Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “PLANETARY”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2005

Comparative Planetary Mineralogy: Valence State Partitioning of Cr, Fe, Ti, and V Among Crystallographic Sites in Olivine, Pyroxene, and Spinel from Planetary Basalts

We have considered the valence-state partitioning of Cr, Fe, Ti, and V over crystallographic sites in olivine, pyroxene, and spinel from planetary basalts. The sites that accommodate these cations are the M2 site (6-8 coordinated) and M1 site (6 coordinated) in pyroxene, the M2 site (6-8 coordinated) and M1 site (6 coordinated) in olivine, and the tetrahedral and octahedral sites in spinel. The samples we studied are basalts from Earth, Moon, and Mars, which have fO2 conditions that range from IW-2 (Moon) to IW+6 (Earth) with Mars somewhere between at IW to IW+2. In this range of fO2 the significant elemental valences are (from low to high fO2) Ti4+, V3+, Fe2+, Cr2+, Cr3+, V3+, V4+, and Fe3+. V2+ and Ti3+ play a minor role in the phases considered for the Moon, and are probably in very low concentrations. V5+ plays a minor role in these phases in terrestrial basalts because it is probably in lower abundance than V4+ and it has an ionic radii that is so small (0.054 nm, 6- coordinated,[1]) that it is almost at the lower limit for octahedral coordination. The role of Cr2+ in the Moon is significant, as Sutton et al. [2] found that lunar olivine contains mostly Cr2+ while coexisting pyroxene contains mostly Cr3+. Hanson one vacancy only accommodates one V4+. Thus more vacancies are required in V4+ substitutions into olivine. In the Moon V3+ is much more abundant than V4+ [7, 8]. Thus in lunar chromite V3+ follows Cr3+, whereas in Earth V4+ (which is much greater in abundance than V3+) follows Ti4+ (eg in ulv spinel). We could go on in this vein for some time but space limitations do not permit us to do so.

Papike, J. J.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Planetary Entry Probes and Mass Spectroscopy: Tools and Science Results from In Situ Studies of Planetary Atmospheres and Surfaces

Probing the atmospheres and surfaces of the planets and their moons with fast moving entry probes has been a very useful and essential technique to obtain in situ or quasi in situ scientific data (ground truth) which could not otherwise be obtained from fly by or orbiter only missions and where balloon, aircraft or lander missions are too complex and costly. Planetary entry probe missions have been conducted successfully on Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Titan after having been first demonstrated in the Earth's atmosphere. Future missions will hopefully also include more entry probe missions back to Venus and to the outer planets. 1 he success of and science returns from past missions, the need for more and better data, and a continuously advancing technology generate confidence that future missions will be even more successful with respect to science return and technical performance. I'he pioneering and tireless work of Al Seiff and his collaborators at the NASA Ames Research Center had provided convincing evidence of the value of entry probe science and how to practically implement flight missions. Even in the most recent missions involving entry probes i.e. Galileo and Cassini/Huygens A1 contributed uniquely to the science results on atmospheric structure, turbulence and temperature on Jupiter and Titan.

Niemann, Hasso B.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Work on Planetary Atmospheres and Planetary Atmosphere Probes

A major objective of the grant was to complete the fabrication, test, and evaluation of the atmosphere structure experiment on the Galileo Probe, and to receive, analyze, and interpret data received from the spacecraft. The grantee was competitively selected to be Principal Investigator of Jupiter's atmosphere structure on the Galileo Probe. His primary motivation was to learn as much as possible about Jupiter's atmosphere by means of a successful atmosphere structure experiment, and to support the needs and schedule of the Galileo Project. After a number of launch delays, the Flight instrument was shipped to Kennedy Space Center 2 years after the start of this collaboration, on April 14, 1989, at which time it was determined from System level tests of the ASI on the Probe that the instrument was in good working order and ready for flight. The spacecraft was launched on October 18, 1989. Data analysis of test and calibration data taken over a period of years of instrument testing was continued in preparation for the encounter. The initial instrument checkout in space was performed on October 26, 1989. The data set received by telemetry was thoroughly analyzed, and a report of the findings was transmitted to the Probe Operations Office on Feb. 28, 1990. Key findings reported were that the accelerometer biases had shifted by less than 1 mg through launch and since calibration at Bell Aerospace in 1983; accelerometer scale factors, evaluated by means of calibration currents, fell on lines of variation with temperature established in laboratory calibrations; pressure sensor offsets, correlated as a function of temperature, fell generally within the limits of several years of ground test data; atmospheric and engineering temperature sensor data were internally consistent within a few tenths of a degree; and the instrument electronics performed all expected functions without any observable fault. Altogether, this checkout was highly encouraging of the prospects of instrument performance, although performed greater than 5 years prior to Jupiter encounter. Capability of decoding the science data from the Experiment Data Record to be provided at encounter was developed and exercised using the tape recording of the first Cruise Checkout data. A team effort was organized to program the selection and combination of data words defining pressure, temperature, acceleration, turbulence, and engineering quantities; to apply decalibration algorithms to convert readings from digital numbers to physical quantities; and to organize the data into a suitable printout. A paper on the Galileo Atmosphere Structure Instrument was written and submitted for publication in a special issue of Space Science Reviews. At the Journal editor's request, the grantee reviewed other Probe instrument papers submitted for this special issue. Calibration data were carefully taken for all experiment sensors and accumulated over a period of 10 years. The data were analyzed, fitted with algorithms, and summarized in a calibration report for use in analyzing and interpreting data returned from Jupiter's atmosphere. The sensors included were the primary science pressure, temperature, and acceleration sensors, and the supporting engineering temperature sensors. This report was distributed to experiment coinvestigators and the Probe Project Office.

Seiff, Alvin↗
NASA NTRS1999

Work on Planetary Atmospheres and Planetary Atmosphere Probes

A summary final report of work accomplished is presented. Work was performed in the following areas: (1) Galileo Probe science analysis, (2) Galileo probe Atmosphere Structure Instrument, (3) Mars Pathfinder Atmosphere Structure/Meteorology instrument, (4) Mars Pathfinder data analysis, (5) Science Definition for future Mars missions, (6) Viking Lander data analysis, (7) winds in Mars atmosphere Venus atmospheric dynamics, (8) Pioneer Venus Probe data analysis, (9) Pioneer Venus anomaly analysis, (10) Discovery Venus Probe Titan probe instrument design, and (11) laboratory studies of Titan probe impact phenomena. The work has resulted in more than 10 articles published in archive journals, 2 encyclopedia articles, and many working papers. This final report is organized around the four planets on which there was activity, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Titan, with a closing section on Miscellaneous Activities. A major objective was to complete the fabrication, test, and evaluation of the atmosphere structure experiment on the Galileo probe, and to receive, analyze and interpret data received from the spacecraft. The instrument was launched on April 14, 1989. Calibration data were taken for all experiment sensors. The data were analyzed, fitted with algorithms, and summarized in a calibration report for use in analyzing and interpreting data returned from Jupiter's atmosphere. The sensors included were the primary science pressure, temperature and acceleration sensors, and the supporting engineering temperature sensors. Computer programs were written to decode the Experiment Data Record and convert the digital numbers to physical quantities, i.e., temperatures, pressures, and accelerations. The project office agreed to obtain telemetry of checkout data from the probe. Work to extend programs written for use on the Pioneer Venus project included: (1) massive heat shield ablation leading to important mass loss during entry; and (2) rapid planet rotation, which introduced terms of motion not needed on Venus. When the Galileo Probe encountered Jupiter, analysis and interpretation of data commenced. The early contributions of the experiment were to define (1) the basic structure of the deep atmosphere, (2) the stability of the atmosphere, (3) the upper atmospheric profiles of density, pressure, and temperature. The next major task in the Galileo Probe project was to refine, verify and extend the analysis of the data. It was the verified, and corrected data, which indicated a dry abiabatic atmosphere within measurement accuracy. Temperature in the thermosphere was measured at 900 K. Participation in the Mars atmospheric research included: (1) work as a team member of the Mars Atmosphere Working Group, (2) contribution to the Mars Exobiology Instrument workshop, (3) asssistance in planning the Mars global network and (4) assitance in planning the Soviet-French Mars mission in 1994. This included a return to the Viking Lander parachute data to refine and improve the definition of winds between 1.5 and 4 kilometer altitude at the two entry sites. The variability of the structure of Mars atmosphere was addressed, which is known to vary with season, latitude, hemisphere and dust loading of the atmosphere. This led to work on the Pathfinder project. The probe had a deployable meteorology mast that had three temperature sensors, and a wind sensor at the tip of the mast. Work on the Titan atmospheric probe was also accomplished. This included developing an experiment proposal to the European Space Agency (ESA), which was not selected. However, as an advisor in the design and preparation of the selected experiment the researcher interacted with scientist on the Huygens Probe Atmosphere Structure Experiment. The researcher also participated in the planning for the Venus Chemical Probe. The science objectives of the probe were to resolve unanswered questions concerning the minor species chemistry of Venus' atmosphere that control cloud formation, greenhouse effectiveness, and the thermal structure. The researcher also reviewed problems with the Pioneer Venus Probe, that caused anomalies which occurred on the Probes at and below 12.5 km level of the Venus' atmosphere. He convened and participated in a workshop that concluded the most likely hardware cause was insulation failure in the electrical harness outside the Probes' pressure vessels. It was discovered that the shrink tubing material failed at 600K. This failure could explain the anomalies experienced by the probes. The descent data of the Pioneer probes, and the Soviet Vega Lander was analyzed to evaluate the presence of small scale gravity waves in and below the Venus cloud layer.

Lester, Peter↗
NASA NTRS2005

Large-Scale Experimental Planetary Science Meets Planetary Defense: Deorbiting an Asteroidal Satellite

Other than remote-sensing and spacecraft-derived data, the only information that exists regarding the physical and chemical properties of asteroids is that inferred through calculations, numerical simulations, extrapolation of experiments, and meteorite studies. Our understanding of the dynamics of accretion of planetesimals, collisional disruption of asteroids, and the macroscopic, shock-induced modification of the surfaces of such small objects is also, for the most part, founded on similar inferences. While considerable strides have been made in improving the state of asteroid science, too many unknowns remain to assert that we understand the parameters necessary for the more practical problem of deflecting an asteroid or asteroid pair on an Earth-intersecting trajectory. Many of these deficiencies could be reduced or eliminated by intentionally deorbiting an asteroidal satellite and monitoring the resulting collision between it and the primary asteroid, a capability that is well within the limitations of current technology.

Cintala, M. J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Clean is not Sterile: A Planetary Science and Planetary Protection Perspective on Cleanroom Microbiology at NASA

The Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office at NASA is responsible for the curation of extraterrestrial samples from NASA’s past and future sample return missions. Our office curates samples from the moon, meteorites, comets, asteroids, cosmic dust and solar wind particles. All these samples are kept in cleanrooms to limit particulate and trace metal contamination, but none of these cleanrooms are specifically designed to control microbial contamination. During the early Apollo missions NASA scientists were very concerned with protecting the Earth from potential microbial contamination from the moon and with protecting the lunar samples from terrestrial microbes. NASA developed specialized equipment and clean rooms to keep these collections pristine. However, as we learned more about the lunar environment our concerns about microbial contamination lessened. Today none of the existing collections have microbial contamination requirements because they are not considered susceptible to microbial alteration under curation conditions (e.g. solar wind samples, and lunar samples) or have already been contaminated by terrestrial biology (meteorites collected in Antarctica). However, NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission will land in 2023 with samples from a carbon rich asteroid that will be susceptible to microbial alteration. The Perseverance rover on Mars will begin to collect and cache samples that will be returned to Earth as soon as 2031. Martian samples may contain signs of extraterrestrial life and will have to be treated like the early Apollo samples. Martian samples will be isolated to protect the Earth, and must also be protected from terrestrial contamination. I will present microbial monitoring data from existing NASA cleanrooms and discuss how NASA is planning to use techniques from the pharmaceutical industry and academia to design new laboratories and equipment that will protect astromaterials and the earth from unwanted microbial contamination. I will also discuss a project to sample the external microbiome of the International Space Station. Results from this research will be used to design facilities for use on Mars that limit the amount of contamination associated with crewed missions.

Aaron B Regberg↗
NASA NTRS2009

Planetary Geologic Mapping Handbook - 2009

Geologic maps present, in an historical context, fundamental syntheses of interpretations of the materials, landforms, structures, and processes that characterize planetary surfaces and shallow subsurfaces (e.g., Varnes, 1974). Such maps also provide a contextual framework for summarizing and evaluating thematic research for a given region or body. In planetary exploration, for example, geologic maps are used for specialized investigations such as targeting regions of interest for data collection and for characterizing sites for landed missions. Whereas most modern terrestrial geologic maps are constructed from regional views provided by remote sensing data and supplemented in detail by field-based observations and measurements, planetary maps have been largely based on analyses of orbital photography. For planetary bodies in particular, geologic maps commonly represent a snapshot of a surface, because they are based on available information at a time when new data are still being acquired. Thus the field of planetary geologic mapping has been evolving rapidly to embrace the use of new data and modern technology and to accommodate the growing needs of planetary exploration. Planetary geologic maps have been published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) since 1962 (Hackman, 1962). Over this time, numerous maps of several planetary bodies have been prepared at a variety of scales and projections using the best available image and topographic bases. Early geologic map bases commonly consisted of hand-mosaicked photographs or airbrushed shaded-relief views and geologic linework was manually drafted using mylar bases and ink drafting pens. Map publishing required a tedious process of scribing, color peel-coat preparation, typesetting, and photo-laboratory work. Beginning in the 1990s, inexpensive computing, display capability and user-friendly illustration software allowed maps to be drawn using digital tools rather than pen and ink, and mylar bases became obsolete. Terrestrial geologic maps published by the USGS now are primarily digital products using geographic information system (GIS) software and file formats. GIS mapping tools permit easy spatial comparison, generation, importation, manipulation, and analysis of multiple raster image, gridded, and vector data sets. GIS software has also permitted the development of project-specific tools and the sharing of geospatial products among researchers. GIS approaches are now being used in planetary geologic mapping as well (e.g., Hare and others, 2009). Guidelines or handbooks on techniques in planetary geologic mapping have been developed periodically (e.g., Wilhelms, 1972, 1990; Tanaka and others, 1994). As records of the heritage of mapping methods and data, these remain extremely useful guides. However, many of the fundamental aspects of earlier mapping handbooks have evolved significantly, and a comprehensive review of currently accepted mapping methodologies is now warranted. As documented in this handbook, such a review incorporates additional guidelines developed in recent years for planetary geologic mapping by the NASA Planetary Geology and Geophysics (PGG) Program s Planetary Cartography and Geologic Mapping Working Group s (PCGMWG) Geologic Mapping Subcommittee (GEMS) on the selection and use of map bases as well as map preparation, review, publication, and distribution. In light of the current boom in planetary exploration and the ongoing rapid evolution of available data for planetary mapping, this handbook is especially timely.

Tanaka, K. L.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Planetary Geologic Mapping Handbook - 2010

Geologic maps present, in an historical context, fundamental syntheses of interpretations of the materials, landforms, structures, and processes that characterize planetary surfaces and shallow subsurfaces. Such maps also provide a contextual framework for summarizing and evaluating thematic research for a given region or body. In planetary exploration, for example, geologic maps are used for specialized investigations such as targeting regions of interest for data collection and for characterizing sites for landed missions. Whereas most modern terrestrial geologic maps are constructed from regional views provided by remote sensing data and supplemented in detail by field-based observations and measurements, planetary maps have been largely based on analyses of orbital photography. For planetary bodies in particular, geologic maps commonly represent a snapshot of a surface, because they are based on available information at a time when new data are still being acquired. Thus the field of planetary geologic mapping has been evolving rapidly to embrace the use of new data and modern technology and to accommodate the growing needs of planetary exploration. Planetary geologic maps have been published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) since 1962. Over this time, numerous maps of several planetary bodies have been prepared at a variety of scales and projections using the best available image and topographic bases. Early geologic map bases commonly consisted of hand-mosaicked photographs or airbrushed shaded-relief views and geologic linework was manually drafted using mylar bases and ink drafting pens. Map publishing required a tedious process of scribing, color peel-coat preparation, typesetting, and photo-laboratory work. Beginning in the 1990s, inexpensive computing, display capability and user-friendly illustration software allowed maps to be drawn using digital tools rather than pen and ink, and mylar bases became obsolete. Terrestrial geologic maps published by the USGS now are primarily digital products using geographic information system (GIS) software and file formats. GIS mapping tools permit easy spatial comparison, generation, importation, manipulation, and analysis of multiple raster image, gridded, and vector data sets. GIS software has also permitted the development of projectspecific tools and the sharing of geospatial products among researchers. GIS approaches are now being used in planetary geologic mapping as well. Guidelines or handbooks on techniques in planetary geologic mapping have been developed periodically. As records of the heritage of mapping methods and data, these remain extremely useful guides. However, many of the fundamental aspects of earlier mapping handbooks have evolved significantly, and a comprehensive review of currently accepted mapping methodologies is now warranted. As documented in this handbook, such a review incorporates additional guidelines developed in recent years for planetary geologic mapping by the NASA Planetary Geology and Geophysics (PGG) Program's Planetary Cartography and Geologic Mapping Working Group's (PCGMWG) Geologic Mapping Subcommittee (GEMS) on the selection and use of map bases as well as map preparation, review, publication, and distribution. In light of the current boom in planetary exploration and the ongoing rapid evolution of available data for planetary mapping, this handbook is especially timely.

Tanaka, K. L.↗