From Science @NASA: A pair of NASA spacecraft that were supposed to be dead last year are instead flying to the Moon for a breakthrough mission in lunar orbit.
“Their real names are THEMIS P1 and P2, but I call them ‘dead spacecraft walking,'” says Vassilis Angelopoulos of UCLA, principal investigator of the THEMIS mission. “Not long ago they appeared to be doomed, but now they are beginning an incredible new adventure.”
The story begins in 2007 when NASA launched a fleet of five spacecraft into Earth’s magnetosphere to study the physics of geomagnetic storms. Collectively, they were called THEMIS, short for “Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms.” P1 and P2 were the outermost members of the quintet.
Working together, the probes quickly discovered a cornucopia of previously unknown phenomena such as colliding auroras, magnetic spacequakes, and plasma bullets shooting up and down Earth’s magnetic tail. This has allowed researchers to solve several longstanding mysteries of the Northern Lights.
The mission was going splendidly, except for one thing: Occasionally, P1 and P2 would pass through the shadow of Earth. The solar powered spacecraft were designed to go without sunlight for as much as three hours at a time, so a small amount of shadowing was no problem. But as the mission wore on, their orbits evolved and by 2009 the pair was spending as much as 8 hours a day in the dark.
“The two spacecraft were running out of power and freezing to death,” says Angelopoulos. “We had to do something to save them.”
The team brainstormed a solution. Because the mission had gone so well, the spacecraft still had an ample supply of fuel–enough to go to the Moon. “We could do some great science from lunar orbit,” he says. NASA approved the trip and in late 2009, P1 and P2 headed away from the shadows of Earth.
With a new destination, the mission needed a new name. The team selected ARTEMIS, the Greek goddess of the Moon. It also stands for “Acceleration, Reconnection, Turbulence and Electrodynamics of the Moon’s Interaction with the Sun.”
The first big events of the ARTEMIS mission are underway now. On August 25, 2010, ARTEMIS-P1 reached the L2 Lagrange point on the far side of the Moon. Following close behind, ARTEMIS-P2 entered the opposite L1 Lagrange point on Oct. 22nd. Lagrange points are places where the gravity of Earth and Moon balance, creating a sort of gravitational parking spot for spacecraft.
“We’re exploring the Earth-Moon Lagrange points for the first time,” says Manfred Bester, Mission Operations Manager from the University of California at Berkeley, where the mission is operated. “No other spacecraft have orbited there.”
Because they lie just outside Earth’s magnetosphere, Lagrange points are excellent places to study the solar wind. Sensors onboard the ARTEMIS probes will have in situ access to solar wind streams and storm clouds as they approach our planet—a possible boon to space weather forecasters. Moreover, working from opposite Lagrange points, the two spacecraft will be able to measure solar wind turbulence on scales never sampled by previous missions.
“ARTEMIS is going to give us a fundamental new understanding of the solar wind,” predicts David Sibeck, ARTEMIS project scientist at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “And that’s just for starters.”
ARTEMIS will also explore the Moon’s plasma wake—a turbulent cavity carved out of the solar wind by the Moon itself, akin to the wake just behind a speedboat. Sibeck says “this is a giant natural laboratory filled with a whole zoo of plasma waves waiting to be discovered and studied.”
Another target of the ARTEMIS mission is Earth’s magnetotail. Like a wind sock at a breezy airport, Earth’s magnetic field is elongated by the action of the solar wind, forming a tail that stretches to the orbit of the Moon and beyond. Once a month around the time of the full Moon, the ARTEMIS probes will follow the Moon through the magnetotail for in situ observations.
“We are particularly hoping to catch some magnetic reconnection events,” says Sibeck. “These are explosions in Earth’s magnetotail that mimic solar flares–albeit on a much smaller scale.” ARTEMIS might even see giant ‘plasmoids’ accelerated by the explosions hitting the Moon during magnetic storms.
These far-out explorations may have down-to-Earth applications. Plasma waves and reconnection events pop up on Earth, e.g., in experimental fusion chambers. Fundamental discoveries by ARTEMIS could help advance research in the area of clean renewable energy.
After six months at the Lagrange points, ARTEMIS will move in closer to the Moon—at first only 100 km from the surface and eventually even less than that. From point-blank range, the spacecraft will look to see what the solar wind does to a rocky world when there’s no magnetic field to protect it.
“Earth is protected from solar wind by the planetary magnetic field,” explains Angelopolous. “The Moon, on the other hand, is utterly exposed. It has no global magnetism.”
Studying how the solar wind electrifies, alters and erodes the Moon’s surface could reveal valuable information for future explorers and give planetary scientists a hint of what’s happening on other unmagnetized worlds around the solar system.
Orbiting the Moon is notoriously tricky, however, because of irregularities in the lunar gravitational field. Enormous concentrations of mass (mascons) hiding just below the surface tug on spacecraft in unexpected ways, causing them over time to veer out of orbit. ARTEMIS will mitigate this problem using highly elongated orbits ranging from tens of km to 18,000 km.
“We’ll only be near the lunar surface for a brief time each orbit (accumulating a sizable dataset over the years),” explains Angelopoulos. “Most of the time we’ll linger 18,000 km away where we can continue our studies of the solar wind at a safe distance.”
The Dead Spacecraft Walking may have a long life ahead, after all.
Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is reminiscent of the the change in Pioneer 11’s plan. Originally it was only going to pass Jupiter, but if I recall correctly, during transit someone found it could take a trajectory that would take it past Saturn.
Space probes that last beyond their design life open up some really neat possibilities.
http://themis.ssl.berkeley.edu/overview.shtml says two probes (these?) got 20 and 30 Earth radii out as part of the primary mission. That’s really far out of the Earth’s gravity well, so that and likely good fuel management made this new mission possible.
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2010 at 1:35 am
….and moon’s different negative emission fields in perigee and apogee:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39961403/Eccentricity-Field
RACookPE1978 says:
October 28, 2010 at 6:04 am
> Have they solved the classic three-body problem yet from first principles? I thought that was still considered too complex.
First principles? There’s really only one – Newton’s law of gravitation. A long time ago I wrote a program to figure out sunrise/sunset times from the physics, and even in two body problems there’s an issue that can’t be solved. Something like given the time since perigee, the location on the orbit can’t be determined due to an integration that can’t be solved. (Clearly some times and some orbits have solutions, e.g. after time of one half the orbital period you’re at the apogee, and circular orbits are deterministic.)
[Jean Meeus – feel free to correct me if I have this wrong!]
The obvious chaos in 3 body dynamics makes it pretty clear there’s no hope of deriving an equation for their orbits.
This is the good thing about NASA. I know an old”Steely Eyed Rocket man” who’ll
be proud of this . This is what they are supposed to do. Not “Islamic outreach”…
Enneagram says:
October 28, 2010 at 7:28 am
….and moon’s different negative emission fields in perigee and apogee
This is pseudo science
I love these guys. They continuously find ways to do more with less.
Unlike the bastions of education (where I work), where we seem to do far less with more.
@Jeremy:
>> … How can that be?
> In a normal gravity-well orbit, the relationship is somewhat easy to
> understand.
> Something is pulling on you in one direction, and if you get enough speed
> at a right angle to that acceleration, you can avoid ever falling in.
> LaGrange points operate somewhat differently.
Actually, these LaGrange L1 and L2 objects operate the same as any other objects in orbit around the Earth. The difference is that the Moon subtracts and adds gravitational pull to L1 and L2 respectively, changing the orbital speeds so that they remain ‘stationary’ with respect to the Moon.
Reread my post, I wasn’t asking for an explanation. My question was rhetorical. 😐
Great navigation even if the outer 2 satellites were already almost half way to the moon prior to departure. Of course all that fuel was for orbit correction, a possible but likely undesirable option given the redundant nature of the mission instruments. This option was probably in the works as a possibility for a while, by some really clever and optimistic design team. Here is a recitation of the instrumentation;
“Each satellite carries identical instrumentation, including a fluxgate magnetometer (FGM), an electrostatic analyzer (ESA), a solid state telescope (SST), a search-coil magnetometer (SCM) and an electric field instrument (EFI).”
As many stated, congratulations NASA. This is real science by real scientists, And this after this team has already solved the prime mission goal with certainty.
John Coleman says:
October 28, 2010 at 1:11 am
This is a true scientific adventure with no pre-determined outcome. These researchers only strive to collect totally new data to advance our understanding…
~~~~~~~~
^This.
Well said, John. I was going to post something similar, only to see your first post summed up my thoughts exactly. It’s nice to see NASA doing some true, space-based, scientific research. Especially nice to see it done without any preconceived bias as to what they [want to] find.
So Dr Phillips; I constantly marvel at the way some people at NASA are able to react to unplanned “anomalies” and figure some way to rescue an apparently dead mission. This is such an example.
So I have a question; relating to the drunken sailor orbits of these two ships about L1 and L2. Are they the result of just not doing a perfect job of getting the car in the parking spot; or is it that L1 nd L2 are not exactly stationary points in a multibody orbit system; so they will roam forever ? Or will they eventually settle down pretty much at L1 and L2 ?
“”” Ric Werme says:
October 28, 2010 at 7:29 am
RACookPE1978 says:
October 28, 2010 at 6:04 am
> Have they solved the classic three-body problem yet from first principles? I thought that was still considered too complex.
First principles? There’s really only one – Newton’s law of gravitation. A long time ago I wrote a program to figure out sunrise/sunset times from the physics, and even in two body problems there’s an issue that can’t be solved. Something like given the time since perigee, the location on the orbit can’t be determined due to an integration that can’t be solved. (Clearly some times and some orbits have solutions, e.g. after time of one half the orbital period you’re at the apogee, and circular orbits are deterministic.)
[Jean Meeus – feel free to correct me if I have this wrong!]
The obvious chaos in 3 body dynamics makes it pretty clear there’s no hope of deriving an equation for their orbits. “””
I hate to correct trivial arithmetic misteaks; but If I add 1.sun + 2.earth + 3.moon + 4. Lagrange 1or 2, I come up with a count of four bodies not three. (for each of L1/L2)
A three body orbital problem in the solar system would be the Jupiter Trojans . Yes I know there’s a whole lot of extra perturbatory bodies !
As I understand it; the “Three Body Problem ” is an (elementary) problem of Newtonian Orbital Physics, that simply has no general case closed form solution. But it has special case solutions; or at least one such, namely an equilateral triangle of three point objects of arbitrary masses. I suspect that depending on the three masses; there is some “noisy” perturbations of the exact (plane) geometry; that are stable; and presumably could return to exactitude; but I have absolutely no idea how extensive such a noisiness is permitted; nor how it might depend on the three masses; but at some level of perturbation the system has to blow up. The point object restriction I believe is necessary; because otherwise the finite moments of inertia of each object would screw things up; but maybe even that isn’t true ?
The Lagrange point architecture is something that was completely unknown to me until very recently; when it appeared in some weird NASA orbital discussion; which might have been right here at WUWT. Totally blew me away.
Dang, I had found a cute paper calculating the stability of L1 and L2 last month from a link off a NASA page, but I cant find it now. I thought I had book marked it. It was a very nice presentation using rotating reference frames.
[A reason why I use “Bookmark -> Science -> NASA -> Orbits;
Bookmark -> Science -> MWP;
Bookmark -> Science -> Hurricanes, etc.
I’m not smart enough any more to remember where I put stuff otherwise. 8<)
George E. Smith says:
October 28, 2010 at 9:29 am
namely an equilateral triangle of three point objects of arbitrary masses. […] The point object restriction I believe is necessary
This is a common misconception. It is enough that the objects are spherically symmetric. Also, L4 and L5 are ‘stable’ against small perturbations [for large enough mass ratios]. L1, L2, and L3 require slight ‘station keeping’ [small corrections to the spacecraft position].
George E. Smith
October 28, 2010 at 9:29 am
A solution to the three body problem in classic euclidean space is impossible because the number of unknown constants is greater the the number of known parameters. However a solution might be possible assuming curved space but the derivation could be a nightmare. In any rate, as can be seen from the mess that is depicted in the L1 to L2 transfer, a general solution would end up being a nasty parametrized system of equations. BTW, that diagram only shows what is happening in the orbital plane. It does not show what is going on in the “z” axis!
racookpe1978
October 28, 2010 at 9:55 am
Alas, I am at work and not on my home system 🙁
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2010 at 7:54 am
You will have to revisit Pythagoras. From thousand of years ago knowledge was transmitted by simple, very simple symbols, as the Pythagorean Tetraktis. The fundamental laws of the cosmos are as simple. This was so until the church invented the concept of “inmateriality”, which of course it does not have any reality whatsoever, that took us to irrational extremes as to belief in black holes and multi dimensional realities. Sorry but the universe is material and eternal and it works by the action of just two forces: call it whatsoever, oriental people call them ying and yang, we, occidentals call it, electricity, positive and negative charges. Revisit Pythagoras and you will learn that he just have a simple Monochord and his known theorem for exactly describing nature.
The origin of error can be traced to the phylosophy of agnosticism, where we humans were told by the then politicians of the church, that we were supposed to believe in Dogmas, inmaterial truths to believe in. The contrary philosophy, since then prohibited was that of gnosticism, which taught that knowledge of the laws of the universe was possible for man.
George E. Smith.
Observe,
http://images.wikilingue.com/f/f9/N-body_problem_%283%29.gif
http://images.wikilingue.com/thumb/8/88/Lagrange_points.jpg/330px-Lagrange_points.jpg
Very cool!
You run into a problem, take a look at available resources, and engineer a classy solution that yields some additional benefit from the machines already in space. Great example of good applied engineering and science at work.
@george
> Are they the result of just not doing a perfect job of getting the car in the
> parking spot; or is it that L1 nd L2 are not exactly stationary points
> in a multibody orbit system; so they will roam forever ?
Here’s a Java simulator where you can get some answers to these questions:
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/astro/galaxy/Galaxy0.html
You’ll learn that there are no exact solutions to this problem (even in this toy simulation). There many numerical approaches to solution. None perfect, all with varying degrees of instability. That’s why they have to fire those station-keeping engines once in a while, to keep the spacecraft in their halo orbits.
John Day says: “Reread my post, I wasn’t asking for an explanation. My question was rhetorical. :-|”
Who would bother answering a rhetorical question?
Don’t they think up some cool names for all these probes and space craft. Can’t wait for the launch of “Red Dwarf” or “Fireball XL5”.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXGGuqXB8h4
George E. Smith
October 28, 2010 at 9:06 am
#
To add to what
Leif Svalgaard
October 28, 2010 at 9:52 am
said:
The force vector field about the unstable point accelerates objects away. About the stable point, objects are accelerated towards the point. Think of L1 and L2 as being on a hill, push to far and objects fall off, and L4 and L5 as being in a valley.
> Who would bother answering a rhetorical question?
I would. Oops, sorry, didn’t realize that was a rhetorical question.
:-]
Jeez,…everyone is commenting on the Langrangian orbits. I’m more fascinated by the fact that they are going to use a variation of a Molniya orbit about the moon to get the apogee dwell time up for battery charging.
Mac the Knife is the only one who gets it. This mission wasn’t discovered, it was planned from the beginning. Predicting transit of the earth’s shadow for a satellite in high orbit isn’t that difficult; there is no possible way the orbits “evolved” over a mere two years in a way that would surprise anyone competent.
At best, this is nothing more than NASA shamelessly spinning a moderately clever re-use of hardware into a faux drama of rescuing dying satellites. The 2nd mission was planned long before launch in 2007, but it makes better press to talk about “dead satellites walking.”
See http://bit.ly/cng3aS (PDF file) “PRELIMINARY TRAJECTORY DESIGN FOR
THE ARTEMIS LUNAR MISSION”
“in 2005, the idea of sending P1 “up” instead of “down” was hatched and studied by the THEMIS science team and at JPL.” That’s nearly 2 years before THEMIS was launched.
The mission designers were unable to get approval and/or funding for the second mission at the time the satellites were being designed and built.
“proposals for funding were made in 2006 and 2007 to support a detailed low-energy trans-lunar trajectory design study, feasibility studies related to the THEMIS hardware, and optimization of the remaining THEMIS mission for P1 and P2. These proposals were not selected for funding, but concept development continued by the science team as time permitted.”
So they couldn’t get the mission approved, but they spent their tax-paid salaries developing it anyway.
The fawning press release states that “The two spacecraft were running out of power and freezing to death,” says Angelopoulos. “We had to do something to save them.”
Contrast that to the orbit design paper:
“In the summer of 2007, internal JPL funding became available to support an Explorer progam Mission of Opportunity proposal for the THEMIS mission extension that would become ARTEMIS.”
The summer of 2007 was less than 6 months after launch. The satellites hadn’t even reached their intial science orbits. The were never “running out of power and freezing to death.”
This is not a tale of ingenuity and innovation. It could just as easily be presented as a tale of fraud with tax dollars, deliberate misallocation of budgets, and diverting funds to work that did not survive the review and approval process. Then it gets spun as some sort of dramatic rescue mission.
This is indeed NASA creativity at it’s best. The AGW people could learn some lessons from this abuse of the tax-funded science mission planning process and the use of hyperbolic language to describe the results.
Had this been presented more honestly, I might be inclined to be more charitable. Lying to the public appears to be an inherent part of government-funded science.