Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Stephen Markham

Publications and source records attributed to Stephen Markham.

5 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Three-Dimensional Atmospheric Dynamics of Jupiter from Ground-Based Doppler Imaging Spectroscopy in the Visible

We present three-dimensional (3D) maps of Jupiter’s atmospheric circulation at cloud-top level from Doppler-imaging data obtained in the visible domain with JIVE, the second node of the JOVIAL network, which is mounted on the Dunn Solar Telescope at Sunspot, New Mexico. We report on 12 nights of observations between May 4 and May 30, 2018, representing a total of about 80 hours. Firstly, the average zonal wind profile derived from our data is compatible with that derived from cloud-tracking measurements performed on Hubble Space Telescope images obtained in April 2018 from the Outer Planet Atmospheres Legacy (OPAL) program. Secondly, we present the first ever two-dimensional maps of Jupiter’s atmospheric circulation from Doppler measurements. The zonal velocity map highlights well-known atmospheric features, such as the equatorial hot spots and the Great Red Spot (GRS). In addition to zonal winds, we derive meridional and vertical velocity fields from the Doppler data. The motions attributed to vertical flows are mainly located at the boundary between the equatorial belts and tropical zones, which could indicate active motion in these regions. Qualitatively, these results compare well to recent Juno data that have unveiled the three-dimensional structure of Jupiter’s wind field. To the contrary, the motions attributed to meridional circulation are very different from what is obtained by cloud tracking, except at the GRS. Because of limitations with data resolution and processing techniques, we acknowledge that our measurement of vertical or meridional flows of Jupiter are still to be confirmed.

Francois-Xavier Schmider↗
NASA NTRS2024

Multiple Probe Measurements at Uranus Motivated By Spatial Variability

Predictably, a major motivation for multiple atmospheric probe measurements at Uranus is the understanding of dynamic processes that create and maintain spatial variation in thermal structure, composition, and horizontal winds. But origin questions---regarding the planet's formation and evolution, and conditions in the protoplanetary disk---are also major science drivers for multiprobe exploration. Spatial variation in thermal structure reveals how the atmosphere transports heat from the interior, and measuring compositional variability in the atmosphere is key to ultimately gaining an understanding of the bulk abundances of several heavy elements. We review the current knowledge of spatial variability in Uranus' atmosphere, and we outline how multiple probe exploration would advance our understanding of this variability. The other giant planets are discussed, both to connect multiprobe exploration of those atmospheres to open questions at Uranus, and to demonstrate how multiprobe exploration of Uranus itself is motivated lessons learned about the spatial variation at Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune. We outline the measurements of highest value from miniature secondary probes (which would complement more detailed investigation by a larger flagship probe), and present the path toward overcoming current challenges and uncertainties in areas including mission design, cost, trajectory, instrument maturity, power, and timeline.

Uranus↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Multiple Probe Measurements at Uranus Motivated By Spatial Variability

Motivation: Spatial variations in the temperature field and composition of Uranus' atmosphere demonstrate a need for multiple entry probes to characterize vertical profiles in multiple locations. We will review variation of composition and temperature, which are produced by dynamical processes on a range of scales from global (polar anomalies, zonal bands) to regional (vortices, storms) [1–2]. In particular, the spatial variation of convective activity is not well understood based on existing remote sensing observations [3]. Understanding how these processes operate, and how they modulate variable composition, is key to constraining bulk atmospheric abundances. Abundances in turn provide cosmochemical constraints on planetary origins. Secondary probes at Uranus: Key measurements for secondary probes are temperature-pressure profiles, along with compositional profiles. Radio occultations are limited to shallow levels less than ~2 bar [4]. In situ temperature-pressure measurements (or atmospheric structure measurements) can unambiguously extend these results to deeper levels. Measurements with vertical resolution of at least 2 km are needed to characterize anomalies like the 1.2-bar feature from the Voyager 2 occultation at 2–6° S [4], which supports a range of temperature gradients depending on assumptions of composition. Simultaneous measurements of temperature, pressure, and composition are key to understanding this class of features. Species such as methane, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia must be measured along a probe descent profile because they vary over several orders of magnitude due to the strong temperature dependence of their saturation vapor pressures [e.g., 5]. Results of these measurements can be interpreted to understand the potential for moist convective activity in the atmosphere. Lessons from the other giant planets: On Jupiter, the Galileo Probe's entry into a meteorologically distinct five-micron hot spot led many to interpret the local composition as column-stretched, so that well-mixed abundances were reached at deeper levels than in surrounding, unperturbed regions [6–8]. Ground-based microwave measurements and Juno data now indicate that the deep depletion of ammonia is a very widespread atmospheric characteristic not limited to 5-µm hot spots [9–11]. But in the absence of multiple probes, we do not know if the other volatiles H2S and H2O behave in the same way. The open questions for the Jupiter case strongly motivate sending multiple probes to Uranus. On Saturn, retrievals of NH3 and PH3 abundances at shallow levels vary with latitude [12], but it is unknown how deep these differences extend, which is why a Saturn probe (or probes) was a mission theme for NASA's New Frontiers 4 and 5 opportunities [13]. Challenges for secondary probes: Cost is an issue due to the perception that it involves sacrifices to other mission elements. Spacecraft trajectories may be constrained by needs for orbit insertion that limit probe deliveries to different latitudes, and additional limitations may be placed on communication windows for probe descent phases (particularly if multiple probes are released from the orbiter simultaneously) [14]. Finally, composition sensors for miniature secondary probes are not at the required technological maturity [15]. Mass spectrometers are typically too large, massive, and powerhungry, while smaller nanosensors are only beginning to be developed for planetary missions. Finally, the need for probe survival heating is most easily met by radioisotope heat sources, but these require regulatory approvals that are even more difficult to satisfy compared to standard environmental reviews [16], unless the secondary probe is designed as a core element of a mission. References: [1] Molter E.M., et al. (2021) PSJ, 2, 3. [2] Rowe-Gurney N., et al. (2021) Icar, 365, 114506. [3] Hueso R., Sánchez-Lavega A. (2019) SSRv, 215, 52. [4] Lindal G.F., et al. (1987) JGR, 92, 14987– 15001. [5] Simon A.A., et al. (2022) RemS, 14, 1518. [6] Atreya, S.K., et al. (1997) in The Three Galileos: The Man, the Spacecraft, the Telescope, pp. 249–260 (C. Barbieri et al., eds.). [7] Showman A.P., Ingersoll A.P. (1998) Icar, 132, 205–220. [8] Friedson A.J. (2005) Icar, 177, 1–17. [9] de Pater I., et al. (2001) Icar, 149, 66–78. [10] Li C., et al. (2017) GeoRL, 44, 5317–5325. [11] de Pater I., et al. (2019) Icar, 322, 168–191. [12] Fletcher L.N., et al. (2009) Icar, 202, 543–564. [13] National Research Council (2011) Vision and Voyages. [14] Sayanagi K.M., et al. (2020) SSRv, 216, 72. [15] Wong M.H. et al. (2021) BAAS, 53, 486. [16] Zide A., Mendoza-Hill A., Cheney D. (2022) COSPAR Abstracts H0.6-0012-22.

Michael H Wong↗