery of the fragments by scores of individuals that searched provided pristine samples for analysis.
The impact dent on the rooftop of the Webber home in Novato. Luis Rivera points to the dent. (Image Credit, P.Jenniskens, L.Rivera, cams.seti.org)
Robert P. Moreno, Jr. in Santa Rosa, CA photographed the fireball in greatest detail with a high resolution camera. Several other photos were brought forward from other vantage points. Dr. Jenniskens stated, “These photographs show that this meteorite – now one of the best studied meteorites of its kind – broke in spurts, each time creating a flash of light as it entered Earth’s atmosphere.”
An animated gif of the series of photographs taken by Robert Moreno Jr. Click on the image to animate in full resolution. (Credit, R. Moreno Jr., NASA, SETI)
Numerous individuals and groups undertook the search for the Novato meteorite. Dr. Jenniskens trajectory analysis included a likely impact zone or strewn field. People from all walks of life roamed the streets, open fields and hillsides of the north bay in search of fragments. Despite organized searches by Dr. Jenniskens, it was the footwork from other individuals that led to finding six fragments and was the first step which led to these studies that add to the understanding of the early Solar System’s development.
For Dr. Jenniskens, Novato was part of a trifecta – the April 22, 2012, Sutter Mill meteorite in the nearby foothills of the Sierras, the Novato meteorite and the massive Chelyabinsk airburst event in Russia on February 15, 2013. Throughout this period, Dr. Jenniskens all-sky camera network continued to expand and record “falling stars” – meteors. The number of meteors recorded with calculated trajectories is now over 175,000. The SETI Institute researcher has been supported by NASA and personnel at the institute and ordinary citizens including amateur astronomers that have refined the methods for meteor orbital determination and estimating their size and mass. Several websites have compiled images and results for the Novato meteorite with Dr. Jenniskens’ – CAMS.SETI.ORG being most prominent.
