Results for “Uranus orbiter” — Page 17

NASA NTRS1985

The enigma of the Uranian satellites' orbital eccentricities

The eccentricity decay times for the Uranian satellites are calculated using recent observations (Brown et al., 1982) of the diameters and orbital elements of the satellites and assuming reasonable dissipation functions and rigidities for icy satellites. For the outer two satellites, Titania and Oberon, the decay times are found to be very long, whereas the inner three satellites, Miranda, Ariel, and Umbriel, have decay times on the order of 10 to the 7th to 10 to the 8th years and have a near-commensurability in their mean motions that cannot force their eccentricities. There are several possible solutions for the lack of resonant forcing: (1) the reported eccentricities are incorrect, and are very nearly zero, (2) the reported mean motions are incorrect, and an exact commensurability exists, (3) the physical properties assumed for the satellites are grossly in error, and (4) the system is evolving rapidly, perhaps from a previous state of higher eccentricity. A new lower bound of about 17,000 on the dissipation function of Uranus is calculated from the mass of Ariel and its proximity to Uranus.

Squyres, S. W.↗

NASA NTRS1987

Shepherding of the Uranian rings. I - Kinematics. II - Dynamics

The possible kinematical relationships between the Uranian rings and all ten newly discovered satellites of Uranus are examined. Observational evidence is presented for interactions between 1986U7 and 1986U8 and the epsilon, delta, and gamma rings. The likelihood that these two satellites are shepherding the epsilon ring and are responsible for some of its internal structure is assessed, and the results are used to propose a reduction in the ring radius scale. It is also proposed that 1986U7 and 1986U8 are the inner and outer shepherds for the epsilon ring, that 1986U7 is the outer shepherd for the delta ring, and that 1986U8 is an outer shepherd for the gamma ring. The results of theoretical investigations of planetary ring dynamics are then applied to these associations, and their dynamical significance is evaluated. The resonant torques which the satellites exert on each ring are calculated and compared to the viscous torque which transports angular momentum outward through the ring and to the atmospheric-drag torque which causes the ring's orbit to decay.

Porco, Carolyn C.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Formation of Outer Planets: Overview

An overview of current theories of planetary formation, with emphasis on giant planets is presented. The most detailed models are based upon observation of our own Solar System and of young stars and their environments. Terrestrial planets are believe to grow via pairwise accretion until the spacing of planetary orbits becomes large enough that the configuration is stable for the age of the system. According to the prevailing core instability model, giant planets begin their growth by the accumulation of small solid bodies, as do terrestrial planets. However, unlike terrestrial planets, the growing giant cores become massive enough that they are able to accumulate substantial amounts of gas before the protoplanetary disk disspates. The primary questions regarding the core instability model is whether planets with small cores can accrete gaseous enveloples within the lifetimes of gaseous protoplanetary disks. The main alternative giant planet formation model is the disk instability model, in which gaseous planets form directly via gravitational instabilities within protoplanetary disks. Formation of giant planets via gas instability has never been demonstrated for realistic disk conditions. Moreover, this model has difficulty explaining the supersolar abundances of heavy elements in Jupiter and Saturn, and it does not explain the orgin of planets like Uranus and Neptune.

Lissauer, Jack↗

NASA NTRS2022

Giant Planet Atmospheres: Dynamics and Variability from UV to Near-IR Hubble and Adaptive Optics Imaging

Abstract: Each of the giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, has been observed by at least one robotic spacecraft mission. However, these missions are infrequent; Uranus and Neptune have only had a single flyby by Voyager 2. The Hubble Space Telescope, particularly the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) and Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) instruments, and large ground-based telescopes with adaptive optics systems have enabled high spatial resolution imaging at a higher cadence, and over a longer time, than can be achieved with targeted missions to these worlds. These facilities offer a powerful combination of high spatial resolution, often <0.05”, and broad wavelength coverage, from the ultraviolet through the near infrared, resulting in compelling studies of the clouds, winds, and atmospheric vertical structure. This coverage allows comparisons of atmospheric properties between the planets, as well as in different regions across each planet. Temporal variations in winds, cloud structure, and color over time scales of days to years, have been measured for all four planets. With several decades of data already obtained, we can now begin to investigate seasonal influences on dynamics and aerosol properties, despite orbital periods ranging from 12 to 165 years. Future facilities will enable even greater spatial resolution and, combined with our existing long record of data, will continue to advance our understanding of atmospheric evolution on the giant planets.

Amy A Simon↗

NASA NTRS1989

Voyager Encounter Highlights

The following are presented: computer animation of trajectories for both Voyagers 1 and 2; view of Jupiter during one orbit of Ganymede; computer animation of Voyager 2's encounter with Jupiter and its satellites; time lapse of the planet's rotation and its satellites; stroboscopic sequence of selected frames; cloud motion; Jupiter's Great Red Spot (4/25 - 5/24, 1979) through a violet filter; and the Great Red Spot through a blue filter by Voyager 1. The dynamics of Jupiter's clouds are shown - the whole planet is shown first, then two closer looks are repeated several times. Also included are pans of stills of Jupiter's satellites and a computer simulation tour of Saturn system from POV just behind Voyager, made of 116 images of Saturn through a green filter and of 516 images taken by Voyager 1 (9/12 - 9/14, 1980). Frames are enhanced to show the motion of features in Saturn's rings. Pans of stills of Saturn's satellites are shown. There is computer animation of the planet's system, rings, and Sigma Sagittari. Images on January 14, 1986 are through an orange filter. Uranus's satellites are shown as is computer animation of an August 1989 encounter.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2004

The Search for Young Planetary Systems And the Evolution of Young Stars

The Space Interferometer Mission (SIM) will provide a census of planetary systems by con- ducting a broad survey of 2,000 stars that will be sensitive to the presence of planets with masses as small as approx. 15 Earth masses (1 Uranus mass) and a deep survey of approx. 250 of the nearest, stars with a mass limit of approx.3 Earth masses. The broad survey will include stars spanning a wide range of ages, spectral types, metallicity, and other important parameters. Within this larger context, the Young Stars and Planets Key Project will study approx. 200 stars with ages from 1 Myr to 100 Myr to understand the formation and dynamical evolution of gas giant planets. The SIM Young Stars and Planets Project will investigate both the frequency of giant planet formation and the early dynamical history of planetary systems. We will gain insight into how common the basic architecture of our solar system is compared with recently discovered systems with close-in giant planets by examining 200 of the nearest (less than 150 pc) and youngest (1-100 Myr) solar-type stars for planets. The sensitivity of the survey for stars located 140 pc away is shown in the planet mass-separation plane. We expect to find anywhere from 10 (assuming that only the presently known fraction of stars. 5-7%, has planets) to 200 (all young stars have planets) planetary systems. W-e have set our sensitivity threshold to ensure the detection of Jupiter-mass planets in the critical orbital range of 1 to 5 AU. These observations, when combined with the results of planetary searches of mature stars, will allow us to test theories of planetary formation and early solar system evolution. By searching for planets around pre-main sequence stars carefully selected to span an age range from 1 to 100 Myr, we will learn a t what epoch and with what frequency giant planets are found at the water-ice snowline where they are expected to form. This will provide insight into the physical mechanisms by which planets form and migrate from their place of birth, and about their survival rate. With these data in hand, we will provide data, for the first time, on such important questions as: What processes affect the formation and dynamical evolution of planets? When and where do planets form? What is initial mass distribution of planetary systems around young stars? How might planets be destroyed? What is the origin of the eccentricity of planetary orbits? What is the origin of the apparent dearth of companion objects between planets and brown dwarfs seen in mature stars? The observational strategy is a compromise between the desire to extend the planetary mass function as low as possible and the essential need to build up sufficient statistics on planetary occurrence. About half of the sample will be used to address the "where" and "when" of planet formation. We will study classical T Tauri stars (cTTs) which have massive accretion disks and post- accretion, weak-lined T Tauri stars (wTTs). Preliminary estimates suggest the sample will consist of approx. 30% cTTs and approx. 70% wTTs, driven in part by the difficulty of making accurate astrometric measurements toward objects with strong variability or prominent disks.

Beichman, Charles A.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Ablators - From Apollo to Future Missions to Moon, Mars and Beyond

Apollo was designed to carry astronauts safely back from the Moon at return speeds exceeding 11 km/s and requireddevelopment of a new ablative thermal protection system (TPS) to protect the capsule from entry heating. Mercuryand Gemini, that preceded Apollo, were focused on Earth orbiting system demonstration and lessons learned fromthem were used in Apollo. The ablative material and associated system development for Lunar return conditionsrequired considerable ground and flight testing. Mars Viking Lander missions required a new lighter weight ablatoras entry heating was benign compared to Apollo. Pioneer-Venus and Galileo Probe missions required a new and morecapable ablator than Apollo. After two decades, Mars Pathfinder followed by Mars Exploration Rover missions,smaller than Viking but more demanding, were able to use Viking ablative TPS. At the same time, advances in manufacturing and materials technology led to development of innovative lightweight ablators. These new ablators enabled Stardust and Genesis Sample Return Missions. Around the turn of this century, NASA decided on a scaled-upversion of the Apollo capsule for human exploration of Moon and Mars and the ablative heat shield to protect the CrewExploration Vehicle ended up being the Apollo ablative TPS. The Artemis 1 mission is currently fitted with tiledsystem, different than Orion EFT-1 but with the Apollo ablative material as a result of lessons learned. NASA iscurrently planning on sample return missions from Mars, and this will require robust ablative TPS that can providehigher reliability than any other past mission. There are still unexplored high scientific value destinations in the solarsystem. In situ exploration of Uranus, Neptune, Saturn and sample return missions with return speed much higher thanStardust will require ablators capable of withstanding extreme entry that are also efficient. New ablative TPS havebeen developed in anticipation of these future missions. This paper is intended to tell the story of these ablators,illustrated through examples. We see the use of flight proven ablators was sometimes a risky proposition and newablators perceived to be higher risk have proved otherwise. The history of ablators illustrates the challenges eachmission had to address, either through the use of flight proven or new ablative TPS, to be successful.

Venkatapathy, Ethiraj↗

NASA NTRS2004

Transitsearch Workshop

The discovery of more than 100 planets around nearby solar-like stars that surpass Jupiter in size yet orbit their stars more quickly than Mercury has heralded a new era in astronomy. These enigmatic 'Hot-Jupiters' are large enough and close enough to their parent stars that their 'transits' can be captured by astronomers equipped with a small computer controlled telescope and a quality electronic CCD camera. The planet reveals its presence through the periodic decrease in brightness as it passes (or transits) in front of the star as seen from Earth. The first known transiting extrasolar planet HD 209458b, in the constellation Pegasus, has been the subject of hundreds of scientific papers since its discovery in 1999. The transit of 8th magnitude HD 209458 has been observed by at least a dozen non-professional astronomers using telescopes as small as 4 inches in aperture. Using equipment already in hand, and armed with target lists, transit time predictions, observing techniques and software procedures developed by astronomers at NASA's Ames Research Center and the University of California at Santa Cruz, non-professional astronomers can contribute significantly to the study of extrasolar planets by carefully measuring the brightness of stars with known Hot-Jupiters. In this way, we may resume (after a two century interruption!) the tradition of planetary discoveries by amateur astronomers begun with William Herschel's 1787 discovery of the 'solar' planet Uranus. In the few years transitsearch has been in existence, investigators Tim Castellano (NASA Ames) and Greg Laughlin (UCSC) have written articles for Sky and Telescope and Astronomy magazines, have been featured in stories by the Reuters News Service, Nature magazine, Science magazine, Space.com, the American Institute of Physics and others and received several hundred thousand total hits on their website www.transitsearch,org.

Castellano, T.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Nuclear Propulsion for Deep Space Science Missions

The use of nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) 1 and nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) 2 systems on deep space science missions to the outer planets and into the interstellar medium 3 can yield significant spacecraft system and mission performance benefits and improvements relative to the use of conventional chemical propulsion systems. Several recent and ongoing programs are developing the technologies and systems required to realize a near-term deep space nuclear propulsion capability. NTP provides improved propulsion efficiencies compared to chemical propulsion, while also providing substantial thrust. This combination of high thrust and increased specific impulse (I_sp) provides high acceleration and extended thrusting periods, enabling greatly reduced trip-times on certain types of missions compared to various propulsive alternatives. For examples, compared to a baseline mission using chemical propulsion, NTP-powered missions to Jupiter or Uranus could deliver approximately 2.4-3.6 times more payload (in the case of Jupiter, the payload delivery is significantly larger than the Juno spacecraft). In this comparison, the higher end of the payload advantage is obtained when the trip time is held equal for the NTP-powered vehicle and a vehicle using a chemical propulsion departure stage. NTP systems are presently under development by multiple government agencies. NASA’s Space Nuclear Propulsion (SNP) project aims to demonstrate a hydrogen-fed NTP engine at 900 s specific impulse (I_sp) and approximately 10-15 klb_f of thrust. DARPA’s Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) program is targeting a demonstration of an NTP system in the cislunar space between the Earth and the Moon. An appropriately phased development plan that applies the development of the reactor technology for an NTP engine in this performance class and leverages mature, existing liquid rocket component hardware provides a path to a lower cost propulsion system that can be realized on a shorter development schedule. NEP, with high Isp in the 2,000-8,000 s range, can also provide advantages over chemical propulsion, including a much greater payload delivery mass and the flexibility for planners to trade between delivered mass and a wider window of mission trajectory options. Electric propulsion (EP) systems have demonstrated great utility, performing notably on the Dawn mission to enable rendezvous and orbital insertion at two separate bodies, Vesta and Ceres. An NEP-powered vehicle would have a similar capability to visit multiple bodies, loitering at each before moving to the next. A 10 kW_e NEP system provides a power- rich environment on the spacecraft that is simply not possible using present radioisotope power systems, giving mission planners more scientific instrument and communication hardware options. Several programs and projects are presently developing NEP systems and subsystems in the 10 kW_e power range, leveraging past reactor work and recent nuclear power generation risk-reduction demonstration activities such as the Demonstration Using Flattop Fission (DUFF) and the Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling TechnologY (KRUSTY). The goal of the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Joint Energy Technology Supplying On-Orbit Nuclear Power (JETSON) program is an in-space demonstration vehicle that has a 10 kW_e -class fission power source. These past and present efforts can be combined with the ongoing development of 10 kW_e -class electric propulsion systems (notably the NEXT-C ion thruster or the Hall-effect thrusters for Power and Propulsion Element of the Lunar Gateway) to provide a pathway to a low-cost, reliable NEP system for deep space science application.

Kurt A. Polzin↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Nuclear Propulsion for Deep Space Science Missions

The use of nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) 1 and nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) 2 systems on deep space science missions to the outer planets and into the interstellar medium 3 can yield significant spacecraft system and mission performance benefits and improvements relative to the use of conventional chemical propulsion systems. Several recent and ongoing programs are developing the technologies and systems required to realize a near-term deep space nuclear propulsion capability. NTP provides improved propulsion efficiencies compared to chemical propulsion, while also providing substantial thrust. This combination of high thrust and increased specific impulse (I_sp) provides high acceleration and extended thrusting periods, enabling greatly reduced trip-times on certain types of missions compared to various propulsive alternatives. For examples, compared to a baseline mission using chemical propulsion, NTP-powered missions to Jupiter or Uranus could deliver approximately 2.4-3.6 times more payload (in the case of Jupiter, the payload delivery is significantly larger than the Juno spacecraft). In this comparison, the higher end of the payload advantage is obtained when the trip time is held equal for the NTP-powered vehicle and a vehicle using a chemical propulsion departure stage. NTP systems are presently under development by multiple government agencies. NASA’s Space Nuclear Propulsion (SNP) project aims to demonstrate a hydrogen-fed NTP engine at 900 s specific impulse (I_sp) and approximately 10-15 klb_f of thrust. DARPA’s Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) program is targeting a demonstration of an NTP system in the cislunar space between the Earth and the Moon. An appropriately phased development plan that applies the development of the reactor technology for an NTP engine in this performance class and leverages mature, existing liquid rocket component hardware provides a path to a lower cost propulsion system that can be realized on a shorter development schedule. NEP, with high Isp in the 2,000-8,000 s range, can also provide advantages over chemical propulsion, including a much greater payload delivery mass and the flexibility for planners to trade between delivered mass and a wider window of mission trajectory options. Electric propulsion (EP) systems have demonstrated great utility, performing notably on the Dawn mission to enable rendezvous and orbital insertion at two separate bodies, Vesta and Ceres. An NEP-powered vehicle would have a similar capability to visit multiple bodies, loitering at each before moving to the next. A 10 kW_e NEP system provides a power- rich environment on the spacecraft that is simply not possible using present radioisotope power systems, giving mission planners more scientific instrument and communication hardware options. Several programs and projects are presently developing NEP systems and subsystems in the 10 kW_e power range, leveraging past reactor work and recent nuclear power generation risk-reduction demonstration activities such as the Demonstration Using Flattop Fission (DUFF) and the Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling TechnologY (KRUSTY). The goal of the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Joint Energy Technology Supplying On-Orbit Nuclear Power (JETSON) program is an in-space demonstration vehicle that has a 10 kW_e -class fission power source. These past and present efforts can be combined with the ongoing development of 10 kW_e -class electric propulsion systems (notably the NEXT-C ion thruster or the Hall-effect thrusters for Power and Propulsion Element of the Lunar Gateway) to provide a pathway to a low-cost, reliable NEP system for deep space science application.

Kurt A. Polzin↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Space Launch System: New Launch Capability for Artemis Lunar and Deep Space Science Missions

With stacking and integration of the initial Block 1 Space Launch System (SLS) expected to begin in 2020, NASA’s powerful new launch vehicle is ready to take center stage in the agency’s Artemis program to return astronauts to the Moon. Combining the highest launch thrust and largest payload capacity ever developed, SLS also enables a new generation of high-C3 science missions to destinations such as the gas and ice giants, the Kuiper Belt, and even beyond the solar system. Block 1 is only the beginning, as the vehicle has a planned evolution path to progressively more powerful variants. In addition to these block upgrades providing increased lift capability, the vehicle can be configured to fly in crew configuration with the Orion spacecraft or in cargo configuration with payload fairings for launching science mission or large infrastructure, providing a flexible launch option. For Artemis I, the first SLS flight, the Block 1 vehicle in the crew configuration will send an uncrewed Orion spacecraft to lunar orbit for a thorough systems checkout before the crewed Artemis II flight. The Block 1 vehicle uses a proven propulsion system consisting of solid rocket boosters and RS-25 engines to lift more than 27 metric tons [t] to trans-lunar injection (TLI). In its cargo configuration, Block 1 can be fitted with a 5 m payload fairing. The second variant, Block 1B, uses a more powerful upper stage to increase payload mass to TLI to 38-42 t, depending on crew or cargo configuration. In the crew configuration, a co-manifested payload of up to 10 t can ride along in the Universal Stage Adapter (USA), which has as much volume for payloads as a 5 m-class payload fairing. The Block 2 evolved variant will lift 43-46 t to TLI, depending on crew or cargo configuration. The Block 1B and Block 2 vehicles can be outfitted with an 8.4 m-diameter payload fairing, available in 19.1 m and 27.4 m lengths, providing unprecedented volume for payloads. Larger-diameter 10 m fairings may also be an option in the future on the Block 2 vehicle. The unrivalled mass, volume and high-energy launches of SLS can provide significant mission flexibility for payloads and/or additional upper stages to open trade space for a new generation of exploration missions. SLS was designed to meet requirements for launching large-volume infrastructure as outlined in numerous studies of missions to cislunar space or Mars. Mission concept studies from the science community also point toward new possibilities enabled by SLS. Probes with more robust science packages can be sent to the gas giants. Dual spacecraft can be manifested for missions to Uranus and Neptune. Additional third or fourth payload stages can be encapsulated in the payload fairings to achieve missions to the Kuiper Belt or beyond. In addition, the large volume can be used to design and deploy wide-aperture mirrors on future space telescopes and to enable nuclear-thermal propulsion missions. At AIAA Ascend, the SLS Program will provide technical information on vehicle capabilities as well as descriptions of ongoing discussions with mission planners for utilizing the vehicle for an array of deep space missions.

Stephen Creech↗

NASA NTRS1993

Space Biology and Medicine: Space and Its Exploration - Volume I

Perhaps one of the greatest gifts that has been given to the people of the world in the last few hundred years has been an emerging sense of the place of our planet and its inhabitants within the context of the vast universe. Our knowledge of the rest of the universe has not come quickly, nor was the process of attaining it only recently begun; however, the unprecedented acceleration of that process has benefitted from a fundamental new aspect of our species that has only manifested itself in the last 30 years or so, the ability to travel in space. Before the space age, the Universe was studied only through observations from the Earth. All that has changed with the beginning of the space age. Machines built by humans have flown to all but one of the nine planets that revolve around our Sun, have ventured billions of miles from the Earth and looked back, and have landed on three other worlds. Spacecraft in orbit around the Earth have viewed the sky at a vast number of electromagnetic wavelengths, detecting the shape of the galaxy and the universe, and even measuring the remnants of the universe's beginning. Human explorers have ventured forth, first for short stays in orbit, then, later, walking upon the Moon and living for long periods in space. As they did so, billions of people on the Earth came to view the Earth in a fundamentally different way, not just as the familiar day to- day backdrop for their lives, but as a small oasis suspended in the night sky above an alien landscape. It is this new view of the Earth that is the true gift of space exploration. Space exploration has at once given us a new perspective on the value of our world, and a new perspective from which to understand how it operates. It has shown us that the Earth is by far the most precious place in the solar system in terms of supporting human life, while revealing that other destinations may still be compelling. The exploration of space has at once become a challenge for humanity to overcome and a path to our common future. But for humanity to embark on this path, we need to understand ourselves in a new environment. As such, an understanding of the biological consequences of and opportunities in space flight is essential. In this, the first volume of a joint U.S./Russian series on space biology and medicine, we describe the current status of our understanding of space and present general information that will prove useful when reading subsequent volumes. Since we are witnesses to the beginning of a new era of interplanetary travel, a significant portion of the first volume will concentrate on the physical and ecological conditions that exist in near and outer space, as well as heavenly bodies from the smallest ones to the giant planets and stars. While space exploration is a comparatively recent endeavor, its foundations were laid much more than 30 years ago, and its history has been an eventful one. In the first part of this volume, Rauschenbach, Sokolskiy, and Gurjian address the "Historical Aspects of Space Exploration" from its beginnings to a present-day view of the events of the space age. The nature of space itself and its features is the focus of the second section of the volume. In the first chapter of the part, "Stars and Interstellar Space," the origin and evolution of stars, and the nature of the portions of space most distant from Earth are described by Galeev and Marochnik. In Chapter 2, Pisarenko, Logachev, and Kurt in "The Sun and Interplanetary Space" bring us to the vicinity of our own solar system and provide a description and discussion of the nearest star and its influence on the space environment that our Earth and the other planets inhabit. In our solar system there are many fascinating objects, remnants of the formation of a rather ordinary star in a rather obscure portion of the galaxy. Historical accident has caused us to be much more curious (and knowledgeable) about "The Inner Planets of the Solar System" than about any of these other objects. In Chapter 3, Marov describes the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, their history and origin, and their environmental conditions, and in Chapter 4 Owen provides similar information about Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, "The Outer Planets of the Solar System." Morrison provides a thorough discussion of "Asteroids, Comets, and Other Small Bodies" in Chapter 5. The understanding of these relics of the formation of the solar system may form the center of our ability to understand the origin of solar systems in general, and of the critical role that the beginning of the solar system had on the prospects for the origin of life and its continued survival and evolution in the face of their recurrent impacts on Earth. In Chapter 6, the first chapter of the third part, Rummel describes the area of "Exobiology," the study of the origin, evolution, and distribution of life in the context of the origin and evolution of the universe. The same processes that have given rise to life on Earth may have given rise to life elsewhere. In Chapter 7, the "Earth and the Biosphere," the nature and function of the Earth are discussed as a specific instance of planetary and biological evolution. The effects of biological processes on the Earth under the influence of human activities are also addressed by Moore and Bartlett in Chapter 7. The final chapter in this section concerns the prospects that life in the universe may be widespread; "SETI," the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, by Billingham and Tarter, presents the arguments for conducting a search for evidence of life elsewhere in the galaxy, and describes the various methods proposed for conducting such a search. While SETI has a distinctly exploration al character, more direct means are available for exploring the solar system around us. The fourth part of the volume addresses this subject of space exploration. Considering the prospects for research on space biology and medicine, the means of providing "Access to Space" are described by Feoktistov and Briggs in Chapter 9. This chapter addresses carriers and launch systems, the unmanned and manned spacecraft that they loft into space, and the task of mission operations by which these precious vessels are monitored, navigated, and controlled. Despite the successes of the past and the capabilities of the present, it is clear that the study of space biology and medicine will be even more rewarding in the future than it has been to date. The work of the next few years that will be undertaken by the U.S. and Russia, both independently and jointly, will focus first on enabling greater capabilities in the exploration of space, and then on using the unique characteristics of the space environment to provide insight and greater understanding into biological systems, their behavior, development, and origin. The chapters of the first volume were written by leaders in their fields from the U.S. and Russia. The material presented summarizes our current understanding of space and its exploration. We understand that the first volume will be of interest not only to medical personnel and biologists, but also to general readers who want information about space beyond their own particular fields of expertise.

Nicogossian, Arnauld E.↗