Search This Blog

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Pluto


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pluto Astronomical symbol of Pluto
Pluto animiert 200px.gif
Computer-generated map of Pluto[1]
Discovery
Discovered by Clyde W. Tombaugh
Discovery date February 18, 1930
Designations
MPC designation 134340 Pluto
Pronunciation Listeni/ˈplt/
Named after
Pluto
Adjectives Plutonian
Orbital characteristics[6][b]
Epoch J2000
Aphelion
  • 48.871 AU
  • (7311000000 km)
Perihelion
  • 29.657 AU
  • (4437000000 km)
  • (1989 Sep 05)[2]
  • 39.264 AU
  • (5874000000 km)
Eccentricity 0.244671664 (J2000)
0.248 807 66 (mean)[3]
366.73 days[3]
Average orbital speed
4.7 km/s[3]
14.8601220[5]
Inclination
  • 17.151394°
  • (11.88° to Sun's equator)
110.2868
113.7634
Known satellites 5
Physical characteristics
Mean radius
  • 1.665×107 km2[c]
  • 0.033 Earths
Volume
  • 6.39×109 km3[d]
  • 0.0059 Earths
Mass
Mean density
2.03±0.06 g/cm3[9]
1.229 km/s[f]
Sidereal rotation period
Equatorial rotation velocity
47.18 km/h
119.591°±0.014° (to orbit)[9][g]
North pole right ascension
312.993°[10]
North pole declination
6.163°[10]
Albedo 0.49 to 0.66 (geometric, varies by 35%)[3][11]
Surface temp. min mean max
Kelvin 33 K 44 K (−229 °C) 55 K
13.65[3] to 16.3[12]
(mean is 15.1)[3]
−0.7[13]
0.065″ to 0.115″[3][h]
Atmosphere
Surface pressure
0.30 Pa (summer maximum)
Composition Nitrogen, methane, carbon monoxide[14]

Pluto (134340 Pluto) is the largest object in the Kuiper belt,[i][j] the tenth-most-massive known body directly orbiting the Sun, and the second-most-massive known dwarf planet, after Eris. Like other Kuiper belt objects, Pluto is primarily made of rock and ice,[15] and relatively small, about 1/6 the mass of the Moon and 1/3 its volume. It has an eccentric and highly inclined orbit that takes it from 30 to 49 AU (4.4–7.4 billion km) from the Sun. Hence Pluto periodically comes closer to the Sun than Neptune, but an orbital resonance with Neptune prevents the bodies from colliding. In 2014 it was 32.6 AU from the Sun. Light from the Sun takes about 5.5 hours to reach Pluto at its average distance (39.4 AU).[16]

Discovered in 1930, Pluto was originally considered the ninth planet from the Sun. Its status as a major planet fell into question following further study of it and the outer Solar System over the next 75 years. Starting in 1977 with the discovery of the minor planet Chiron, numerous icy objects similar to Pluto with eccentric orbits were found.[17] The scattered disc object Eris, discovered in 2005, is 27% more massive than Pluto.[18] The understanding that Pluto is only one of several large icy bodies in the outer Solar System prompted the International Astronomical Union (IAU) to formally define "planet" in 2006. This definition excluded Pluto and reclassified it as a member of the new "dwarf planet" category (and specifically as a plutoid).[19] Astronomers who oppose this decision hold that Pluto should have remained classified as a planet, and that other dwarf planets and even moons should be added to the list of planets along with Pluto.[20][21][22]

Pluto has five known moons: Charon (the largest, with a diameter just over half that of Pluto), Nix, Hydra, Kerberos, and Styx.[23] Pluto and Charon are sometimes described as a binary system because the barycenter of their orbits does not lie within either body.[24] The IAU has yet to formalise a definition for binary dwarf planets, and Charon is officially classified as a moon of Pluto.[25]

On July 14, 2015, the Pluto system is due to be visited by spacecraft for the first time.[26] The New Horizons probe will perform a flyby during which it will attempt to take detailed measurements and images of Pluto and its moons.[27] Afterwards, the probe may visit several other objects in the Kuiper belt.[28]

Discovery

The same area of night sky with stars, shown twice, side by side. One of the bright points, located with an arrow, changes position between the two images.
Discovery photographs of Pluto

In the 1840s, using Newtonian mechanics, Urbain Le Verrier predicted the position of the then-undiscovered planet Neptune after analysing perturbations in the orbit of Uranus.[29] Subsequent observations of Neptune in the late 19th century caused astronomers to speculate that Uranus's orbit was being disturbed by another planet besides Neptune.

In 1906, Percival Lowell—a wealthy Bostonian who had founded the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, in 1894—started an extensive project in search of a possible ninth planet, which he termed "Planet X".[30] By 1909, Lowell and William H. Pickering had suggested several possible celestial coordinates for such a planet.[31] Lowell and his observatory conducted his search until his death in 1916, but to no avail. Unknown to Lowell, on March 19, 1915, surveys had captured two faint images of Pluto, but they were not recognized for what they were.[31][32] There are fifteen other known prediscoveries, with the oldest made by the Yerkes Observatory on August 20, 1909.[33]

Because of a ten-year legal battle with Constance Lowell, Percival's widow, who attempted to wrest the observatory's million-dollar portion of his legacy for herself, the search for Planet X did not resume until 1929,[34] when its director, Vesto Melvin Slipher, summarily handed the job of locating Planet X to Clyde Tombaugh, a 23-year-old Kansan who had just arrived at the Lowell Observatory after Slipher had been impressed by a sample of his astronomical drawings.[34]

Tombaugh's task was to systematically image the night sky in pairs of photographs, then examine each pair and determine whether any objects had shifted position. Using a machine called a blink comparator, he rapidly shifted back and forth between views of each of the plates to create the illusion of movement of any objects that had changed position or appearance between photographs. On February 18, 1930, after nearly a year of searching, Tombaugh discovered a possible moving object on photographic plates taken on January 23 and January 29 of that year. A lesser-quality photograph taken on January 21 helped confirm the movement.[35] After the observatory obtained further confirmatory photographs, news of the discovery was telegraphed to the Harvard College Observatory on March 13, 1930.[31]

Name

The discovery made headlines across the globe. The Lowell Observatory, which had the right to name the new object, received over 1,000 suggestions from all over the world, ranging from Atlas to Zymal.[36] Tombaugh urged Slipher to suggest a name for the new object quickly before someone else did.[36] Constance Lowell proposed Zeus, then Percival and finally Constance. These suggestions were disregarded.[37]
The name Pluto, after the god of the underworld, was proposed by Venetia Burney (1918–2009), an eleven-year-old schoolgirl in Oxford, England, who was interested in classical mythology.[38] She suggested it in a conversation with her grandfather Falconer Madan, a former librarian at the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library, who passed the name to astronomy professor Herbert Hall Turner, who cabled it to colleagues in the United States.[38]

The object was officially named on March 24, 1930.[39][40] Each member of the Lowell Observatory was allowed to vote on a short-list of three: Minerva (which was already the name for an asteroid), Cronus (which had lost reputation through being proposed by the unpopular astronomer Thomas Jefferson Jackson See), and Pluto. Pluto received every vote.[41] The name was announced on May 1, 1930.[38] Upon the announcement, Madan gave Venetia GB£5 (£276 as of 2015),[42] as a reward.[38]

The choice of name was partly inspired by the fact that the first two letters of Pluto are the initials of Percival Lowell, and Pluto's astronomical symbol (♇, unicode U+2647, ♇) is a monogram constructed from the letters 'PL'.[43] Pluto's astrological symbol resembles that of Neptune (Neptune symbol.svg), but has a circle in place of the middle prong of the trident (Pluto's astrological symbol.svg).

The name was soon embraced by wider culture. In 1930, Walt Disney was apparently inspired by it when he introduced for Mickey Mouse a canine companion named Pluto, although Disney animator Ben Sharpsteen could not confirm why the name was given.[44] In 1941, Glenn T. Seaborg named the newly created element plutonium after Pluto, in keeping with the tradition of naming elements after newly discovered planets, following uranium, which was named after Uranus, and neptunium, which was named after Neptune.[45]

Most languages use the name "Pluto" in various transliterations.[k] In Japanese, Houei Nojiri suggested the translation Meiōsei (冥王星?, "Star of the King(God) of the Underworld"), and this was borrowed into Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese.[46][47][48] Some Indian languages use the name Pluto, but others, such as Hindi, use the name of Yama, the Guardian of Hell in Hindu and Buddhist mythology, as does Vietnamese.[47] Polynesian languages also tend to use the indigenous god of the underworld, as in Maori Whiro.[47]

Demise of Planet X

A young man in his mid-twenties, wearing glasses, a white shirt, tie and long trousers, stands in an open field, next to a Newtonian telescope resting on the ground and tilted towards the sky. The telescope is taller than him, and is about eight inches in diameter. His right hand is resting up on the barrel, and he looks slightly past the telescope, out to the left.
Clyde W. Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto
Mass estimates for Pluto
Year Mass Notes
1931 1 Earth Nicholson & Mayall[49][50][51]
1948 0.1 (1/10) Earth Kuiper[52]
1976 0.01 (1/100) Earth Cruikshank, Pilcher, & Morrison[53]
1978 0.002 (1/500) Earth Christy & Harrington[54]
2006 0.00218 (1/459) Earth Buie et al.[9]
Once found, Pluto's faintness and lack of a resolvable disc cast doubt on the idea that it was Lowell's Planet X. Estimates of Pluto's mass were revised downward throughout the 20th century.

Astronomers initially calculated its mass based on its presumed effect on Neptune and Uranus. In 1931 Pluto was calculated to be roughly the mass of Earth, with further calculations in 1948 bringing the mass down to roughly that of Mars.[50][52] In 1976, Dale Cruikshank, Carl Pilcher and David Morrison of the University of Hawaii calculated Pluto's albedo for the first time, finding that it matched that for methane ice; this meant Pluto had to be exceptionally luminous for its size and therefore could not be more than 1 percent the mass of Earth.[53] (Pluto's albedo is 1.3–2.0 times greater than that of Earth.[3])

In 1978, the discovery of Pluto's moon Charon allowed the measurement of Pluto's mass for the first time. Its mass, roughly 0.2% that of Earth, was far too small to account for the discrepancies in the orbit of Uranus. Subsequent searches for an alternative Planet X, notably by Robert Sutton Harrington,[55] failed. In 1992, Myles Standish used data from Voyager 2's 1989 flyby of Neptune, which had revised the planet's total mass downward by 0.5%, to recalculate its gravitational effect on Uranus. With the new figures added in, the discrepancies, and with them the need for a Planet X, vanished.[56] Today, the majority of scientists agree that Planet X, as Lowell defined it, does not exist.[57] Lowell had made a prediction of Planet X's position in 1915 that was fairly close to Pluto's position at that time; Ernest W. Brown concluded soon after Pluto's discovery that this was a coincidence,[58] a view still held today.[56]

Orbit and rotation


Pluto's orbit and the ecliptic

Orbit of Pluto—ecliptic view. This "side view" of Pluto's orbit (in red) shows its large inclination to Earth's ecliptic orbital plane.

This diagram shows the relative positions of Pluto (red) and Neptune (blue) on selected dates. The size of Neptune and Pluto is depicted as inversely proportional to the distance between them to emphasise the closest approach in 1896.

Pluto's orbital period is 248 Earth years. Its orbital characteristics are substantially different from those of the planets, which follow nearly circular orbits around the Sun close to a flat reference plane called the ecliptic. In contrast, Pluto's orbit is highly inclined relative to the ecliptic (over 17°) and highly eccentric (elliptical). This high eccentricity means a small region of Pluto's orbit lies nearer the Sun than Neptune's. The Pluto–Charon barycenter came to perihelion on September 5, 1989,[2][l] and was last closer to the Sun than Neptune between February 7, 1979, and February 11, 1999. Pluto and
Neptune make their closest approach when it is at 27.960 AU.[59]

In the long term, Pluto's orbit is in fact chaotic. Although computer simulations can be used to predict its position for several million years (both forward and backward in time), after intervals longer than the Lyapunov time of 10–20 million years, calculations become speculative: Pluto is sensitive to unmeasurably small details of the Solar System, hard-to-predict factors that will gradually disrupt its orbit.[60][61] Millions of years from now, Pluto may well be at aphelion, at perihelion or anywhere in between, with no way for us to predict which. This does not mean Pluto's orbit itself is unstable, but its position on that orbit is impossible to determine so far ahead. Several resonances and other dynamical effects keep Pluto's orbit stable, safe from planetary collision or scattering.

Relationship with Neptune


Orbit of Pluto—polar view. This "view from above" shows how Pluto's orbit (in red) is less circular than Neptune's (in blue), and how Pluto is sometimes closer to the Sun than Neptune. The darker halves of both orbits show where they pass below the plane of the ecliptic.

Despite Pluto's orbit appearing to cross that of Neptune when viewed from directly above, the two objects' orbits are aligned so that they can never collide or even approach closely. There are several reasons why.

At the simplest level, one can examine the two orbits and see that they do not intersect. When Pluto is closest to the Sun, and hence closest to Neptune's orbit as viewed from above, it is also the farthest above Neptune's path. Pluto's orbit passes about 8 AU above that of Neptune, preventing a collision.[62][63][64] Pluto's ascending and descending nodes, the points at which its orbit crosses the ecliptic, are currently separated from Neptune's by over 21°.[65]

This alone is not enough to protect Pluto; perturbations from the planets (especially Neptune) could alter aspects of Pluto's orbit (such as its orbital precession) over millions of years so that a collision could be possible. Some other mechanism or mechanisms must therefore be at work. The most significant of these is that Pluto lies in the 2:3 mean-motion resonance with Neptune: for every two orbits that Pluto makes around the Sun, Neptune makes three. The two objects then return to their initial positions and the cycle repeats, each cycle lasting about 500 years. This pattern is such that, in each 500-year cycle, the first time Pluto is near perihelion Neptune is over 50° behind Pluto. By Pluto's second perihelion, Neptune will have completed a further one and a half of its own orbits, and so will be a similar distance ahead of Pluto. Pluto and Neptune's minimum separation is over 17 AU. Pluto comes closer to Uranus (11 AU) than it does to Neptune.[64]

The 2:3 resonance between the two bodies is highly stable, and is preserved over millions of years.[66] This prevents their orbits from changing relative to one another; the cycle always repeats in the same way, and so the two bodies can never pass near to each other. Thus, even if Pluto's orbit were not highly inclined the two bodies could never collide.[64]

Other factors

Numerical studies have shown that over periods of millions of years, the general nature of the alignment between Pluto and Neptune's orbits does not change.[62][67] There are several other resonances and interactions that govern the details of their relative motion, and enhance Pluto's stability. These arise principally from two additional mechanisms (besides the 2:3 mean-motion resonance).

First, Pluto's argument of perihelion, the angle between the point where it crosses the ecliptic and the point where it is closest to the Sun, librates around 90°.[67] This means that when Pluto is nearest the Sun, it is at its farthest above the plane of the Solar System, preventing encounters with Neptune. This is a direct consequence of the Kozai mechanism,[62] which relates the eccentricity of an orbit to its inclination to a larger perturbing body—in this case Neptune. Relative to Neptune, the amplitude of libration is 38°, and so the angular separation of Pluto's perihelion to the orbit of Neptune is always greater than 52° (90°–38°). The closest such angular separation occurs every 10,000 years.[66]

Second, the longitudes of ascending nodes of the two bodies—the points where they cross the ecliptic—are in near-resonance with the above libration. When the two longitudes are the same—that is, when one could draw a straight line through both nodes and the Sun—Pluto's perihelion lies exactly at 90°, and hence it comes closest to the Sun at its maximally above Neptune's orbit. This is known as the 1:1 superresonance. All the Jovian planets, particularly Jupiter, play a role in the creation of the superresonance.[62]

To understand the nature of the libration, imagine a polar point of view, looking down on the ecliptic from a distant vantage point where the planets orbit counterclockwise. After passing the ascending node, Pluto is interior to Neptune's orbit and moving faster, approaching Neptune from behind. The strong gravitational pull between the two causes angular momentum to be transferred to Pluto, at Neptune's expense. This moves Pluto into a slightly larger orbit, where it travels slightly slower, according to Kepler's third law. As its orbit changes, this has the gradual effect of changing the perihelion and longitude of Pluto's orbit (and, to a lesser degree, of Neptune). After many such repetitions, Pluto is sufficiently slowed, and Neptune sufficiently speeded up, that Neptune begins to catch up with Pluto at the opposite side of its orbit (near the opposing node to where we began). The process is then reversed, and Pluto loses angular momentum to Neptune, until Pluto is sufficiently speeded up that it begins to catch Neptune again at the original node. The whole process takes about 20,000 years to complete.[64][66]

Rotation

Pluto's rotation period, its day, is equal to 6.39 Earth days.[68] Like Uranus, Pluto rotates on its "side" on its orbital plane, with an axial tilt of 120°, and so its seasonal variation is extreme; at its solstices, one-fourth of its surface is in continuous daylight, whereas another fourth is in continuous darkness.[69]

Physical characteristics


Map of Pluto's surface by NASA, ESA and Marc W. Buie

Hubble map of Pluto's surface, showing great variations in color and albedo

Three views of Pluto from different orientations

Pluto's distance from Earth makes in-depth investigation difficult. Many details about Pluto will remain unknown until 2015, when the New Horizons spacecraft is expected to arrive there.[70]

Appearance and surface

Pluto's visual apparent magnitude averages 15.1, brightening to 13.65 at perihelion.[3] To see it, a telescope is required; around 30 cm (12 in) aperture being desirable.[71] It looks star-like and without a visible disk even in large telescopes, because its angular diameter is only 0.11".

The earliest maps of Pluto, made in the late 1980s, were brightness maps created from close observations of eclipses by its largest moon, Charon. Observations were made of the change in the total average brightness of the Pluto–Charon system during the eclipses. For example, eclipsing a bright spot on Pluto makes a bigger total brightness change than eclipsing a dark spot. Computer processing of many such observations can be used to create a brightness map. This method can also track changes in brightness over time.[72][73]

Current maps have been produced from images from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), which offers the highest resolution currently available, and show considerably more detail,[74] resolving variations several hundred kilometres across, including polar regions and large bright spots.[75] The maps are produced by complex computer processing, which find the best-fit projected maps for the few pixels of the Hubble images.[76] The two cameras on the HST used for these maps are no longer in service, so these will likely remain the most detailed maps of Pluto until the 2015 flyby of New Horizons.[76]

These maps, together with Pluto's lightcurve and the periodic variations in its infrared spectra, reveal that Pluto's surface is remarkably varied, with large changes in both brightness and color.[77] Pluto is one of the most contrastive bodies in the Solar System, with as much contrast as Saturn's moon Iapetus.[74] The color varies between charcoal black, dark orange and white:[78] Buie et al. term it "significantly less red than Mars and much more similar to the hues seen on Io with a slightly more orange cast".[75]

Pluto's surface has changed between 1994 and 2002–3: the northern polar region has brightened and the southern hemisphere darkened.[78] Pluto's overall redness has also increased substantially between 2000 and 2002.[78] These rapid changes are probably related to seasonal condensation and sublimation of portions of Pluto's atmosphere, amplified by Pluto's extreme axial tilt and high orbital eccentricity.[78]

Spectroscopic analysis of Pluto's surface reveals it to be composed of more than 98 percent nitrogen ice, with traces of methane and carbon monoxide.[79] The face of Pluto oriented toward Charon contains more methane ice, whereas the opposite face contains more nitrogen and carbon monoxide ice.[80]

Structure


Theoretical structure of Pluto (2006)[81]
1. Frozen nitrogen[79]
2. Water ice
3. Rock

Observations by the Hubble Space Telescope place Pluto's density at between 1.8 and 2.1 g/cm3, suggesting its internal composition consists of roughly 50–70 percent rock and 30–50 percent ice by mass.[82] Because the decay of radioactive elements would eventually heat the ices enough for the rock to separate from them, scientists expect that Pluto's internal structure is differentiated, with the rocky material having settled into a dense core surrounded by a mantle of ice. The diameter of the core is hypothesized to be approximately 1700 km, 70% of Pluto's diameter.[81] It is possible that such heating continues today, creating a subsurface ocean layer of liquid water some 100 to 180 km thick at the core–mantle boundary.[81][83] The DLR Institute of Planetary Research calculated that Pluto's density-to-radius ratio lies in a transition zone, along with Neptune's moon Triton, between icy satellites like the mid-sized moons of Uranus and Saturn, and rocky satellites such as Jupiter's Io.[84]

Mass and size


Size comparison of Earth, the Moon, and Pluto (bottom left). Pluto's volume is about 0.6% that of Earth.

Pluto's mass is 1.31×1022 kg, less than 0.24 percent that of Earth,[85] and its diameter is 2306±20 km, or roughly 66% that of the Moon.[9] Its surface area (1.665×107 km2) is about 10% smaller than that of South America. Pluto's atmosphere complicates determining its true solid size within a certain margin.[8] Pluto's albedo varies from 0.49–0.66.

The discovery of Pluto's satellite Charon in 1978 enabled a determination of the mass of the Pluto–Charon system by application of Newton's formulation of Kepler's third law. Once Charon's gravitational effect was measured, Pluto's true mass could be determined. Observations of Pluto in occultation with Charon allowed scientists to establish Pluto's diameter more accurately, whereas the invention of adaptive optics allowed them to determine its shape more accurately.[86]

Selected size estimates for Pluto
Year Radius (diameter) Notes
1993 1195 (2390) km Millis, et al.[87] (If no haze)[88]
1993 1180 (2360) km Millis, et al. (surface & haze)[88]
1994 1164 (2328) km Young & Binzel[89]
2006 1153 (2306) km Buie, et al.[9]
2007 1161 (2322) km Young, Young, & Buie[8]
2011 1180 (2360) km Zalucha, et al.[90]
2014 1184 (2368) km Lellouch, et al.[7]
Among the objects of the Solar System, Pluto is much less massive than the terrestrial planets, and at less than 0.2 lunar masses, it is also less massive than seven moons: Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Io, the Moon, Europa and Triton.

Pluto is more than twice the diameter and a dozen times the mass of the dwarf planet Ceres, the largest object in the asteroid belt. It is less massive than the dwarf planet Eris, a trans-Neptunian object discovered in 2005. Given the error bars in the different size estimates, it is currently unknown whether Eris or Pluto has the larger diameter.[88] Both Pluto and Eris are estimated to have solid-body diameters of about 2330 km.[88]

Determinations of Pluto's size are complicated by its atmosphere, and possible hydrocarbon haze.[88] In March, 2014, Lellouch, de Bergh et al. published findings regarding methane mixing ratios in Pluto's atmosphere consistent with a Plutonian diameter greater than 2360 km, with a "best guess" of 2368 km, which would make it slightly larger than Eris.[7]

Atmosphere


CRIRES model-based computer-generated impression of the Plutonian surface, with atmospheric haze, and Charon and the Sun in the sky.

Pluto's atmosphere consists of a thin envelope of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide gases, which are derived from the ices of these substances on its surface.[91] Its surface pressure ranges from 6.5 to 24 μbar.[92] Pluto's elongated orbit is predicted to have a major effect on its atmosphere: as Pluto moves away from the Sun, its atmosphere should gradually freeze out, and fall to the ground. When Pluto is closer to the Sun, the temperature of Pluto's solid surface increases, causing the ices to sublimate into gas. This creates an anti-greenhouse effect; much as sweat cools the body as it evaporates from the surface of the skin, this sublimation cools the surface of Pluto. In 2006, scientists using the Submillimeter Array discovered that Pluto's temperature is about 43 K (−230 °C), 10 K colder than would otherwise be expected.[93]

The presence of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, in Pluto's atmosphere creates a temperature inversion, with average temperatures 36 K warmer 10 km above the surface.[94] The lower atmosphere contains a higher concentration of methane than its upper atmosphere.[94]

Evidence of Pluto's atmosphere was first suggested by Noah Brosch and Haim Mendelson of the Wise Observatory in Israel in 1985,[95] and then definitively detected by the Kuiper Airborne Observatory in 1988, from observations of occultations of stars by Pluto.[96] When an object with no atmosphere moves in front of a star, the star abruptly disappears; in the case of Pluto, the star dimmed out gradually.[95] From the rate of dimming, the atmospheric pressure was determined to be 0.15 pascal, roughly 1/700,000 that of Earth.[97]

In 2002, another occultation of a star by Pluto was observed and analysed by teams led by Bruno Sicardy of the Paris Observatory,[98] James L. Elliot of MIT,[99] and Jay Pasachoff of Williams College.[100] Surprisingly, the atmospheric pressure was estimated to be 0.3 pascal, even though Pluto was farther from the Sun than in 1988 and thus should have been colder and had a more rarefied atmosphere. One explanation for the discrepancy is that in 1987 the south pole of Pluto came out of shadow for the first time in 120 years, causing extra nitrogen to sublimate from the polar cap. It will take decades for the excess nitrogen to condense out of the atmosphere as it freezes onto the north pole's now continuously dark ice cap.[101] Spikes in the data from the same study revealed what may be the first evidence of wind in Pluto's atmosphere.[101] Another stellar occultation was observed by the MIT-Williams College team of James L. Elliot, Jay Pasachoff, and a Southwest Research Institute team led by Leslie A. Young on June 12, 2006, from sites in Australia.[102]

In October 2006, Dale Cruikshank of NASA/Ames Research Center (a New Horizons co-investigator) and his colleagues announced the spectroscopic discovery of ethane on Pluto's surface. This ethane is produced from the photolysis or radiolysis (i.e. the chemical conversion driven by sunlight and charged particles) of frozen methane on Pluto's surface and suspended in its atmosphere.[103]

Satellites

Pluto has five known natural satellites: Charon, first identified in 1978 by astronomer James Christy; Nix and Hydra, both discovered in 2005,[104] Kerberos, discovered in 2011,[105] and Styx, discovered in 2012.[106]
The Plutonian moons are unusually close to Pluto, compared to other observed systems. Moons could potentially orbit Pluto at up to 53% (or 69%, if retrograde) of the Hill radius, the stable gravitational zone of Pluto's influence. For example, Psamathe orbits Neptune at 40% of the Hill radius. In the case of Pluto, only the inner 3% of the zone is known to be occupied by satellites. In the discoverers' terms, the Plutonian system appears to be "highly compact and largely empty",[107] although others have pointed out the possibility of additional objects, including a small ring system.[108][109]

Charon

An oblique view of the Pluto–Charon system showing that Pluto orbits a point outside itself. Pluto's orbit is shown in red and Charon's orbit is shown in green.

The surface of Charon

The Pluto–Charon system is noteworthy for being one of the Solar System's few binary systems, defined as those whose barycenter lies above the primary's surface (617 Patroclus is a smaller example, the Sun and Jupiter the only larger one).[110] This and the large size of Charon relative to Pluto has led some astronomers to call it a dwarf double planet.[111] The system is also unusual among planetary systems in that each is tidally locked to the other: Charon always presents the same face to Pluto, and Pluto always presents the same face to Charon: from any position on either body, the other is always at the same position in the sky, or always obscured.[112] This also means that the rotation period of each is equal to the time it takes the entire system to rotate around its common center of gravity.[68] Just as Pluto revolves on its side relative to the orbital plane, so the Pluto–Charon system does also.[69] In 2007, observations by the Gemini Observatory of patches of ammonia hydrates and water crystals on the surface of Charon suggested the presence of active cryo-geysers.[113]

Small moons


The Pluto system: Pluto, Charon, Nix, Hydra, Kerberos, and Styx, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope in July 2012

Two additional moons were imaged by astronomers working with the Hubble Space Telescope on May 15, 2005, and received provisional designations of S/2005 P 1 and S/2005 P 2. The International Astronomical Union officially named Pluto's newest moons Nix (or Pluto II, the inner of the two moons, formerly P 2) and Hydra (Pluto III, the outer moon, formerly P 1), on June 21, 2006.[114]

These small moons orbit Pluto at approximately two and three times the distance of Charon: Nix at 48,700 kilometres and Hydra at 64,800 kilometres from the barycenter of the system. They have nearly circular prograde orbits in the same orbital plane as Charon.

Observations of Nix and Hydra to determine individual characteristics are ongoing. Hydra is sometimes brighter than Nix, suggesting either that it is larger or that different parts of its surface may vary in brightness. Their sizes are estimated from albedos. If their albedo is similar to that of Charon (0.35), then their diameters are 46 kilometres for Nix and 61 kilometres for Hydra. Upper limits on their diameters can be estimated by using the albedo of the darkest Kuiper-belt objects (0.04); these bounds are 137 ± 11 km and 167 ± 10 km, respectively. At the larger end of this range, the inferred masses are less than 0.3% that of Charon, or 0.03% that of Pluto.[115]

The discovery of Nix and Hydra suggests that Pluto may possess a variable ring system. Small-body impacts can create debris that can form into planetary rings. Data from a deep-optical survey by the Advanced Camera for Surveys on the Hubble Space Telescope suggest that no ring system is present. If such a system exists, it is either tenuous like the rings of Jupiter or is tightly confined to less than 1,000 km in width.[108] Similar conclusions have been made from occultation studies.[116]

A fourth moon, Kerberos, was announced on July 20, 2011. It was detected using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope during a survey searching for rings around Pluto. It has an estimated diameter of 13 to 34 km and is located between the orbits of Nix and Hydra.[105] Kerberos was first seen in a photo taken with Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3 on June 28. It was confirmed in subsequent Hubble pictures taken on July 3 and July 18.[105]

A fifth moon, Styx, was announced on July 7, 2012 while looking for potential hazards for New Horizons.[117] Styx is believed to have a diameter of between 10 and 25 km and to orbit Pluto at a distance between Charon and Nix.[118]

Near resonances

Styx, Nix, Kerberos and Hydra are fairly close to 3:1, 4:1, 5:1 and 6:1 mean-motion orbital resonances with Charon, respectively[119][120] (the ratios approach integral commensurabilities more closely going outward from Pluto). Determining how near any of these orbital period ratios actually is to a true resonance requires accurate knowledge of the satellites' precessions.

Pluto and its satellites, with the Moon comparison[9][121]
Name
(Pronunciation)
Discovery
Year
Diameter
(km)
Mass
(kg)
Orbital radius (km)
(barycentric)
Orbital period (d) Period ratio Magnitude (mag)
Pluto /ˈplt/ 1930 2,306
(66% Moon)
1.305×1022
(18% Moon)
2,035 6.3872
(25% Moon)
1.000 15.1
Charon /ˈʃærən/,
/ˈkɛərən/
1978 1,205
(35% Moon)
1.52×1021
(2% Moon)
17,536
(5% Moon)
6.3872
(25% Moon)
1.000 16.8
Styx /ˈstɪks/ 2012 10–25  ? ~42,000 ± 2,000 20.2 ± 0.1 3.16 27
Nix /ˈnɪks/ 2005 91 4×1017 48,708 24.856 3.892 23.7
Kerberos /ˈkɛərbərəs/ 2011 13–34  ? ~59,000 32.1 5.03 26
Hydra /ˈhdrə/ 2005 114 8×1017 64,749 38.206 5.982 23.3
Mass of Nix and Hydra assumes icy/porous density of 1.0 g/cm3

Quasi-satellite

At least one minor body is trapped in the 1:1 commensurability with Pluto, (15810) 1994 JR1, specifically in the quasi-satellite dynamical state.[122] The object has been a quasi-satellite of Pluto for about 100,000 years and it will remain in that dynamical state for perhaps another 250,000 years. Its quasi-satellite behavior is recurrent with a periodicity of 2 million years.[122][123] There may be additional Pluto co-orbitals.

Origins

Plot of known Kuiper belt objects, set against the four gas giants.

Pluto's origin and identity had long puzzled astronomers. One early hypothesis was that Pluto was an escaped moon of Neptune, knocked out of orbit by its largest current moon, Triton. This notion has been heavily criticized because Pluto never comes near Neptune in its orbit.[124]

Pluto's true place in the Solar System began to reveal itself only in 1992, when astronomers began to find small icy objects beyond Neptune that were similar to Pluto not only in orbit but also in size and composition. This trans-Neptunian population is believed to be the source of many short-period comets. Astronomers now believe Pluto to be the largest[j] member of the Kuiper belt, a somewhat stable ring of objects located between 30 and 50 AU from the Sun. As of 2011, surveys of the Kuiper belt to magnitude 21 were nearly complete and any remaining Pluto-sized objects are expected to be beyond 100 AU from the Sun.[125] Like other Kuiper-belt objects (KBOs), Pluto shares features with comets; for example, the solar wind is gradually blowing Pluto's surface into space, in the manner of a comet.[126] If Pluto were placed as near to the Sun as Earth, it would develop a tail, as comets do.[127]

Though Pluto is the largest of the Kuiper belt objects discovered,[j] Neptune's moon Triton, which is slightly larger than Pluto, is similar to it both geologically and atmospherically, and is believed to be a captured Kuiper belt object.[128] Eris (see below) is about the same size as Pluto (though more massive) but is not strictly considered a member of the Kuiper belt population. Rather, it is considered a member of a linked population called the scattered disc.

A large number of Kuiper belt objects, like Pluto, possess a 2:3 orbital resonance with Neptune. KBOs with this orbital resonance are called "plutinos", after Pluto.[129]

Like other members of the Kuiper belt, Pluto is thought to be a residual planetesimal; a component of the original protoplanetary disc around the Sun that failed to fully coalesce into a full-fledged planet. Most astronomers agree that Pluto owes its current position to a sudden migration undergone by Neptune early in the Solar System's formation. As Neptune migrated outward, it approached the objects in the proto-Kuiper belt, setting one in orbit around itself (Triton), locking others into resonances, and knocking others into chaotic orbits. The objects in the scattered disc, a dynamically unstable region overlapping the Kuiper belt, are believed to have been placed in their current positions by interactions with Neptune's migrating resonances.[130] A computer model created in 2004 by Alessandro Morbidelli of the Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur in Nice suggested that the migration of Neptune into the Kuiper belt may have been triggered by the formation of a 1:2 resonance between Jupiter and Saturn, which created a gravitational push that propelled both Uranus and Neptune into higher orbits and caused them to switch places, ultimately doubling Neptune's distance from the Sun. The resultant expulsion of objects from the proto-Kuiper belt could also explain the Late Heavy Bombardment 600 million years after the Solar System's formation and the origin of the Jupiter trojans.[131] It is possible that Pluto had a near-circular orbit about 33 AU from the Sun before Neptune's migration perturbed it into a resonant capture.[132] The Nice model requires that there were about a thousand Pluto-sized bodies in the original planetesimal disk; these may have included the early Triton and Eris.[131]

Exploration

New Horizons, launched on January 19, 2006

First Pluto sighting from New Horizons

Images of nearly one orbit of Charon around Pluto, taken by New Horizons on July 19–24, 2014.

Pluto presents significant challenges for spacecraft because of its small mass and large distance from Earth. Voyager 1 could have visited Pluto, but controllers opted instead for a close flyby of Saturn's moon Titan, resulting in a trajectory incompatible with a Pluto flyby. Voyager 2 never had a plausible trajectory for reaching Pluto.[133] No serious attempt to explore Pluto by spacecraft occurred until the last decade of the 20th century. In August 1992, JPL scientist Robert Staehle telephoned Pluto's discoverer, Clyde Tombaugh, requesting permission to visit his planet. "I told him he was welcome to it," Tombaugh later remembered, "though he's got to go one long, cold trip."[134] Despite this early momentum, in 2000, NASA cancelled the Pluto Kuiper Express mission, citing increasing costs and launch vehicle delays.[135]

After an intense political battle, a revised mission to Pluto, dubbed New Horizons, was granted funding from the US government in 2003.[136] New Horizons was launched successfully on January 19, 2006. The mission leader, S. Alan Stern, confirmed that some of the ashes of Clyde Tombaugh, who died in 1997, had been placed aboard the spacecraft.[137]

In early 2007 the craft made use of a gravity assist from Jupiter. Its closest approach to Pluto will be on July 14, 2015; scientific observations of Pluto will begin 5 months before closest approach and will continue for at least a month after the encounter. New Horizons captured its first (distant) images of Pluto in late September 2006, during a test of the Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI).[138] The images, taken from a distance of approximately 4.2 billion kilometres, confirm the spacecraft's ability to track distant targets, critical for maneuvering toward Pluto and other Kuiper Belt objects.

New Horizons will use a remote sensing package that includes imaging instruments and a radio science investigation tool, as well as spectroscopic and other experiments, to characterise the global geology and morphology of Pluto and its moon Charon, map their surface composition and analyse Pluto's neutral atmosphere and its escape rate. New Horizons will also photograph the surfaces of Pluto and Charon.

Pluto's small moons, discovered shortly before or after the probes's launch, may present it with unforeseen challenges. Debris from collisions between Kuiper belt objects and the smaller moons, with their relatively low escape velocities, may produce a tenuous dusty ring. Were New Horizons to fly through such a ring system, there would be an increased potential for micrometeoroid damage that could disable the probe.[108]
Timeline of New Horizons Approach to Pluto.[26]

Concepts

A Pluto orbiter/lander/sample return mission was proposed in 2003. The plan included a twelve-year trip from Earth to Pluto, mapping from orbit, multiple landings, a warm water probe, and possible in situ propellant production for another twelve-year trip back to Earth with samples. Power and propulsion would come from the bimodal MITEE nuclear reactor system.[139]

Classification

Earth Dysnomia Eris Charon Nix Hydra S/2011 (134340) 1 Pluto Makemake Namaka Hi'iaka Haumea Sedna 2007 OR10 Weywot Quaoar Vanth Orcus File:EightTNOs.png
Artistic comparison of Eris, Pluto, Makemake, Haumea, Sedna, 2007 OR10, Quaoar, Orcus, and Earth.
After Pluto's place within the Kuiper belt was determined, its official status as a planet became controversial, with many questioning whether Pluto should be considered together with or separately from its surrounding population.

Museum and planetarium directors occasionally created controversy by omitting Pluto from planetary models of the Solar System. The Hayden Planetarium reopened after renovation in 2000 with a model of only eight planets. The controversy made headlines at the time.[140]

In 2002, the KBO 50000 Quaoar was discovered, with a diameter then thought to be roughly 1280 kilometres, about half that of Pluto.[141] In 2004, the discoverers of 90377 Sedna placed an upper limit of 1800 km on its diameter, nearer to Pluto's diameter of 2320 km,[142] although Sedna's diameter was revised downward to less than 1600 km by 2007.[143] Just as Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta eventually lost their planet status after the discovery of many other asteroids, so, it was argued, Pluto should be reclassified as one of the Kuiper belt objects.

On July 29, 2005, the discovery of a new trans-Neptunian object was announced. Named Eris, it is now known to be approximately the same size as Pluto.[88] This was the largest object discovered in the Solar System since Triton in 1846. Its discoverers and the press initially called it the tenth planet, although there was no official consensus at the time on whether to call it a planet.[144] Others in the astronomical community considered the discovery the strongest argument for reclassifying Pluto as a minor planet.[145]

2006: IAU classification

The debate came to a head in 2006 with an IAU resolution that created an official definition for the term "planet". According to this resolution, there are three main conditions for an object to be considered a 'planet':
  1. The object must be in orbit around the Sun.
  2. The object must be massive enough to be a sphere by its own gravitational force. More specifically, its own gravity should pull it into a shape of hydrostatic equilibrium.
  3. It must have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.[146][147]
Pluto fails to meet the third condition, because its mass is only 0.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit (Earth's mass, by contrast, is 1.7 million times the remaining mass in its own orbit).[145][147] The IAU further resolved that Pluto be classified in the simultaneously created dwarf planet category, and that it act as the prototype for the plutoid category of trans-Neptunian objects, in which it would be separately, but concurrently, classified.[148]

On September 13, 2006, the IAU included Pluto, Eris, and the Eridian moon Dysnomia in their Minor Planet Catalogue, giving them the official minor planet designations "(134340) Pluto", "(136199) Eris", and "(136199) Eris I Dysnomia".[149] If Pluto had been given a minor planet name upon its discovery, the number would have been about 1,164 rather than 134,340.

There has been some resistance within the astronomical community toward the reclassification.[150][151][152] S. Alan Stern, principal investigator with NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, publicly derided the IAU resolution, stating that "the definition stinks, for technical reasons".[153] Stern's contention was that by the terms of the new definition Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Neptune, all of which share their orbits with asteroids, would be excluded.[154] His other claim was that because less than five percent of astronomers voted for it, the decision was not representative of the entire astronomical community.[154] Marc W. Buie, then at Lowell Observatory, voiced his opinion on the new definition on his website and petitioned against the definition.[155] Others have supported the IAU. Mike Brown, the astronomer who discovered Eris, said "through this whole crazy circus-like procedure, somehow the right answer was stumbled on. It's been a long time coming. Science is self-correcting eventually, even when strong emotions are involved."[156]

Researchers on both sides of the debate gathered on August 14–16, 2008, at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory for a conference that included back-to-back talks on the current IAU definition of a planet.[157] Entitled "The Great Planet Debate",[158] the conference published a post-conference press release indicating that scientists could not come to a consensus about the definition of planet.[159] Just before the conference, on June 11, 2008, the IAU announced in a press release that the term "plutoid" would henceforth be used to describe Pluto and other objects similar to Pluto which have an orbital semimajor axis greater than that of Neptune and enough mass to be of near-spherical shape.[148][160][161]

Reaction


A promotional event with a staged Pluto "protest". Members playing protesters of the reclassification of Pluto on the left, with those playing counter-protesters on the right

Reception to the IAU decision was mixed. Although many accepted the reclassification, some sought to overturn the decision with online petitions urging the IAU to consider reinstatement. A resolution introduced by some members of the California State Assembly light-heartedly denounced the IAU for "scientific heresy", among other crimes.[162] The U.S. state of New Mexico's House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Tombaugh, a longtime resident of that state, which declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that March 13, 2007, was Pluto Planet Day.[163][164] The Illinois State Senate passed a similar resolution in 2009, on the basis that Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto, was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU.[165]

Some members of the public have also rejected the change, citing the disagreement within the scientific community on the issue, or for sentimental reasons, maintaining that they have always known Pluto as a planet and will continue to do so regardless of the IAU decision.[166]

In 2006 in its 17th annual words of the year vote, the American Dialect Society voted plutoed as the word of the year. To "pluto" is to "demote or devalue someone or something".[167]

Space Launch System


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Space Launch System
Art of SLS launch.jpg
Artist's rendering of the SLS Block 1 crewed variant launching
Function Launch vehicle
Country of origin United States
Project cost US$18 billion (projected through 2017)
Cost per launch () US$500 million (2012, planned)[1]
Size
Diameter 8.4 m (330 in) (core stage)
Stages 2
Capacity
Payload to
LEO
70,000 to 130,000 kg (150,000 to 290,000 lb)
Associated rockets
Family Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles
Launch history
Status Undergoing development
Launch sites LC-39, Kennedy Space Center
First flight No later than November 2018[2]
Notable payloads Orion MPCV
Boosters (Block I)
No boosters 2 Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters
(5-segment)
Engines 1
Thrust 16,000 kN (3,600,000 lbf)
Total thrust 32,000 kN (7,200,000 lbf)
Specific impulse 269 seconds (2.64 km/s)
Burn time 124 seconds
Fuel APCP
First Stage (Block I, IB, II) - Core Stage
Diameter 8.4 m (330 in)
Empty mass 85,270 kg (187,990 lb)
Gross mass 979,452 kg (2,159,322 lb)
Engines 4 RS-25D/E[3]
Thrust 7,440 kN (1,670,000 lbf)
Specific impulse 363 seconds (3.56 km/s) (sea level), 452 seconds (4.43 km/s) (vacuum)
Fuel LH2/LOX
Second Stage (Block I) - ICPS
Length 13.7 m (540 in)
Diameter 5 m (200 in)
Empty mass 3,490 kg (7,690 lb)
Gross mass 30,710 kg (67,700 lb)
Engines 1 RL10B-2
Thrust 110.1 kN (24,800 lbf)
Specific impulse 462 seconds (4.53 km/s)
Burn time 1125 seconds
Fuel LH2/LOX
Second Stage (Block IB, Block II) - Exploration Upper Stage
Engines 4 RL10
Thrust 440 kN (99,000 lbf)
Fuel LH2/LOX

The Space Launch System (SLS) is a United States Space Shuttle-derived heavy expendable launch vehicle being designed by NASA. It follows the cancellation of the Constellation program, and is to replace the retired Space Shuttle. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 envisions the transformation of the Constellation program's Ares I and Ares V vehicle designs into a single launch vehicle usable for both crew and cargo.

The SLS launch vehicle is to be upgraded over time with more powerful versions. Its initial Block I version is to lift a payload of 70 metric tons to low Earth orbit (LEO), which will be increased with the debut of Block IB and the Exploration Upper Stage.[4] Block II will replace the initial Shuttle-derived boosters with advanced boosters and is planned to have a LEO capability of more than 130 metric tons to meet the congressional requirement;[5] this would make the SLS the most capable heavy lift vehicle ever built.[6][7]

These upgrades will allow the SLS to lift astronauts and hardware to various beyond-LEO destinations: on a circumlunar trajectory as part of Exploration Mission 1 with Block I, to a near-Earth asteroid in Exploration Mission 2 with Block IB, and to Mars with Block II. The SLS will launch the Orion Crew and Service Module and may support trips to the International Space Station if necessary. SLS will use the ground operations and launch facilities at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Florida.

Design and development[edit]


Space Launch System's planned variants

Artist concept of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) 70-metric-ton configuration launching to space.

On September 14, 2011, NASA announced its design selection for the new launch system, declaring that it would take the agency's astronauts farther into space than ever before and provide the cornerstone for future US human space exploration efforts.[8][9][10] Four versions of the launch vehicle have been planned at various times – Blocks 0, I, IA, IB and II. Each configuration utilizes different core stages, boosters and upper stages, with some components deriving directly from Space Shuttle hardware and others being developed specifically for the SLS.[11] Block II of the SLS, the most capable variant, was initially depicted as having five RS-25E engines, upgraded boosters and an 8.4-meter diameter upper stage with three J-2X engines.[12][13] Along with its baseline 8.4 meter diameter payload fairing a longer but thinner 5-meter class payload fairing with a length of 10 m or greater is also considered for propelling heavier payloads to deep space.[14] Since then a number of changes have been made, with Block 0 and Block IA no longer in design and the final Block II design being dependent on an ongoing booster competition and further analysis. The initial Block I two-stage variant will have a lift capability of between 70,000 and 77,000 kg, while the proposed Block II final variant will have similar lift capacity and height to the original Saturn V.[15] By November 2011, NASA had selected five rocket configurations for wind tunnel testing, described in three Low Earth Orbit classes; 70 metric tons (t), 95 t, and 140 t.[16]

In 2011, NASA announced that development of the Orion spacecraft from the Constellation program will continue as the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV)[17] to be flown on SLS.

On July 31, 2013 the SLS passed the Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The review encompassed all aspects of the SLS' design, not only the rocket and boosters but also ground support and logistical arrangements. Successful completion of the PDR paves the way for Gate-C approval by NASA senior administration, enabling the project to move from design to implementation.[18]

Core stage

The core stage of the SLS is common to all vehicle configurations, essentially consisting of a modified Space Shuttle External Tank with the aft section adapted to accept the rocket's Main Propulsion System (MPS) and the top converted to host an interstage structure.[6][19] It will be fabricated at the Michoud Assembly Facility.[20] The stage will utilize four RS-25 engines.
  • Block 0 was an initial planning baseline version, from Shuttle components, using an 8.4 meter core stage and three RS-25D engines.[21][22] However, NASA managers preferred designing the SLS core stage to use four RS-25 engines, skipping over the Block 0 configuration, as it would remove the need to substantially redesign the core stage to accommodate an extra engine.[23]
  • Block I and IB: 8.4 meter core with four RS-25D/E engines.[11]
  • Block II: Initially planned to use five RS-25D/E engines,[12] Block II is now expected to use four engines like Block I and IB.[3]
In January 2015, NASA began test firing of RS-25 engines in preparation for use on SLS.[24]

Boosters


Artist concept showing NASA’s Space Launch System with two 5 segment SRB boosters rolling to a launchpad at Kennedy Space Center at night.

Comparison of the Saturn V, Space Shuttle, and SLS Block I

In addition to the thrust produced by the engines on the core stage, the first two minutes of flight will be aided by two rocket boosters mounted to either side of the core stage.

Shuttle-derived solid rocket boosters

Blocks I and IB of the SLS will use modified Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), extended from four segments to five segments. Unlike the Space Shuttle boosters, these will not be recovered and will sink into the Atlantic Ocean downrange.[25] Alliant Techsystems (ATK), the builder of the Space Shuttle SRBs, has completed three full-scale, full-duration static fire tests of the five-segment rocket booster. Development motor (DM-1) was successfully tested on September 10, 2009; DM-2 was tested on August 31, 2010, and DM-3 on September 8, 2011. The DM-2 motor was cooled to a core temperature of 40 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius), and DM-3 was heated to above 90 °F (32 °C). These tests validated motor performance at extreme temperatures, in addition to other objectives.[26][27][28] Each five-segment SRB produces 3,600,000 lbf (16 MN) of thrust at sea level.

Advanced boosters

NASA will eventually switch from Shuttle-derived five-segment SRBs to upgraded boosters[29] These may be of either the solid rocket or liquid rocket booster type.[11] NASA originally planned to incorporate these advanced boosters in the Block IA configuration of SLS, but this was superseded by Block IB, which will continue to use five-segment SRBs combined with a new upper stage,[30] after it was determined that the Block IA configuration would result in high acceleration which would be unsuitable for Orion and could result in a costly redesign of the Block I core.[31] Prior to the selection of Block IB, NASA intended to begin the Advanced Booster Competition,[3][32][33] which would have selected an advanced booster in 2015. Though NASA is no longer planning on selecting new boosters for the first flights of SLS,[34] competitors for the SLS Block II advanced booster include:
  • Aerojet, in partnership with Teledyne Brown, with a domestic version of an uprated Soviet NK-33 LOX/RP-1 engine, an engine derived from the NK-15 initially designed to lift the unsuccessful N-1 Soviet moonshot vehicle, with each engine's thrust increased from 394,000 lbf (1.75 MN) to at least 500,000 lbf (2.2 MN) at sea level. This booster would be powered by eight AJ-26-500 engines,[35] or four AJ-1E6 engines[36] On February 14, 2013, NASA awarded a $23.3 million 30-month contract Aerojet to build a full-scale main injector and thrust chamber for a 550,000-pound thrust class engine to be used in the advanced booster.[37]
  • Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and Dynetics, with a liquid-fueled booster design known as "Pyrios", which would use two F-1B engines derived from the F-1 LOX/RP-1 engine that powered the first stage of the Saturn V vehicle in the Apollo program. In 2012, it was determined that if the dual-engined Pyrios booster was selected for the SLS Block II, the payload could be 150 metric tons (t) to Low Earth Orbit, 20 t more than the baseline 130 t to LEO for SLS Block II.[38] In 2013, it was reported that in comparison to the F-1 engine that it is derived from, the F-1B engine is to have improved efficiency, be more cost effective and have fewer engine parts.[39] Each F-1B is to produce 1,800,000 lbf (8.0 MN) of thrust at sea level, an increase over the 1,550,000 lbf (6.9 MN) of thrust of the initial F-1 engine.[40]
  • ATK proposed an advanced SRB named "Dark Knight" with more energetic propellant, a lighter composite case, and other design improvements to reduce costs and improve performance. ATK states it provides "capability for the SLS to achieve 130 t payload with significant margin" when combined with a Block II core stage containing five RS-25 engines. However, the advanced SRB would achieve no more than 113 t to low earth orbit with the current core stage with four RS-25 engines.[3][38][41]
Christopher Crumbly, manager of NASA’s SLS advanced development office in January 2013 commented on the booster competition, "The F-1 has great advantages because it is a gas generator and has a very simple cycle. The oxygen-rich staged combustion cycle [Aerojet’s engine] has great advantages because it has a higher specific impulse. The Russians have been flying ox[ygen]-rich for a long time. Either one can work. The solids [of ATK] can work."[42]

Upper stage


An RL10 engine, like the one pictured above, will be used as the second stage engine in both the ICPS and EUS upper stages.

The upper stage for the interim SLS Block I is designated the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage and uses a single RL10 engine. The SLS Block IB's 2nd stage is designated the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) and uses four RL10 engines. Prior to the selection of the EUS, NASA considered the Earth Departure Stage, a second stage powered by two or three J-2X engines,[43][44] which has been dropped in favor of the RL10 powered EUS.[30]

Confirmed upper stages

  • Block I, scheduled to fly only Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1) by November 2018,[2] will use a modified Delta IV 5 meter Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS),[45] referred to as the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS). This stage will be powered by a single RL10B-2. SLS will be capable of lifting 70 metric tons in this configuration, however the ICPS will be considered part of the payload and be placed into an initial 1,800 km by -93 km suborbital trajectory along with the Orion crew capsule, where the stage will perform an orbital insertion burn and then a translunar injection burn to send the uncrewed Orion on a circumlunar excursion.[46]
  • Block IB's second stage, scheduled to debut on Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2), will use the 8.4 meter Exploration Upper Stage (EUS), previously named the Dual Use Upper Stage (DUUS), powered by four RL10 engines.[30] The EUS is to complete the SLS ascent phase and then re-ignite to send its payload to destinations beyond low Earth orbit, similar to the role performed by the Saturn V's 3rd stage, the J-2 powered S-IVB. An analysis by NASA and Boeing prior to the selection of the EUS indicated an upper stage with four RL10 engines would be capable of lifting about 93 metric tons to orbit with an upper stage propellant load of 231,000 lb (105,000 kg).[47] The EUS design calls for a propellant load of up to 285,000 lb (129,000 kg).[48]
  • Block II, not expected until the 2030s,[31] would combine the Block IB EUS with advanced boosters and be capable of placing more than 130 metric tons into LEO or up to 155 metric tons into LEO with the liquid booster designs.[49][50]

Potential upper stages

Prior to the selection of the EUS for Block IB, NASA and Boeing analyzed the performance of several second stage options. The analysis was based on a second stage usable propellant load of 105 metric tons, except for the Block I and ICPS, which will carry 27.1 metric tons. These options are the following:[51]
  • Block I SLS without an upper stage would be capable of delivering 70 t to low earth orbit (LEO), and, using the ICPS, 20.2 t to Trans-Mars injection (TMI) and 2.9 t to Europa.
  • A 4 engine RL10 upper stage could deliver 93.1 t to LEO, 31.7 t to TMI and 8.1 t to Europa.
  • A 2 engine MB60 (an engine comparable to the RL60)[52] upper stage could deliver 97 t to LEO, 32.6 t to TMI and 8.5 t to Europa.
  • A single engine J-2X upper stage, with higher thrust than other options, could deliver 105.2 t to LEO, but the lower specific impulse of the J-2X would decrease its beyond-LEO capability to 31.6 t to TMI and 7.1 to Europa.
Robotic exploration missions to Jupiter's water ice moon - Europa, are increasingly seen as well suited to the lift capabilities of the Block IB SLS.[53]

Interplanetary stage


The Bimodal Nuclear Thermal Rocket engines on the Mars Transfer Vehicle (MTV). Cold launched, it would be assembled in-orbit by a number of Block II SLS payload lifts. The Orion crew capsule is docked on the right.

An additional beyond LEO engine for interplanetary travel from Earth orbit to Mars orbit, and back, is being studied as of 2013 at Marshall Space Flight Center with a focus on nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) engines.[54] In historical ground testing, NTRs proved to be at least twice as efficient as the most advanced chemical engines, allowing quicker transfer time and increased cargo capacity. The shorter flight duration, estimated at 3-4 months with NTR engines,[55] compared to 8-9 months using chemical engines,[56] would reduce crew exposure to potentially harmful and difficult to shield cosmic rays.[57][58][59][60] NTR engines, such as the Pewee of Project Rover, were selected in the Mars Design Reference Architecture (DRA).[61][62][63][64]

Assembled rocket

The SLS will have the ability to tolerate a minimum of 13 tanking cycles due to launch scrubs and other launch delays before launch. The assembled rocket is to be able to remain at the launch pad for a minimum of 180 days and can remain in stacked configuration for at least 200 days without destacking.[65]

Program costs

During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18 billion through 2017, with $10 billion for the SLS rocket, $6 billion for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2 billion for upgrades to the launch pad and other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[66] These costs and schedule are considered optimistic in an independent 2011 cost assessment report by Booz Allen Hamilton for NASA.[67] An unofficial 2011 NASA document estimated the cost of the program through 2025 to total at least $41bn for four 70 t launches (1 unmanned, 3 manned),[68] with the 130 t version ready no earlier than 2030.[69] HEFT estimated unit costs for Block 0 at $1.6bn and Block 1 at $1.86bn in 2010.[70] However since these estimates were made the Block 0 was dropped in late 2011 and is no longer being designed,[23] and NASA announced in 2013 that the European Space Agency will build the Orion Service Module.[71]
NASA SLS deputy project manager Jody Singer at Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama stated in September 2012 that $500 million per launch is a reasonable target cost for SLS, with a relatively minor dependence of costs on launch capability.[1] By comparison, the cost for a Saturn V launch was US$185 million in 1969 dollars,[72] which is roughly US$1.2 billion in 2014 dollars.[citation needed]

On July 24, 2014, Government Accountability Office audit predicted that SLS will not launch by the end of 2017 as originally planned since NASA is not receiving sufficient funding.[73]

Fabrication

In mid-November 2014, construction of the first SLS began using the new welding system at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility, where major rocket parts will be assembled.[74]

Alternatives

The Space Access Society, Space Frontier Foundation and the Planetary Society called for cancellation of the project, arguing that SLS will consume the funds for other projects from the NASA budget and will not reduce launch costs;[75][76][77] some estimate this cost for the SLS to be about $8,500 per pound lifted to low earth orbit (LEO).[78][better source needed] U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher and others added that instead, a propellant depot should be developed and the Commercial Crew Development program accelerated.[75][79][80][81][82] Two studies, one not publicly released from NASA[83][84] and another from the Georgia Institute of Technology, show this option to be a possibly cheaper alternative.[85][86]

Others suggest it will cost less to use an existing lower payload capacity rocket (Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, or the derivative Falcon Heavy), with on-orbit assembly and propellant depots as needed, rather than develop a new launch vehicle for space exploration without competition for the whole design.[87][88][89][90][91] The Augustine commission proposed an option for a commercial 75 metric ton launcher with lower operating costs, and noted that a 40 to 60 t launcher can support lunar exploration.[92]

Mars Society founder Robert Zubrin, who co-authored the Mars Direct concept, suggested that a heavy lift vehicle should be developed for $5 billion on fixed-price requests for proposal. Zubrin also disagrees with those that say the U.S. does not need a heavy-lift vehicle.[93] Based upon extrapolations of increased payload lift capabilities from past experience with SpaceX's Falcon launch vehicles, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk guaranteed that his company could build the conceptual Falcon XX, a vehicle in the 140-150 t payload range, for $2.5 billion, or $300 million per launch, but cautioned that this price tag did not include a potential upper-stage upgrade.[94][95] SpaceX's privately-funded MCT launch vehicle, powered by nine Raptor engines, has also been proposed for lofting very large payloads from Earth in the 2020s.[96]

Rep. Tom McClintock and other groups argue that the Congressional mandates forcing NASA to use Space Shuttle components for SLS amounts to a de facto non-competitive, single source requirement assuring contracts to existing shuttle suppliers, and calling the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate possible violations of the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA).[76][97][98] Opponents of the heavy launch vehicle have critically used the name "Senate launch system".[45] The Competitive Space Task Force, in September 2011, said that the new government launcher directly violates NASA’s charter, the Space Act, and the 1998 Commercial Space Act requirements for NASA to pursue the "fullest possible engagement of commercial providers" and to "seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space".[75]

Proposed missions and schedule

Some of the currently proposed NASA Design Reference Missions (DRM) and others include:[12][99][62][100][101]

An astronaut, possibly part of Exploration Mission 2, performing a tethering asteroid capture maneuver at a near-earth object (NEO). The Space Exploration Vehicle is close by, with the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) docked to the Deep Space Habitat in the background.
  • ISS Back-Up Crew Delivery – a single launch mission of up to four astronauts via a Block 1 SLS/Orion-MPCV without an Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) to the International Space Station (ISS) if the Commercial Crew Development program does not come to fruition. This potential mission mandated by the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 is deemed undesirable since the 70 t SLS and BEO Orion would be overpriced and overpowered for the mission requirements. Its current description is "delivers crew members and cargo to ISS if other vehicles are unable to perform that function. Mission length 216 mission days. 6 crewed days. Up to 210 days at the ISS."
  • Tactical timeframe DRMs
    • BEO Uncrewed Lunar Fly-byExploration Mission 1 (EM-1), a reclassification of SLS-1, is a single-launch mission of a Block I SLS with ICPS and a Block 1 Orion MPCV, with a destination of 70,000 km past the lunar surface.[102] Its current description is "Uncrewed Lunar Flyby: Uncrewed mission Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO) to test critical mission events and demonstrate performance in relevant environments. Expected drivers include: SLS and ICPS performance, MPCV environments, MPCV re-entry speed, and BEO operations."[99]
    • BEO Crewed Lunar OrbitExploration Mission 2 (EM-2), a reclassification of SLS-2, is a single-launch mission of a Block I SLS with ICPS and lunar Block 1 Orion MPCV with a liftoff mass around 68.8 t with SLS' payload insertion of 50.7 t, which would be a 10- to 14-day mission with a crew of four astronauts who would spend four days in lunar orbit. Its current description is "Crewed mission to enter lunar orbit, test critical mission events, and perform operations in relevant environments". The destination for EM-2, as of 2013, is regarded to be a captured asteroid in lunar orbit, to be conducted by no later than 2021.[102]

Artist's rendering of the proposed Mars Transfer Vehicle (MTV) "Copernicus" that would incorporate NTR propulsion and inflatable habitat technology. A five-meter-diameter crewed Orion MPCV is docked on the far left.

Artist's rendering of Design Reference Mission 5.0, a manned mission to Mars with the Descent/Ascent Vehicle on the far left, and the habitat and crewed commuter vehicle, the Small Pressurized Rover (SPR),[103] on the right. The oxygen producing In-Situ Resource Utilization factory would be emplaced about 1 km away.[104]
  • Strategic timeframe DRMs
    • GEO mission – a dual-launch mission separated by 180 days to geostationary orbit. The first launch would comprise an SLS with a CPS and cargo hauler, the second an SLS with a CPS and Orion MPCV. Both launches would have a mass of about 110 t.
    • A set of lunar missions enabled in the early 2020s ranging from Earth-Moon Lagrangian point-1 (EML-1) and low lunar orbit (LLO) to a lunar surface mission. These missions would lead to a lunar base combining commercial and international aspects.
      • The first two missions would be single launches of SLS with a CPS and Orion MPCV to EML-1 or LLO and would have a mass of 90 t and 97.5 t respectively. The LLO mission is a crewed 12-day mission with three in lunar orbit. Its current description is "Low Lunar Orbit (LLO): Crewed mission to LLO. Expected drivers include: SLS and CPS performance, MPCV re-entry speed, and LLO environment for MPCV".
      • The lunar surface mission set for the late 2020s would be a dual launch separated by 120 days. This would be a 19-day mission with seven days on the Moon's surface. The first launch would comprise an SLS with a CPS and lunar lander, the second an SLS with a CPS and Orion MPCV. Both would enter LLO for lunar-orbit rendezvous prior to landing at equatorial or polar sites on the Moon. Launches would have masses of about 130 t and 108 t, respectively. Its current description is "Lunar Surface Sortie (LSS): Lands four crew members on the surface of the Moon in the equatorial or polar regions and returns them to Earth," "Expected drivers include: MPCV operations in LLO environment, MPCV uncrewed ops phase, MPCV delta V requirements, RPOD (rendezvous, proximity operations and docking), MPCV number of habitable days.”
    • Five Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) missions ranging from "minimum" to "full" capability are being studied. Among these are two NASA Near Earth Object (NEO) missions in 2026. A 155-day mission to NEO 1999 AO10, a 304-day mission to NEO 2001 GP2, a 490-day mission to a potentially hazardous asteroid such as 2000 SG344, utilizing two Block IA/B SLS vehicles,[105] and a Boeing-proposed NEO mission to NEA 2008 EV5 in 2024. The latter would start from the proposed Earth-Moon L2 based Exploration Gateway Platform. Utilising an SLS third stage the trip would take about 100 days to arrive at the asteroid, 30 days for exploration, and a 235-day return trip to Earth.[106]
    • Forward Work Martian Moon Phobos/Deimos, a crewed flexible path mission to one of the Martian moons. It would include 40 days in the vicinity of Mars and a return Venus flyby.
    • Forward Work Mars Landing, a crewed mission, with four to six astronauts,[107] to a semi-permanent habitat for at least 540 days on the surface of the red planet in 2033 or 2045. The mission would include in-orbit assembly, with the launch of seven SLS Block II heavy-lift vehicles (HLVs) with a requirement of each being able to deliver 140 metric tons to low earth orbit (LEO). The seven HLV payloads, three of which would contain nuclear propulsion modules, would be assembled in LEO into three separate vehicles for the journey to Mars; one cargo In-Situ Resource Utilization Mars Lander Vehicle (MLV) created from two HLV payloads, one Habitat MLV created from two HLV payloads and a crewed Mars Transfer Vehicle (MTV), known as "Copernicus", assembled from three HLV payloads launched a number of months later. Nuclear Thermal Rocket engines such as the Pewee of Project Rover were selected in the Mars Design Reference Architecture (DRA) study as they met mission requirements being the preferred propulsion option because it is proven technology, has higher performance, lower launch mass, creates a versatile vehicle design, offers simple assembly, and has growth potential.[62][108]

One section of the Skylab II Habitat would be made from the SLS Block II upper-stage hydrogen tank, similar to but larger than Skylab. A unique use for the SLS as no other vehicle is presently being designed with an 8-meter-diameter upper stage tank.

One proposed ATLAST concept, a design based on an 8-meter monolithic mirror. The Hubble Space Telescope by comparison is equipped with a 2.5 m main mirror. A telescope with an 8-meter monolithic mirror is possible only with a payload fairing bigger than 8 meters in diameter.
  • Other proposed missions
    • 2024+ Single Shot MSR on SLS, a crewed flight with a telerobotic Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission proposed by NASA's Mars Program Planning Group. The time frame suggests SLS-5, a 105 t Block 1A rocket to deliver an Orion capsule, SEP robotic vehicle, and Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV). "Sample canister could be captured, inspected, encased and retrieved tele-robotically. Robot brings sample back and rendezvous with a crew vehicle." The mission may also include a "Possible Mars SEP (Solar Electric Power/Propulsion) Orbiter".[109]
    • Potential sample return missions to Europa and Enceladus have also been noted.[110]
    • Deep Space Habitat (DSH), NASA's planned usage of spare ISS hardware, experience, and modules for future missions to asteroids, Earth-Moon Lagrangian point and Mars.[111]
    • Skylab II, proposal by Brand Griffin, an engineer with Gray Research Inc working with NASA Marshall, to use the upper stage hydrogen tank from SLS to build a 21st-century version of Skylab for future NASA missions to asteroids, Earth-Moon Lagrangian point-2 (EML2) and Mars.[112][113][114]
    • SLS DoD Missions, the HLV will be made available for U.S. Department of Defense and other US government agencies to launch military or classified missions.
    • Commercial payloads, such as the Bigelow Commercial Space Stations have also been referenced.
    • Additionally "secondary payloads" mounted on SLS via an Encapsulated Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) ring could also be launched in conjunction with a "primary passenger" to maximize payloads.
    • Monolithic telescope mission, SLS has been proposed by Boeing as a launch vehicle for the Advanced Technology Large-Aperture Space Telescope (ATLAST). This could be an 8 m monolithic telescope or a 16 m deployable telescope at Earth-Sun L2.[115]
    • Solar probe mission, SLS has been proposed by Boeing as a launch vehicle for Solar Probe 2. This probe would be placed in a low perihelion orbit to investigate corona heating and solar wind acceleration to provide forecasting of solar radiation events.[115]
    • Uranus mission, SLS has been proposed by Boeing as a launch vehicle for a Uranian probe. The rocket would "Deliver a small payload into orbit around Uranus and a shallow probe into the planet’s atmosphere." The mission would study the Uranian atmosphere, magnetic and thermal characteristics, gravitational harmonics as well as do flybys of Uranian moons.[115]
Planned SLS missions
(as of 2014)
Mission Targeted date Variant Notes
SLS-1/EM-1 By November 2018[2] Block I[12] Send uncrewed Orion/MPCV on trip around the Moon.
SLS-2/EM-2 2021[116] Block IB[30] Send the Orion (spacecraft) with four crew members to an asteroid that had been robotically captured and placed in lunar orbit two years in advance.[105]

Funding

In Fiscal Year 2015, NASA received an appropriation of US$1.7 billion from Congress for SLS, an amount that was approximately US$320 million greater than the amount requested by the Obama administration.[117]

Algorithmic information theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_information_theory ...