Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “interstellar medium”

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 415 records · Page 23
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Propulsion Technology Assessment: Science and Enabling Technologies to Explore the Interstellar Medium

Led by the Keck Institute for Space Studies at the California Institute of Technology, the Advanced Concepts Office at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center conducted a study to assess what low-thrust advanced propulsion system candidates, existing and near term, could deliver a small, Voyager-like satellite to our solar system's heliopause, approximately 100 AU from the center of the sun, within 10 years and within a 2025-2035 launch window. The advanced propulsion system trade study consisted of three candidates, including a Magnetically Shielded Miniature (MaSMi) Hall thruster, a solar sail and an electric sail. Two aerial densities, and thus characteristic accelerations, 0.426 mm/sq s and 0.664 mm/sq s were analyzed for the solar sail option in order understand the impact of near and long term development of this technology. Similarly, two characteristic accelerations, 1 mm/s2 and 2 mm/sq s, were also analyzed for the electric sail option in addition to tether quantities of 10 and 20, respectively, and individual tether length of 20 km. A second analysis was conducted to determine what existing solid rocket motor kick stage(s) would be required to provide additional thrust at various points in the trajectory, assuming an earth departure characteristic energy capability provided by a Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1B vehicle architecture carrying an 8.4 meter payload fairing. Two trajectory profiles were considered, including an escape trajectory using a Jupiter gravity assist (E-Ju), and an escape trajectory first performing a Jupiter gravity assist followed by an Oberth maneuver around the sun and an optional Saturn gravity assist (E-Ju-Su-Sa). The Oberth maneuver would need to be performed very close to the sun, wherein this study assumed a perihelion distance of approximately 11 solar radii, or 0.05 AU, away from the surface. The heat shield technology required to perform this type of ambitious maneuver was assumed to be similar to that of NASA's Solar Probe Plus mission, which is slated to launch in July 2018. With respect to a SLS Block 1B earth departure characteristic energy capability of 100 km2/sq s for the E-Ju trajectory option, results indicated that compared to having no advanced propulsion system onboard, both the MaSMi Hall thruster and solar sail options subtract approximately 8 to 10 years from the total trip time while the electric sail outperforms all options by subtracting up to 20 years. With respect to an average kick stage velocity capability of 2.5 to 3.5 km/s at perihelion, the most sensitive segment of the E-Ju-Su-Sa trajectory option, results indicated that both the MaSMi Hall thrust and solar sail options only subtract 1 to 3 years from the total trip time whereas the electric sail again outperforms all other options by subtracting up to 5 years. In other words, if the Technology Readiness Level of an electric sail could be increased in time, this propulsion technology could not only enable a satellite to reach 100 AU in 10 years but it could potentially do so even faster. Completing such an ambitious mission in that short of a timespan would be very attractive to many as it would be well within the average career span of any of those involved.

Hopkins, Randall C.↗
NASA NTRS2013

ERRATUM: FERMI Large Area Telescope Study of Cosmic-Rays and the Interstellar Medium in Nearby Molecular Clouds

In the published version of the paper, errors were made in calculating the exposure time due to an analysis mistake. While they do not affect gas emissivities of the R CrA and Cepheus & Polaris flare regions significantly (the differences are within the systematic uncertainty), that of the Chamaeleon region is increased by approx.20%. Although we claimed a difference of ∼50% in gas emissivity among these molecular cloud regions in the original paper, it is decreased to ∼30% (comparable to the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties) in the revised analysis. Therefore, our conclusion of the original paper, that a small variation (approx. 20%) of the CR density in the solar neighborhood exists, is not supported by the data if we take these uncertainties into account. On the other hand, the obtained XCO and XAv values, and the masses of gas calculated from them are not changed significantly (the differences are within the statistical errors). Errors and corrections in the original paper are summarized below. 1. In the Abstract (lines 5-6) and Section 3 (lines 4-5 in the 3rd paragraph) in the original paper, the gamma -ray emissivity above 250 MeV for the Chamaeleon region should be (7.2 +/- 0.1stat +/- 1.0sys) × 10(exp −27) photons/s/sr/H-atom, not (5.9 +/-0.1stat +0.9−1.0sys) × 10(exp −27) photons/s/sr/H-atom. 2. In the Abstract (lines 8-10), "Whereas the energy dependences of the emissivities agree well with that predicted from direct CR observations at the Earth, the measured emissivities from 250 MeV to 10 GeV indicate a variation of the CR density by approx.20% in the neighborhood of the solar system, even if we consider the systematic uncertainties." should be changed to "The energy dependences of the emissivities agree well with that predicted from direct CR observations at the Earth. Although the measured emissivities from 250 MeV to 10 GeV differ by approx.30% among these molecular cloud regions, the difference is not significant if we take the systematic uncertainty into account." 3. Table 1 and Figure 13, which show gas emissivities and spectra for the Chamaeleon region in the original paper, should be changed to the Table 1 and Figure 1 as shown below. 4. Figure 16, which compares Hi gas emissivities among several regions in the original paper, should be changed to Figure 2 as shown below. 5. The text from the line 13 to the last one in the first paragraph of Section 4.1, "The spectral shapes for the three regions..., indicating a difference of the CR density between the Chamaeleon and the others as shown in Figure 16." should be changed to the paragraph that follows. "The shaded area of each spectrum indicates the systematic uncertainty as described in Section 3. We note that the systematic uncertainty of the LAT effective area (5% at 100 MeV and 20% at 10 GeV; Rando et al. 2009) does not affect the relative value of emissivities. The effect of unresolved point sources is small; we have verified that the obtained emissivities are almost unaffected by decreasing the threshold for point sources from TS = 100 to TS = 50. We also confirmed that the residual excess of photons around (l = 280deg to 288deg, b = −20deg to −12deg; see the bottom panel of Figure 8) in the Chamaeleon region does not affect the local Hi emissivity very much. Thus the total systematic uncertainty is reasonably expressed by the shaded area shown in Fig. 1.

emissivities↗