Aero 版 (精华区)
发信人: bage (网事如疯·春心萌动), 信区: AerospaceScience
标 题: SpaceViews -- 2000 May 15(转载)
发信站: 哈工大紫丁香 (2000年12月23日17:51:55 星期六), 转信
【 以下文字转载自 bage 的信箱 】
【 原文由 hitsma@0451.com 所发表 】
[Note: we are resending this issue because of a mailer glitch. We
apologize for any delays or duplicate issues.]
[To stop receiving SpaceViews, please follow the instructions at the
end of this message.]
S P A C E V I E W S
Issue 2000.20
2000 May 15
http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/0515/
*** News ***
NASA: Compton Reentry Plans Safe
Countdown Set to Begin for Next Shuttle Launch
Mir Cosmonauts Perform Spacewalk
NASA Outlines Alternatives for 2003 Mars Mission
Lunar Entrepreneurs Wary of NASA Moon Mission
Titan 4 Launches Early Warning Satellite
Delta Launches GPS Satellite
Test Equipment Failure Cause of HESSI Accident
European Astronomers Discover up to Eight Extrasolar Planets
New Data Confirms Flat Universe
SpaceViews Event Horizon
Other News
*** Articles ***
Surviving the Launch Market Downturn
*** News ***
NASA: Compton Reentry Plans Safe
NASA officials said Wednesday they can safely deorbit the
Compton Gamma Ray Observatory early next month even if a solar flare
takes place during a critical phase of the reentry.
Mansoor Ahmed, Compton reentry mission manager at NASA's
Goddard Space Flight Center, told SpaceViews late Wednesday that an
analysis by engineers showed that a solar flare would not impact the
safety of the spacecraft's controlled reentry.
"The bottom line is that we don't feel there is any problem
that would cause any issues with the reentry plans if there is a solar
flare in the middle of the reentry activities," Ahmed said.
In an article published by SpaceViews last Monday, scientists
had raised concerns that a solar flare that takes place during the
reentry would increase the density of the upper atmosphere by up to a
factor of ten, increasing the drag on the spacecraft and disrupting
reentry plans. "What was controlled becomes uncontrolled," warned Jim
Ryan, a physics professor at the University of New Hampshire.
While the impact of a solar flare on Compton was not
originally explicitly considered by NASA, Ahmed said his team had
spent the last several days looking into the various effects a solar
flare could have on the spacecraft, investigating not only increased
drag but also heating and radiation.
Ahmed said the phased nature of the reentry -- with four burns
spread out over several days -- gives controllers time to account for
any effects of a solar flare. Moreover, after each burn the orbit
becomes more elliptical, as the perigee of the orbit is lowered while
the apogee remains the same, so that the spacecraft spends only a
short part of each orbit in the densest portion of the atmosphere.
This leads Ahmed to conclude that they are able to deal with
any changes in the orbit flare-induced drag would cause. "We have a
lot of margin in our control authority," he said.
Ahmed said his team also addressed two other issues raised by
the possibility of a solar flare. The increased drag caused by a
solar flare would heat up the spacecraft sooner, but NASA found that
the heating would be no greater than what the spacecraft experiences
in the daytime part of the orbit. He said he doesn't believe that the
radiation from a flare would pose a problem to the spacecraft, either,
since past solar flares have not upset the spacecraft.
Ahmed believes that deorbiting Compton is a safer course of
action than leaving it in orbit. "It's an old spacecraft, and any
number of things could fail" if it remains in orbit, he said.
That opinion is not necessarily shared by scientists who use
the spacecraft, who are both concerned about the safety of the reentry
and upset that a spacecraft that continues to provide useful
scientific data will be deorbited.
This concern has spread to outside the U.S., as scientists
overseas who use Compton have expressed their disappointment with the
decision to deorbit the spacecraft.
A European scientist involved with the mission said that even
though several European countries and agencies contributed in the
development of instruments on the spacecraft, they were not consulted
in NASA's decision to bring the spacecraft down.
"This adds to the strange way NASA made the decision which
high-energy astronomers worldwide heavily dispute," said the
scientist, who asked that his name not be used.
Congress is not expected to get immediately involved with the
decision to deorbit the spacecraft. A spokesman for the House Science
Committee told SpaceViews that the committee does not plan to bring up
the issue during a hearing of the full committee planned for Thursday,
when NASA administrator Dan Goldin and others will address the space
agency's Mars exploration program. That hearing was later postponed
because of votes taking place on the House floor.
However, the spokesman said that while the committee has
received "very little input" about Compton, NASA's plans to deorbit
the spacecraft could come up in a hearing later in the month.
NASA announced March 24 that it had decided to deorbit Compton
on June 3 over the eastern Pacific Ocean after one of three gyroscopes
on the spacecraft failed last December. The spacecraft can maintain
proper attitude control with two gyros, but an additional failure,
NASA officials claimed, could cause the spacecraft to lose attitude
control and eventually burn up uncontrollably in the Earth's
atmosphere.
The large size of the spacecraft -- some 15,000 kg (33,000
lbs.) -- means that large pieces of it would survive any reentry and
crash to Earth, endangering people. NASA estimated a 1-in-1000 chance
that an uncontrolled reentry could cause a human casualty.
The last of the four reentry maneuvers is scheduled for late
June 3, Ahmed said Wednesday, with the reentry itself taking place
around 1:30 am EDT (0530 UT) June 4.
Countdown Set to Begin for Next Shuttle Launch
NASA is scheduled to start the countdown Monday towards the
long-delayed launch of the space shuttle Atlantis on a mission to the
International Space Station.
The countdown for mission STS-101 is scheduled to begin at
9:30 am EDT (1330 UT) Monday. Launch of the shuttle Atlantis is planned
for approximately 6:38 am EDT (1038 UT) Thursday morning, May 18.
The launch had been previously planned for last month, but two
launch attempts on April 24 and 25 were scrubbed because of high
crosswinds at the shuttle landing facility at the Kennedy Space
Center. That landing facility would have been used if an abort after
liftoff forced the shuttle to make an emergency landing there.
A third launch attempt April 26 was also scrubbed, this time
because of poor weather at all three transatlantic abort landing sites
in Spain and Morocco. That attempt was the first time NASA attempted
shuttle launches on three consecutive days.
NASA then had to wait until a busy schedule of launches at
Cape Canaveral were completed before trying again. An Atlas 2
launched a weather satellite on May 3, a Titan 4B launched an early-
warning satellite for the military on May 8, and a Delta 2 launched a
GPS satellite May 10. An Atlas 3A is scheduled to make its debut
Monday afternoon, launching a commercial communications satellite.
When it does finally launch, Atlantis will be docked to ISS
for six of the 10 or 11 days of the mission as the seven-person crew
performs maintenance and repairs of the station's Zarya control module
and Unity docking node, including the replacement of a faulty battery
in the Zarya module that was noticed by controllers last year.
NASA had considered boosting the station's orbit during the
delay from last month's launch attempts, but decided instead to wait
until the shuttle arrives to boost the orbit. The orbit is decaying
at the rate of about 2.4 km (1.5 mi.) per week, although ISS is still
more than 320 km (200 mi.) above the Earth.
A May 18 launch would make it almost exactly one year since
the shuttle last visited the station on mission STS-96. "STS-101
effectively jump-starts us back into assembling the International
Space Station," said shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore during a
pre-launch briefing last month.
STS-101 will also be the first flight of Atlantis since
September 1997, when it flew mission STS-86, the seventh shuttle-Mir
docking mission. After that mission the shuttle underwent an extensive
overhaul and upgrade period at a Boeing facility in Palmdale,
California.
STS-101 is commanded by veteran astronaut Jim Halsell, with
Scott Horowitz as pilot. The five mission specialists on STS-101 are
Mary Ellen Weber, Jeffrey Williams, James Voss, Susan Helms, and
Russian cosmonaut Yuri Usachev. The latter three will also be the
second long-duration crew to stay on ISS, starting next year.
If the shuttle does launch on May 18, it would return to the
Kennedy Space Center at 2:18 am EDT (0618 UT) May 29.
Mir Cosmonauts Perform Spacewalk
Two cosmonauts successfully completed a five-hour spacewalk
outside the Russian space station Mir Friday, conducting tests outside
the station and discovering some damaged wires on one of the modules.
Cosmonauts Sergei Zalyotin and Alexander Kalery began the
spacewalk, billed as the first privately-funded extravehicular
activity (EVA), at 6:44 am EDT (1044 UT) Friday, exiting the space
station from the airlock in the Kvant-2 module.
During the EVA the cosmonauts tested a sealing compound on a
test panel designed to simulate the exterior of the station. The test
was designed to see if the material could be used in the future to
seal cracks and leaks in the station's exterior.
The cosmonauts also performed a visual inspection of the
exterior of Mir's core module and the attached Kvant-1 module. It was
during that inspection that the cosmonauts discovered burned
electrical cables attached to a damaged solar array on the module,
apparently caused by a short circuit several months ago.
"In open space we seem to have had a minor short circuit and
that is interesting," flight director Vladimir Solovyov told state
television. However, he added, "we have more than 10 solar panels. We
can fly and there is no problem with energy."
The cosmonauts also disassembled an experimental solar array
mounted on the Kristall module before returning to the Kvant-2
airlock, bringing with them the test panel used for the sealant test.
The spacewalk ended at 11:36 am EDT (1536 UT), a little less than five
hours after it started and about an hour earlier than the planned
length of six hours.
The spacewalk was the first outside Mir since Viktor Afanasyev
and Sergei Avdeyev spent five and a half hours outside Mir on July 29,
less than a month before they and French guest cosmonaut Jean-Pierre
Haignere left the station, leaving it unoccupied until Zalyotin and
Kalery arrived there last month.
Zalyotin and Kalery's mission to Mir has been privately funded
through the efforts of the Western firm MirCorp, which touted Friday's
spacewalk as the first privately-funded EVA.
"Today's spacewalk is another demonstration of how a
commercial space station should operate," MirCorp president Jeffrey
Manber said. "The cosmonauts have done an excellent job reactivating
Mir, and they now are adding a new dimension by taking their work into
the full void of space."
Zalyotin and Kalery's mission was originally billed as lasting
at least 45 days, suggesting that they could return to Earth as soon
as later this month. But with the station in good health and no
reports of plans to wrap up their work, it's likely the cosmonauts may
extend their time on the station for weeks or even months.
NASA Outlines Alternatives for 2003 Mars Mission
NASA will decide in July whether to send an orbiter or a rover
to Mars in 2003, the space agency announced late Friday.
NASA officials have narrowed down proposals for a 2003 mission
-- if one is launched -- to Mars Surveyor Orbiter, a large orbiter
designed primarily to replace the failed Mars Climate Orbiter mission;
and Mars Mobile Lander, a lander that would deploy a sophisticated
rover.
"Our budget will support only one of these two outstanding
missions for the 2003 launch opportunity, and it will be a very tough
decision to make," said Ed Weiler, NASA associate administrator for
space science, who will make the final decision on the mission in
early July.
Mars Surveyor Orbiter would be an orbiter similar in size to
the current Mars Global Surveyor. It would be designed to perform all
the science that Mars Climate Orbiter was to perform had it not
crashed into Mars in September 1999, as well as additional work to
search for evidence of past or present water on Mars.
The orbiter would carry a wide array of scientific
instruments, including a high-resolution imaging system, a moderate-
to-wide-angle multicolor camera, an atmospheric infrared sounder, a
visible-to- near-infrared imaging spectrometer, an ultraviolet
spectrometer, and possibly a magnetometer and laser altimeter. It
would also carry telecommunications equipment to allow the spacecraft
to serve as a relay for future missions.
The Mars Mobile Lander would be based on the Athena rover
design currently under development. That rover was originally planned
for the 2001 Mars lander mission, now canceled, but pushed back to at
least 2003 because of problems with the development of the advanced
rover.
The rover would land in a four-petal self-righting enclosure
padded with airbags, in much the same way Mars Pathfinder landed on
Mars in July 1997. However, unlike Pathfinder, the enclosure would
contain no scientific equipment; the entire scientific payload would
be contained on the 130-kilogram (286-pound) rover.
The rover would travel up to 100 meters (110 yards) a day on
the surface during its 30-day mission, studying the geochemistry and
mineralogy of the surface. The rover would carry several cameras and
spectrometers, including those specifically designed for dealing with
iron-rich samples and potential microfossils.
The Athena rover was previously planned for fly on a very
different 2003 lander mission. That mission would have been the first
in a series of sample return missions, where the rover gathered
samples that were then launched into Martian orbit by the lander. The
samples from that lander and a similar mission launched in 2005 would
have been retrieved by a French-built orbiter and returned to Earth in
2008.
However, the growing cost and complexity of such a mission,
along with overall problems with NASA's Mars exploration efforts, have
pushed back such a mission several years. Ken Nealson, a project
scientist for the Mars sample return mission, told Space News earlier
this month that he guessed the original 2003 mission would not be
launched before 2009.
After NASA decides on a 2003 mission the space agency plans to
release details of a new Mars exploration program, one that is
considerably less ambitious that earlier plans that called for a
sample return by 2008.
"Following this decision, later in the year we will have a
more complete overall Mars exploration program to present to the
American public which will represent the most exciting, most
scientifically rich program of exploration we have ever undertaken of
the planet Mars," said Weiler.
Some details about the plan are already known. In March NASA
announced it was canceling plans to send a lander to Mars in 2001,
opting instead only to send a previously-planned orbiter. Systems
already developed for that lander would be used on other missions,
NASA officials said at the time.
NASA has also shaken up the way it runs its Mars exploration
program, the centerpiece of its space science efforts. Scott Hubbard,
former manager of the successful Lunar Prospector mission, was
appointed in March to become the first Mars Program Director at NASA
Headquarters. JPL, the center that has run the recent series of Mars
missions, created a similar position last month.
Hubbard will review the two mission proposals and pass on his
recommendations to Weiler. "These two mission concepts embody the
requirements we have learned through the hard lessons of two recent
Mars mission failures, and either one will extend the tremendous
scientific successes we have had with the Mars Global Surveyor and
Mars Pathfinder," Hubbard said.
The space agency anticipates that either mission will cost
about the same as Mars Pathfinder, adjusted for inflation. Pathfinder
cost about $250 million. By comparison, NASA tried to conduct both
the Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander missions for about the
same price.
If NASA does decide to conduct a Mars mission in 2003, it will
become a busy year for Mars exploration. The European Space Agency is
pressing ahead with plans for its first Mars mission, Mars Express, a
2003 mission that would place a large orbiter around the planet and
send a small British-built lander to the surface. Japan's Nozomi
mission is also scheduled to arrive at Mars in 2003. That mission,
launched in 1998, was to arrive last year but a thruster glitch caused
the spacecraft to use up to much propellant to enter Mars then;
instead, it will wait until the more favorable 2003 opportunity to
enter orbit.
Lunar Entrepreneurs Wary of NASA Moon Mission
A report last week that NASA is planning its first mission to
the lunar surface in thirty years has raised the hackles of
entrepreneurs who think the space agency is stepping on their plans
for commercial missions to the Moon.
However, the affair may be little more than a tempest in a
teapot, as there's little evidence to suggest that NASA has any
concrete plans for a return to the Moon.
The controversy started Thursday when the space news and
entertainment site SPACE.com reported that NASA had drawn up plans for
the first American lunar lander mission since Apollo 17 in December
1972. The Great Basin Lunar Sample Return Mission, the report stated,
would touch down in the large South Pole-Aitken Basin on the Moon,
collect several kilograms of samples, and return them to Earth.
The article was prominently displayed on the SPACE.com web
site for over a day, and the publication also sent a "bulletin" to
email subscribers in addition to its daily messages, something usually
reserved for breaking news.
The genesis of the story appears to be an abstract submitted
to the Fourth IAA International Conference on Low-Cost Planetary
Missions, held earlier this month in Maryland. The abstract details
the proposed sample return mission in a section that includes
proposals for other missions ranging from a Saturn ring observer to a
Venus sample return.
However, the abstract for the lunar mission gave no indication
that the mission had been approved; in fact, the abstract states that
the mission concept evolved from investigations into the "feasibility
of planetary science missions proposed for launch towards the end of
the next decade," hinting that any decision on such a mission is years
off. Craig Peterson, the JPL employee listed as the sole author of
the abstract, did not respond to a request for comment Friday from
SpaceViews.
Even though the mission appears far less imminent than
initially reported, the idea that NASA is considering lunar missions
has become a cause for concern for companies developing their own
commercial missions.
"The real problem we see is that they're scaring off
investors," said Denise Norris, president and CEO of Applied Space
Resources. The New York company is planning Lunar Retriever I, a
mission that, like the proposed NASA mission, would land on the Moon
return about ten kilograms of samples to Earth.
The problem, she explained, is that space is often perceived
as NASA's exclusive domain. "NASA is my biggest competitor in the
sense that with a single announcement they can deflect all attention
towards them."
That view is shared by another company planning a lunar mission
who asked that his name not be used. "NASA is the lead dog in space,"
he said. "To a person with no particular interest in space, NASA owns
the moon."
He is skeptical, though, that NASA will ever fly such a
mission. "I don't believe that NASA will go through with a moon
mission, this proposal is only a trial balloon for a possible mission,"
he said. "Chances are NASA will keep their lunar apathy and Martian
focus."
Even if NASA was interested in such a mission, Norris believes
the space agency shouldn't do it. "NASA should stay off the Moon,"
she said, preferring instead that the space agency purchase data from
commercial missions.
Since Apollo 17, NASA has participated in only two lunar
missions: Clementine, a joint mission with the Defense Department in
1994; and Lunar Prospector, which spent a year and a half in orbit
before it was deliberately crashed into the lunar surface last July in
a search for water ice. Lunar Prospector, part of NASA's Discovery
program of low-cost space science missions, actually started more than
a decade ago as a private effort.
Titan 4 Launches Early Warning Satellite
The Titan 4 successfully placed into orbit an early warning
satellite for the Air Force Monday morning, erasing the memories of
three previous launch failures.
The Titan 4B, dubbed "Ragin' Cajun" by the Air Force launch
team, lifted off at 12:01 pm EDT (1601 UT) from Launch Complex 41 at
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. The launch took place two
and a half hours into a four-hour launch window, having been delayed
by several minor technical issues.
The Titan 4B placed into orbit the Defense Support Program
(DSP) 20 spacecraft and its Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) booster stage.
The IUS booster then performed a pair of engine burns that placed the
DSP-20 spacecraft into geosynchronous orbit.
DSP-20 will join an existing constellation of spacecraft used
by the Air Force to provide early warning for missile launches
worldwide. It will serve as a replacement for DSP-19, which was
launched on a Titan 4B last April but never reached orbit because of a
failure of its IUS upper stage.
The successful launch breaks a string of three consecutive
Titan 4 launch failures from Cape Canaveral dating back to 1998. A
Titan 4A booster self-destructed 40 seconds after launch in August
1998 after a wiring problem momentarily cut power to a guidance
computer, causing the rocket to veer sharply off course.
After the April 9 Titan 4B launch of DSP-19 that failed
because of the IUS, a Titan 4B launch three weeks later also failed to
place a Milstar 2 military communications satellite into orbit when
its Centaur upper stage failed.
The Titan 4B did successfully launch a classified payload in
May of last year from Vandenberg Air Force Base, the last Titan 4
launch before Monday's mission.
The three launch failures led to a independent investigation
of the Titan 4 program last summer. That panel, headed by former
Lockheed Martin executive Thomas Young, concluded that the company
needed to enact quality control measures equivalent to those that
apply to human space flight.
The panel also noted that the company needs to pay close
attention to employee morale since the Titan 4 is a "flyout" program:
the booster will be phased out over the next several years as it is
replaced by the Atlas 5 and Delta 4, the two boosters the Air Force
selected for its Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program.
Monday's flight was also the second success for the IUS since
its April 1999 failure. Last July an IUS successfully boosted NASA's
Chandra X-Ray Observatory into its highly-elliptical Earth orbit after
being carried into space by the shuttle Columbia.
The next Titan 4B launch is slated for July, when the booster
will launch what is only described as a "classified payload" from
Vandenberg Air Force Base. Another Titan 4B launch is planned from
Cape Canaveral in the fall to place into orbit a Milstar 2 military
communications satellite.
Delta Launches GPS Satellite
A Delta 2 booster successfully launched a Global Positioning
System (GPS) satellite for the U.S. Air Force Wednesday night from
Cape Canaveral.
The Boeing Delta 2 lifted off from Pad 17A at Cape Canaveral
on schedule at 9:48 pm EDT (0148 UT May 11). There were no problems
reported during the countdown and launch, and the booster placed its
payload, the Navstar GPS IIR-4 satellite, into an elliptical transfer
orbit.
The launch was originally scheduled for last month, but a
technical problem with ground support equipment scrubbed an initial
launch attempt April 21. A second attempt the next night was canceled
when Lockheed Martin, builders of the satellite, needed to investigate
a potential problem with the spacecraft.
The GPS IIR-4 spacecraft will serve as a replacement to the
GPS II-1 spacecraft currently in orbit that failed in March and was
decommissioned last month. The satellite is the fourth in a planned
series of 21 Block IIR replacement satellites; the third was launched
on a Delta 2 last October.
The launch was the third Delta 2 launch of the year, after the
February 8 launch of four Globalstar satellites from Cape Canaveral
and the March 25 launch of NASA's IMAGE space science spacecraft from
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
The launch was also the second in less than 60 hours from Cape
Canaveral. A Titan 4B lifted off just after noon Monday, placing a
Defense Support Program early-warning satellite into orbit.
Test Equipment Failure Cause of HESSI Accident
A hardware failure in a vibration test system caused
significant damage to a NASA space science satellite during a March
test, a NASA review board concluded Friday.
A misalignment between two pieces of a "shake table", a test
stand used to simulate the vibrations experienced during launch,
caused it to generate ten times the force intended and damage the High
Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (HESSI) spacecraft March 21 at JPL.
During the vibration test the spacecraft is mounted on a test
stand, which in turn is placed on top of a granite mass, with a thin
layer of oil between the two to allow the stand to move freely.
However, a failed support bearing caused a misalignment between the
pieces, creating friction that the computer running the test tried to
compensate for with additional force that damaged the satellite.
"It's similar to what happens when you are trying to close a
sticky wooden window that's just a little out of kilter in the frame,"
said Denny Kross, chairman of the mishap review board. "As soon as the
window starts to stick, your brain says, 'push down harder.' And if
you are not careful, you can push so hard that, when the window does
break free, its slams down onto the bottom of the window sill."
Because of the misalignment, HESSI was subjected to
accelerations of 20 g, or 20 times the acceleration due to gravity on
the Earth's surface, ten times more than intended. The additional
force damaged the spacecraft's structure as well as three of its four
solar panels, forcing NASA to delay its launch that had been planned
for this summer.
While the failed support was the cause of the accident, a lack
of proper procedures contributed to the accident, the panel concluded.
One failure was a lack of a scheduled maintenance program for the
shake table that would have caught the failed support. Also
contributing was a lack of a procedure to look for performance
problems in pre-test data.
"Had either of these procedures been in place, this incident
could have been avoided," Kross said.
The board also made recommendations to refurbish the shaker
and implement other protection methods, which will be put into place
not only at JPL but at a similar device at the Goddard Space Flight
Center. Warnings have also been sent to other installations in the
U.S. and elsewhere that use similar vibration testing devices.
Although there were some incriminations against JPL in the
wake of the March accident, the review board had positive words to say
about the engineers at the lab. "The JPL test team responded
magnificently in the wake of this incident," said Kross, who works as
the manager of engineering systems at NASA's Marshall Space Flight
Center.
No estimate of the cost of the repairs to the HESSI spacecraft
have been made available. At the time of the accident NASA said the
launch would delayed at least six months to January 2001; in a press
release issued Friday the space agency only said that "launch plans
will be announced when available."
HESSI is part of NASA's Small Explorer (SMEX) program of low-
cost space science missions. When launched into Earth orbit, HESSI
will study the solar flares in an attempt to better understand how
flares can release tremendous amounts of energy in short periods of
time and how flares accelerate electrons and protons.
Ironically, while the accident was linked to other mission
failures from JPL, such as the loss of two Mars missions last year,
the lab has no official role in the mission. JPL's facilities were
used to test HESSI because of the lab's proximity to Arizona-based
Spectrum Astro, prime contractor for the spacecraft, and the
University of California Berkeley, where the project is being managed.
HESSI is also the first NASA mission in more than a quarter-
century to be designed, built, and operated by a university and its
partners. NASA made that decision as a way to lower the cost of the
mission, estimated to be $75 million.
European Astronomers Discover up to Eight Extrasolar Planets
A team of Swiss astronomers that includes the duo who
discovered the first planet around a Sun-like star announced earlier
this month the discovery of up to eight more such worlds.
Michel Mayor and colleagues from the Geneva Observatory in
Switzerland used a telescope in Chile to locate the worlds. Six of
the eight appear to be gas giant planets, while the other two are more
likely heavier brown dwarfs.
The astronomers found the planets with the widely-used radial
velocity technique, where astronomers monitor changes in the
wavelength of well-known spectral lines. Those changes are caused by
a Doppler shift as the star wobbles under the gravitational influence
of an orbiting planet: measuring the magnitude and period of those
changes allows astronomers to determine the orbital period, distance,
and minimum mass of the planet.
The discoveries bring to at least 40 the number of extrasolar
planets around Sun-like stars discovered, a number that was zero until
Mayor and Didier Queloz discovered a gas giant closely orbiting the
star 51 Pegasi in the fall of 1995.
"The present discoveries complete and enlarge our still
preliminary knowledge of extra-solar planetary systems, as well as the
transition between planets and 'brown dwarfs'," said Mayor.
The smallest of the new planets orbits the star HD 168746 140
light-years from Earth. It has a mass just 80 percent that of Saturn
(24 percent the mass of Jupiter) and completes one orbit around the
star every 6.4 days. Only two other extrasolar planets, discovered in
March by veteran planet hunters Geoff Marcy and Paul Butler, have
equal or smaller masses.
Two other planets are nearly as small. The planets orbiting
HD 83443, 141 light-years away, is 1.17 times the mass of Saturn (0.35
times the mass of Jupiter) and completes an orbit in just under 3
days. The planet orbiting HD 108147 is similar, with a mass 1.15
times that of Saturn (0.34 that of Jupiter), but is in an eccentric
orbit with a period of 10.88 days.
Three other new planets are somewhat more massive than
Jupiter, and in more distant, eccentric orbits than the smaller
worlds. HD 52265 hosts a planet 1.07 times the mass of Jupiter with a
119-day orbit. HD 82943 has a planet 2.2 times as massive as Jupiter
in a 443-day orbit, and HD 169830 has a planet 2.96 times the mass of
Jupiter in a 230-day orbit.
Two other bodies discovered by Mayor and colleagues appear to
be too massive to be planets, and lie in a poorly-understood
transition region between planets and more massive brown dwarfs. One,
with 13.7 times the mass of Jupiter, orbits HD 162020 in a 8.4-day
orbit, while another, 14.7 times as massive ad Jupiter, orbits HD
202206 in an eccentric 259-day orbit.
One of the two planets just slightly heavier than Saturn may
prove to be the most interesting of the bunch. The data from HD 83443
shows evidence of a "drift" in the velocity data that may be evidence
of a second planet orbiting the star, although additional observations
will be needed to confirm this.
Mayor's group made the discovery using CORALIE, a high-
precision spectrometer mounted on the 1.2-meter (47-inch) Leonhard
Euler telescope at the European Southern Observatory's facility in La
Silla, Chile. An even better spectrograph under development, known as
HARPS, will allow astronomers do detect planets as small as 10 times
the mass of the Earth.
New Data Confirms Flat Universe
Data from a second balloon-borne experiment has confirmed
findings released last month that the universe is flat and composed
mostly of dark matter and energy, scientists reported Tuesday.
In a pair of papers submitted to the journal Astrophysical
Journal Letters, a team of scientists found that the size of
structures in maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)
is consistent with those expected if the geometry of the universe is
flat.
The data was from an experiment called the Millimeter
Anisotropy eXperiment IMaging Array (MAXIMA). Like BOOMERANG, another
international collaboration whose results were published in the
journal Nature April 27, MAXIMA used a microwave instrument suspended
from a balloon flown at high altitudes.
Unlike BOOMERANG, which circumnavigated Antarctica during a
10-day flight in late 1998, MAXIMA flew for only one night from the
National Scientific Ballooning Facility in Palestine, Texas in August
1998. Thus, MAXIMA covered less of the sky than BOOMERANG, but did so
at higher resolutions that BOOMERANG and much higher than the Cosmic
Background Explorer (COBE) spacecraft, which first mapped the CMBR in
the early 1990s.
Both the BOOMERANG and MAXIMA data show that structures found
in the CMBR are of the size and number expected if the universe is
flat. Although some scientists were involved with both projects, the
data from each experiment were processed independently, and thus the
agreement is interpreted as a sign that the results are valid.
"The fact that these independent experiments give such similar
results is the best indication that we are both getting the science
right," said Shaul Hanany, a professor of physics at the University of
Minnesota and a member of the MAXIMA team.
The results are seen as a validation for inflation, a theory
which predicts that a sudden, violent expansion of the universe took
place less than a second after the Big Bang, stretching the universe
until its geometry became flat.
Inflation had come under scrutiny in recent years after other
observations of distant supernovae showed that the universe's
expansion was not gradually slowing down as predicted by inflation,
but in fact accelerating, implying that the universe lacked the mass
needed to slow down expansion and thus was not flat.
The BOOMERANG and MAXIMA results, though, indicate that
inflation and an accelerating universe can be reconciled if 65 percent
of the universe is composed of an unknown "dark energy" which may be
linked to the cosmological constant, a factor in general relativity
equations whose value -- and even existence -- has been a subject of
debate for the better part of a century.
Most of the rest of the universe -- 30 percent of its overall
mass-energy density -- is thought to be "dark matter", a form of
unusual matter that escapes normal detection techniques. Only five
percent of the mass is in the form of ordinary matter, including all
the stars, galaxies, and planets we see.
"The combination of our data with the data from supernovae is
very powerful evidence that we need something like the cosmological
constant to describe our universe," said Hanany. "New physics may be
required to explain the origin of the cosmological constant."
All is not rosy for inflation, however. While the BOOMERANG
and MAXIMA data showed structures with an angular size of one degree,
as predicted by inflation theory, a second peak, or harmonic, at sizes
of a half-degree predicted by inflation shows up in neither data set.
"There are factors that could either distort the harmonics
themselves or the way we see those harmonics today," said George Smoot
of UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Those factors range
from "topological defects" in the early universe to a surplus of
ordinary matter or even a previously-unsuspected role for neutrinos.
"There is no agreement on any of these," said Smoot, a member
of the MAXIMA team who also led early studies into the CMBR using
COBE. "It's new physics."
Answers to those questions may come from additional MAXIMA
data sets. The instrument flew again last June, but those data were
not included in the papers. A third MAXMIMA flight is planned for
this summer.
While the MAXIMA papers have not been formally published yet,
they are publicly available though an online archive of "preprints"
hosted at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The arXiv.org service
allows scientists to distribute papers among colleagues before they
are published or even accepted by journals.
SpaceViews Event Horizon
May 15 Atlas 3A inaugural launch of the Eutelsat W4
communications satellite from Cape Canaveral, Florida
at 5:37 pm EDT (2137 UT)
May 16 Eurockot (Russian-German) Rockot launch of a test
payload from Plesetsk, Russia, at approximately
6:00 am EDT (1000 UT).
May 18 Launch of shuttle Atlantis on mission STS-101 from
Kennedy Space Center, Florida at 6:38 am EDT
(1038 UT)
May 24-26 5th Annual ISU International Symposium: "The Space
Transportation Market: Evolution or Revolution?",
Strasbourg, France
May 25-29 International Space Development Conference, Tucson, AZ
June 10 Silicon Valley Space Enterprise Symposium,
San Jose, CA
Other News
Dark Matter Map: A team of astronomers released last week the first
map of the distribution of invisible "dark matter" over large regions
of the sky, in the process providing new evidence for a cosmological
constant. The results, published in the May 11 issue of the journal
Nature, were based on studying distortions in the shape of galaxies as
their light was bent by the gravity of dark matter between the
galaxies and the Earth. The data indicate that there isn't enough
dark matter to cause the universe to stop expanding, requiring that
the universe either be open and thus expand forever, or that there is
a "dark energy" in the form of a cosmological constant, as other
recent observations of the cosmic microwave background suggest.
Lost Asteroid Rediscovered: Astronomers have recovered an asteroid
that has been lost since shortly after its discovery 89 years ago,
astronomers reported last week. Asteroid 2000 JW8, discovered at the
0.9-meter (36-inch) Spacewatch observatory in Arizona turned out to be
asteroid 719 Albert, discovered in 1911 but lost shortly thereafter.
The small asteroid is in an elliptical orbit that brings it near the
Earth only once every 30 years, making it hard to observe at other
times. The orbital period was also somewhat longer than first
reported at its time of discovery -- 4.28 versus 4.1 years -- adding
to the difficulties people had trying to observe it. The discovery
means that all 10,000+ "numbered" asteroids now have well known
orbits.
Supernova Shockwave: Images from the Chandra X-ray Observatory have
given astronomers their first direct view of the shock wave generated
by the brilliant supernova SN 1987A. The Chandra images, released
Thursday, show a shock wave of superheated gas expanding outward from
the core of supernova SN 1987A, whose explosion was first visible on
Earth more than 13 years ago. Astronomers has earlier seen evidence
of the shock wave as portions of a ring of material surrounding the
supernova began to brighten in Hubble Space Telescope, but until the
Chandra observations no one had seen direct evidence of the shockwave.
"With Hubble we heard the whistle from the oncoming train," said David
Burrows, an astronomer at Penn State University. "Now, with Chandra,
we can see the train."
New Kind of Space Insurance: Start-up company AssureSat is positioning
itself to offer satellite operators with a new kind of launch
insurance: the ability to replace a failed communications satellite
with a spare already in orbit. In a pair of deals this month the
company said will purchase two communications satellite from Space
Systems/Loral and launch them using the multinational Sea Launch
system. While commercial launches are routinely insured, such
insurance doesn't usually cover lost revenue that might result from a
launch or satellite failure. "An inoperative satellite will deprive
the operator of revenue equal to two to five times the cost of
satellite," said Jerry Farrell, president and CEO of AssureSat.
AssureSat will provide its satellites on a temporary basis to
companies who need their services because of a failure starting in
2002.
Briefly: A long-anticipated showdown between members of Congress and
NASA Administrator Dan Goldin over the recent Mars mission failures
was delayed last week. Goldin was scheduled to appear Thursday before
the full House Science Committee, but the hearing was delayed because
of a series of votes taking place on the House floor. The hearing
will be rescheduled, although no date has been immediately
announced... Houston-based Celestis, which already offers people the
ability to launch cremated remains into orbit, plans to expand its
offerings. The company said last week it is in talks to provide a
similar service that would send cremains to the Moon as early as next
year. The service would cost about $12,500, or two and a half times
the cost of its Earth orbit service. The remains would not be the
first sent to the Moon, though: NASA's Lunar Prospector spacecraft
carried a small sample of ashes of famed geologist Eugene Shoemaker
on its 1998 mission. The spacecraft crashed to the lunar surface last
July.
*** Articles ***
Surviving the Launch Market Downturn
by Jeff Foust
The future looked so bright just a few years ago. At that
time the pieces seemed to be falling into place for a revolution in
space transportation that promised to dramatically reduce the cost of
space access and thus open new markets. On one side were a number of
small, entrepreneurial companies developing a new generation of launch
vehicles -- generally reusable, piloted spacecraft -- that all
promised to dramatically reduce the cost of space access by early this
decade. On the other side were fleets of small low Earth orbit (LEO)
communications satellites being planned that needed launch vehicles to
deploy and maintain their constellations of spacecraft. The existence
of such a huge market, many argued, would convince investors to
support the new launch vehicle companies.
A funny thing happened along the way, though: the large market
for LEO communications satellites -- projected to be in the thousands,
thanks to large constellations like Teledesic -- has all but
evaporated. Iridium's crash-and-burn in March and Globalstar's
financial struggles in recent months have convinced Wall Street that
such satellite-based systems are not only very expensive, but are at a
competitive disadvantage with either geostationary satellites or the
proliferation of terrestrial cellular systems and fiber.
The result: the new launch vehicle companies have found it
essentially impossible to raise money to develop their vehicles.
Despite some successes in the last year, such as the first, low-level
flights of Rotary Rocket's Roton ATV, a lack of money has all but
stalled development of these potentially-revolutionary vehicles for
the foreseeable future.
This situation created something of a downbeat attitude (more
than one person likened it to a funeral) at last month's Space Access
2000 conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. At a conference where in the
past representatives of new launch vehicle companies showed off their
designs and talked of bold plans for the future, people now talked
about ways of staying alive in the current market. No one has given
up on the promise of cheap access to space, but the conference made it
clear the road to cheap access will be longer and steeper than
previously imagined.
What Went Wrong
Of all the companies developing new RLVs, Rotary Rocket has
generally been considered to be the furthest along. Not only has the
company raised a few tens of millions of dollars, it has built actual
hardware: the Roton Atmospheric Test Vehicle (ATV), a prototype of
the Roton launch vehicle designed to test low-altitude flight
characteristics. The ATV completed several test flights in California
last summer and fall.
The ATV will likely fly no more, Rotary CEO Gary Hudson told
conference attendees, and will be moved to a museum at some point in
the future. And a lack of money means that a spaceflight-capable
Roton won't fly any time soon. "Will the company build a Roton any
time in the near future?" asked Hudson. "No."
The problem, said Hudson, is that the LEO launch market went
away. The key reason why it went away can be summed up in a single
word: Iridium. The "debacle" of Iridium, said Hudson, "is like a hard
stop for the industry."
"Clearly the big negative thing sitting in people's minds is
Iridium," added technology investor Joe Pistritto.
The collapse of the LEO launch market would not be so bad if
other markets were immediately available. Unfortunately, the largest
launch market, for large communications satellites in geosynchronous
orbit, is out of reach for the small RLV companies. Moreover, the
market is highly competitive and controlled by companies directly or
indirectly backed by governments, noted Hudson. He believes that only
Beal Aerospace, developing a heavy-lift expendable booster, has a shot
at that market.
While private efforts to develop low-cost space access have
been stymied by a downturn in the market, NASA's efforts to develop
the technologies it feels are necessary for RLVs aren't doing much
better. In addition to the well-known problems with the X-33, NASA's
X-34 program is undergoing a restructuring that has delayed a program
of test flights.
"We're taking a wire brush and scrubbing the project from top
to bottom," said John London, program manager of NASA's Future-X
program, which includes the X-34. At least six restructuring plans
have been developed, and a decision on which plan to accept should be
made by June. While saying that they were "fairly close" to a first
X-34 flight, London acknowledged that the restructuring may result in
"significant slips that we'll have to address publicly."
Space Tourism: Our "Last, Best Hope"?
In the past, people in the industry believed that small RLVs
would first rely on the LEO launch market to prove their ability to
provide low-cost space access, which would then open up new markets,
including space tourism. Now, though, many believe the situation has
reversed: instead of cheap access to space enabling space tourism,
space tourism may be the only way to enable cheap access to space.
"What's needed are viable, believable markets," said Dana
Andrews of Andrews Space and Technology. Such markets should
initially be at least $1-2 billion a year and able to rapidly expand
to $10-15 billion a year. Space tourism, he believes, may be the best
market to begin, if regulatory hurdles can be overcome.
Jeff Greason, head of XCOR Aerospace, was even more adamant in
his belief that space tourism is vital to the RLV industry. "Carrying
people is the last, best hope for space access," he said.
Hudson agreed that human spaceflight is probably the only
addressable "potentially profitable" market, "the bar is pretty high
to serve this market." He said he is keeping his eye on MirCorp's
plans for the Mir space station, saying that "while it's a stretch to
believe it will work, I hope it does."
Even those who have been skeptical of space tourism
acknowledged that tourism may be the best way to revive the industry.
"I've been disdainful of the idea of space tourism," said Mitchell
Burnside Clapp, president of Pioneer Rocketplane. "It's goofy, but I
could be wrong."
Strategies for Survival
While tourism might be the key to keeping the idea of cheap
access to space alive, such markets are at least several years away.
Hudson believes we are due for a retrenchment that will last four to
six years, through NASA's five-year Space Transportation Initiative
Effort, which Hudson is highly skeptical of.
Hudson's approach for the near term is what he calls "selling
blue jeans to miners," or making deals with other, larger companies
developing launch vehicles. "It's time now for us mammals to eat a
few dinosaur eggs," he quipped.
"The 'charging up the beach' approach is unsound," said Clapp.
"We're going to have to be clever. We're going to have to do it by
some kind of interesting hack."
Greason believes that his company, XCOR Aerospace, is taking a
clever approach to space access. Noting the high cost and risk of
starting a company whose immediate goal is space access, XCOR is
taking a different approach, attacking markets where there is a lower
cost of entry and shorter path to profitability -- and hence more
likely to attract investment.
XCOR plans to do this by developing rocket engines, not for
launch vehicles but for other applications. The company originally
planned to develop a replica of the Bell X-1, the rocket plane that
was the first to break the sound barrier, but is now looking at
different markets, ranging from small engines for self-launched
sailplanes to replicas of the Me-163b, a German rocket-powered plane
from World War Two. "There seems to be something uniquely sexy about
planes with guns," said Greason.
The same liquid oxygen/alcohol engine used in the Me-163b
replica could also be clustered to develop a suborbital vehicle
capable of reaching Mach 4 and an altitude of over 100 km, and thus
could be eligible for the X-Prize.
To demonstrate that their plans are more than just viewgraphs,
Greason and other XCOR employees rolled out a subscale version of the
engine, capable of 65 newtons (15 lbf.) of thrust. And to prove the
engine wasn't just a mockup, the engine was test-fired several times
in the conference hall (with the kind permission of the Scottsdale
fire marshal!)
Riding the Market Cycle
Those discomforted by the up and downs of the launch vehicle
market should seek solace, and important lessons, from other markets.
Stephen Fleming of Alliance Technology Ventures compared the market to
biotechnology, which has undergone "five years of the worst downturn
of any business." However, since the first of the year "the dam has
broken", as new deals and announcements have made biotech an
attractive investment again, sending stock prices in the field
skyrocketing.
An important lesson for small launch companies, he noted, is
that small companies can survive and thrive in biotech by going after
"orphan drugs" that the big pharmaceutical companies won't go after
because they're too small. Such companies also have milestones of
development that allow them to get salable results even while
development continues. "We can learn a lot from these folks," said
Fleming.
Even with the downturn in the current market, there are still
proposals for new launch vehicles, conventional and unconventional.
Bill Gaubatz of Universal Space Lines discussed MS-X, a small-scale
prototype of Space Clipper, a two-stage vertical takeoff and landing
RLV. MS-X would fly at speeds up to March 0.9 to 1.2, testing
performance the critical transonic regime. Gaubatz said he believes
the first flight of the MS-X would come 18 months after the program's
start, which he hopes to begin by the end of the year. The vehicle
would cost $10-20 million.
Jordin Kare, on the other hand, outlined a laser launch system
that could place small payloads into orbit at low cost. The system
would use diode lasers, which are much less expensive than other types
of lasers, to project a beam at a heat exchanger on a spacecraft,
heating hydrogen propellant. The system would have a high initial
startup cost -- $1.9 billion, according to Kare -- but could place
payloads into orbit for far less than $2,200 per kilogram ($1,000 per
lb.)
Existing companies, though, must struggle to stay alive.
Hudson emphasized the accomplishments his company made despite limited
funding. "We moved the debate from technical credibility to financial
credibility," he said. As a result, he said, "there's been a sea
change in government opinions" in such companies.
Despite the current problems, Hudson is optimistic about the
future. "Commercial human spaceflight may well occur in the next
decade," he said. "The public is on our side, they want us to
succeed."
"We're going to continue to try."
========
This has been the May 15, 2000, issue of SpaceViews.
SpaceViews is also available on the Web at:
http://www.spaceviews.com/
or via anonymous FTP from ftp.seds.org:
ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/spaceviews/text/20000515.txt
To unsubscribe from SpaceViews, send mail to:
majordomo@spaceviews.com
In the body (not subject) of the message, type:
unsubscribe spaceviews
For editorial questions and article submissions for SpaceViews,
including letters to the editor, contact the editor, Jeff Foust, at
jeff@spaceviews.com
For questions about the SpaceViews mailing list, please contact
spaceviews-approval@spaceviews.com.
--
※ 转载:.哈工大紫丁香 bbs.hit.edu.cn.[FROM: es.hit.edu.cn]
Powered by KBS BBS 2.0 (http://dev.kcn.cn)
页面执行时间:614.315毫秒