Hi,
I am a friend of Jacques and haven't heard from him in quite a
while. I was wondering if anyone on this group knows if he is ok?
Thanks,
Andrew Rigg
Association of Christian Astronomers
http://astronomy.xrs.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Moomaw" <moomaw@...>
To: "ISSDG" <issdg@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 3:13 AM
Subject: [ISSDG] Latest news on BepiColombo
> There's a very interesting press release from Japan's space agency
ISAS --
> www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=3263 -- stating that ISAS will
> actually be the dominating partner in the BepiColombo Mercury probe,
"taking
> charge of the system design, manufacture and operation, while
forging ahead
> with a plan to entrust the scientific aspect to international
cooperation
> centering on Japan and Europe."
>
> By the way, during the discussions of inner-planet exploration
strategy at
> October's Solar System Exploration Subcommittee meeting, there were
no
> denunciations of BepiColombo -- but it was repeatedly stated that
Messenger
> and BepiColombo together will make it "unnecessary to launch any
more
> Mercury missions for the foreseeable future". Actually, this
strikes me as
> a mistake -- a network of a few small Mercury landers for
> surface-composition, heat flow, magnetic and (especially) seismic
studies
> could add a great deal to our understanding of the planet. Which is
still
> another reason why I think ESA missed the mark in its design of
BepiColombo.
>
> Bruce Moomaw
>
>
> -------------------------- eGroups
Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
> eLerts
> It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/_/_/976267399/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-_->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ISSDG-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>
Hi all!
I observed Mercury in Seattle, WA USA on November 15. I was at sea
level and the lake mist and clouds made it difficult, but finally it
cleared about 5 minutes before it became too light.
Could not get a good disk, but could see that it was not full. (It
was about 60% illuminated per the Nov Astronomy mags.) Interesting.
My site temperature was about 24 degrees F. which made all the set-up
less than fun.
Will try to find high, mountain spot when the snow stops falling and
try again while Mercury is still easily visible. If I can get it
again in a week the disk will be much smaller, but still easily
identified.
Take care.
-Jacques Noel
----- Original Message -----
<mercuryclub@... wrote
>> I think we must avoid making summary conclusions about Mercury.
Oh, certainly. There is much we are not sure of. There
exists the possibility of some interesting spins of
reality which would make Mercury somehow much
more important than we can even imagine right now.
Probably that would have to deal with the sun being so
close, and that there exists no more stable place in the
solar system for temperature extremes exactant (?) either
at some locations in the polar regions or just behind the
planet in a geosycronous orbit.
In the first case, it is much better than the moon's polar area as the moon
has an effective 7 % inclination of axis I recall whereas the Mercury tilt
is much less than 1%. This
could be of critical importance, enough so to make it
worthwhile to develop some things on Mercury, like
factories. The moon, being much better explored, is
fairly clear: there are three very good locations, one
being out of the sun only for a few days a month. To merely beam the light
via mirror to the bottom of a nearby
crater (~ 80 Kelvin already, but quite easily shaded to a
much lower temperature). Just how this could be of
use to industry you would have to talk to someone who is
involved in material science.
In the second case, the geosyncronous orbit is fairly small
due to the gravity/ their is no appreciable atmosphere to
bend light, but the orbit is highly eccentric. To give a
rough description, the solar power (insolation) varies
100%, incredible for a planet with no weather, no clouds.
But the only real competition would be from an asteroid
(Aten, sub Earth solar orbit, I recall). There are a few,
Icarus coming within something like 30 million kilometers of the sun. But
they all rotate and their shape is highly
irregular.
And it goes on. I could spend a lot longer and exhaust
the issue to my knowledge/observation, but why do that
(it would also exhaust the patience of almost all, right?)
It is sufficient to say that there are a number of issues. The
solar observatory is a good possibility, but no country and
only a very, very few remote outposts have been
supported just because of an observatory. The mountain
in Chile is a key example, but that would be in a
comparative commuter's Conneticut in comparison to
something on Mercury. If there were nothing else there,
I doubt man would be going to the planet to stay or even
do the preliminary investigations any time in my lifetime
(37 years of age presently).
But if there were anything else on Mercury, the job would
be that much simpler and perhaps even cost effective.
All observatories are based upon a cost effective
formula, though that certainly varies from place to place.
The Hale & Palomar telescope/bases were primarily
grants from Carnegie and a few other big contributors,
and believe me -- the cost was an issue. I have just
been reading a book on the subject.
But if we develop alternative means of sensing, especially
with sub particles like quarks, etc., sometime soon, then
the sun would become far more important in the way
people think.
And while most climatologist think global warming, etc.
exists and that the current trend is (slightly) up, what
you probably mean by weather trouble is the
unpredictable fractal chaos like the "butterfly effect"
for short term weather, stock market fluxations, and
other "Brownian motions" of statistics.
It certainly would be worthwhile to be able to predict better the variable
of solar input. But my observation of
history is that humanity time and time again is penny
wise pound foolish to scientists with profoundly different
and expensive proposals.
Or so goes my devil's advocacy, in order to get some
information spewed out in a foil (making it look good by way of contrast?)
or meandering sort of way.
> It is an interesing idea about the dust, however; could it be calculated
> from the visible reflective light when compared to the Moon? I would
> imagine that there is dust,
That is what the current evidence shows, what current
models by the small core of experts think. But this topic,
as important to my private reasons for being so attached
to Mercury as the subject is, will have to wait for another
time.
"David Semloh"
By the way, I reviewed Perry's homepage. Impressive enough for anyone,
especially for being in high school. I am in the publishing business, I
will remind. Keep it up.
Hi-
Last sentence of the last paragraph of the last note I sent should
have "than" not "that" in it. Mercury is more important to us for
immediate reasons because it would be the perfect obervatory to view
the Sun activites which impact our daily lives.
OK, I finally sit it out!
-Jacques Noel
Hi all!
I think we must avoid making summary conclusions about Mercury. It
is an interesing idea about the dust, however, could it be calculated
from the visible reflective light when compared to the Moon? I would
imagine that there is dust, but there might be a good number of
paticles that are like sand since the surface material might me
modified by the heat and the large gravity for the disk size.
Also, remember that only the Moon, Mars and Mercury are bodies on
which humans could land on in the foreseeable future. I think after
the initial couple of Mars expeditions, it is reseasonable to think
Mercury will be in the cards.
In fact, Mercury as an observatory of the Sun, may be more important
to us than Mars because the more we know about the Sun the more we
will will know about its impact on our weather, climate, and other
more immediate things which concern our lives. Mars is nice, but
more for biological and geological advancement possibly that for
actual impact on the way we live.
-Jacques Noel
Jason,
Here are a few notes on your notes
> outer solar system which is why I most provide links to
Do you have any interest in the Kuperoids? Now that
is a very interesting field, especially the Plutinos. Carl
Sagan mentioned a common thought of the then
hypothetical kuperoids (postulated due to "object Kowal"
now known as Chiron being discovered then). It went
like this: if those chunks could be brought in, by whatever
means, the volatile problem would be almost solved.
The difficulty is, of course, that even if the means is
found -- even with a gravity assist, the rotational period
is so slow that timescales would probably be prohibitive.
(Basic celestial mechanics of objects farther away having
an increasingly long orbit period, squared I think).
other sites
> with information on Mercury. I guess you can say my background is
> planetary science since that is what I plan to major in (though I
> don't think University of Arizona has that as a major so I will
> probably major in Geophysics).
That is just about the best place to study.
The reason I am hoping to go to the
> University of Arizona is because I will be working there next summer
> with Dr. McEwen and his team, analyzing images sent back from Galileo
> of Io (notice that my website is all about Io :)
That explains a few things. I am personally aware that
people actually involved in the voyages of discovery
are really wrapped up in everything. I suppose it has to
be this way as there is a lot of money depending on the
effort and little money available to error prone experiments.
Sometimes it has been very difficult to conduct email with
them, but in your case there are years in between your
real work and now.
Good luck.
Returning to Mercury, it is a difficult place to go and the
(seeming) lack of volatiles, especially ones that make
nice pictures because it is in the dark, is a good part of it.
To the layman the place looks like the moon and that is
very boring (to them). I mean, most people really are not
geologist or geographers even as a hobbist.
As mentioned, I take a more practical point of view,
mainly that it is a potentially valuable piece of real estate.
The main selling point, a place of discussion for me later,
is that it is so hot. That has a key advantage in one area
of being useful to mankind, and I do not mean because of
the solar electricity, etc.
Moving on to an issue more to your liking, Mercury is
rather flat. A few rises of up to a kilometer or two,
especially along the rift zone and a few big craters, but
mostly it is of Pennslyvania blue ridge type moderate
incline gradient, saturation and frequency,
excepting that it is almost wholly related to the heavy
cratering of the first 800 million years or so.
The reason for this flatness is believed to be the lack of
crater impacts compared to that on the moon and the
greater gravity (less gravity and the rock can make
a bigger crater before slumping back, slumping back
less as well). "Gardening" of the Mercury "soil" by
smaller impacts should also be less, but I have wondered
about that one. I mean, although the other planets (Earth
& Moon, Venus) take in many if not most, for micro meteors of the the
cometary parabolic orbits the
smaller orbital radius of Mercury should greatly increase
the amounts of those grains of sand/dust impact. So
there should be as much or more dust than that on
our Moon (a centimeter or so).
Surprisingly, this could be of considerably more than
merely academic concern.
I encourage Jason or anyone else to further this thread.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "pop.ficnet.net" <semloh@...>
To: <planetmercurysociety@...>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [planetmercurysociety] Note for David and all
> students at the
> > University of Washington in Seattle.
> >
> > I am retired and a geographer by degrees and training. I
specialized
> > in photogeology and taught it along with other geographic systems.
I
> > live near and spend most evenings at the U. of WA in their science
> > libraries.
>
> Ah, a fellow wanderer in the stacks (bookrooms). Say,
> what is "Jason Perry"'s background, if he doesn't mind
> stating it. Mine is computer science, and I am currently
> in the publishing field.
I am actually a high school student who hope to go to the University
of Arizona in the Fall of 2002. Most of my interests deal with the
outer solar system which is why I most provide links to other sites
with information on Mercury. I guess you can say my background is
planetary science since that is what I plan to major in (though I
don't think University of Arizona has that as a major so I will
probably major in Geophysics). The reason I am hoping to go to the
University of Arizona is because I will be working there next summer
with Dr. McEwen and his team, analyzing images sent back from Galileo
of Io (notice that my website is all about Io :)
>
> As long as I am allowed to post, I will spend years
> developing this site. I, too, care about Mercury. In
> specifics, the probability of ice and other interesting facets
> like that a thick enough layer of dust is believed to exist
> (temperature drops rapidly immediately after sunset, so
> the current model suggests a cm. or so of the stuff just
> like that existing on the moon).
The most interesting thing to me any way is that such an interesting
world could be neglected like it has. With all of it varied land
forms, from craters and impact basins, to compressional faults, to
lava plains, and possibly a shield volcano or two (though these places
might also be bright craters), I think it should get more attention.
And in a decade we will have 3-5 missions to Mercury (though I think
Japan cancelled theirs so they can work with the ESA on BepiColumbo.
In speaking of BepiColumbo, check out an ESA fact sheet on this
particular mission at
http://esapub.esrin.esa.it/bulletin/bullet103/grard103.pdf .
>
> My orientation is both "more functional" and set far into the future
than
> both of you founders are into. That is
> why the probes are interesting but fairly unimportant to
> me. It would be interesting to know if some geothermal
> heat emissions take place on a much greater scale than
> the moon -- near the Moscow "sea" there was a large
> hotspot mapped I recall. (I would guess that Mercury
> does as it is a good deal larger, falling in the midpoint
> between the Moon and Mars in volume and much closer
> to Mars in mass. ) But still the facts would mostly be
> irrelevant.
Well, Mercury may have a good sized shield volcano in its northern,
unimaged hemisphere as well as several Copernican craters.
>
>
> Well, I have my ulterior motives and ambitions. What
> I like about this group is it is so new and out of the way
> that those ideals have a chance to take root. The archive
> system seems good, but I will repeat the question of my
> earlier query. "Are the archives supposedly permanent?"
>
Yes they are permanent. However, the owner of the list can delete
messages at his discretion.
Jason Perry
volcanopele@...http://members.fortunecity.com/volcanopele/
students at the
> University of Washington in Seattle.
>
> I am retired and a geographer by degrees and training. I specialized
> in photogeology and taught it along with other geographic systems. I
> live near and spend most evenings at the U. of WA in their science
> libraries.
Ah, a fellow wanderer in the stacks (bookrooms). Say,
what is "Jason Perry"'s background, if he doesn't mind
stating it. Mine is computer science, and I am currently
in the publishing field.
As long as I am allowed to post, I will spend years
developing this site. I, too, care about Mercury. In
specifics, the probability of ice and other interesting facets
like that a thick enough layer of dust is believed to exist
(temperature drops rapidly immediately after sunset, so
the current model suggests a cm. or so of the stuff just
like that existing on the moon).
My orientation is both "more functional" and set far into the future than
both of you founders are into. That is
why the probes are interesting but fairly unimportant to
me. It would be interesting to know if some geothermal
heat emissions take place on a much greater scale than
the moon -- near the Moscow "sea" there was a large
hotspot mapped I recall. (I would guess that Mercury
does as it is a good deal larger, falling in the midpoint
between the Moon and Mars in volume and much closer
to Mars in mass. ) But still the facts would mostly be
irrelevant.
(I'm a bit prickly, but I do so for getting out information. I invite
people to do the same with me as debate, if civil,
normally sheds light on issues.)
No, on the face of it Mercury deserves to be fairly well
ignored. And yet there are some key properties in a
project I have been working upon for the last 20 years
or so that would make very good use of those supposed
negative qualities (no rotation/6.77 x Terran insolation I
recall off hand, etc.).
In the off chance that I am correct, a very important
step of mankind (in the not so near future) would be very
well advised to use this idea. for best results.
Sorry to be so mysterious, as it is a sign of some kind
of pseudo science or similar ilk. And yet regardless of
that possibility (and I have been contacted by bonfide
scientists before in relation to this idea, and have been
given some degree of incouragement beyond that
merely of being polite by a few of them), I do know
a good deal of some archane aspects of Mercury that
are interesting to the layman. I try to go well beyond the
obvious.
Ah, a tidbit example? Uhmm, how about the old one
of the sun going backwards in its motion across the
Mercuty sky (in some locations I recall)? Personally,
that one bores me, perferring instead the idea of a sun
that grows and gets smaller over the weeks. At its
solar maximum (perihelion), it is about 2.5 times the
width of the Earth sun/or moon for that matter. The
sight would be very interesting on either pole, as our
eyes make an optical illusion of a larger disk then.
By the way, did you know that someone is finally going
to make a major SF story about Mercury? Her name is
Laura (?) Dunn and she has been a nebula winner I think. I contacted her
while she was writing it but was informed
that the story will mostly be about human interaction
(set as a prison colony with a jail mutiny). It is online
in its basics. If asked I'll look the URL up to post.
-- "David"
>
> My knowledge of Mercury is weak currently except in the very
> technical area involving the nano project. Please one and all, send
> along ideas and links.
I just wish my old information on Mercury was on hand.
It might still be in my damaged computer, but if not
it will have to come in spurts of reaccessing information.
> And...the egroup is PUBLIC and we have visitors fr Europe who are not
> members. So, our numbers are not as small as it might seem.
Who are the visitors?
Hang in
> here David and all others and let us make something of the egroup for
> whatever end!
Well, I have my ulterior motives and ambitions. What
I like about this group is it is so new and out of the way
that those ideals have a chance to take root. The archive
system seems good, but I will repeat the question of my
earlier query. "Are the archives supposedly permanent?"
Or perhaps I should contact Yahoo personally.
Hi Jason and all!
Thank you for the info. I do get most of the ESA internet stuff and
have detailed plans for the Mercury mission. I also have the
MESSENGER info, however, your excellent notes bring up another
question to my mind. I will discuss it later with you all. Do me a
favor, Jason, and check to see if ESA has two, not one, mission
planned to Mercury. Let me know your link(s) on that one, please. I
will also try to find the same and we can compare notes. The last I
heard, ESA had only decided for sure on one mission, the orbiter and
lander combination.
Thanks.
-Jacques Noel
To summarize the points made by various authors in my previous post:
1) Bepi-Columbo will consist of two orbiters and a lander.
2) The first orbiter would map the surface using various instruments.
It will likely be in a MESSENGER-type orbit with a periapse over
Mercury's southern hemisphere for complementary coverage with
MESSENGER.
3) The second orbiter will focus on Mercury's magnetosphere and its
interaction with the solar wind. It will also carry a penetrator
similar to Deep Space 2 and Lunar-B. The lander will function for at
least a week, maybe more depending on it it gets much sun. The lander
will carry seismograph and other instruments. The magnetospheric
orbiter and the lander will use the imaging orbiter as a relay.
4) The ESA will cooperate with the Japan on this mission (Japan had
been planning to send a Mercury mission of its own).
5) It is possible that the imaging orbiter may get scrapped due to the
competing orbiter from NASA.
6) The biggest draw for BepiColumbo is the lander.
Jason Perry
volcanopele@...
Here are some links with recent information on BepiColumbo:
Europe Eyes Messenger of the Gods
http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/astronomy/news/2000/sol
arsys/20001013.html
"The Mercury mission will comprise two orbiters and a lander, Roger
Bonnet, director of ESA's science program, told journalists."
"One of the orbiters will loop over the poles at a height of 400 to
1,500 kilometers (250 miles to 950 miles), carrying two cameras and
spectrometers to map the planet's surface and monitoring its gravity
and rotation."
"The other will observe Mercury's magnetic field and its interaction
with the solar wind, the blast of ionised particles that radiate from
the nearby Sun."
"The lander will be a fixed probe that will be sent down to a
relatively mild polar area, carrying a camera, seismometers and
instruments to measure the temperature and hardness of Mercury's
surface."
"The orbiters will be designed to operate for a year, while the lander
will operate for "at least" a week, according to the mission's
specification."
The following is an excerpt from a post by John Rehling to the ISSDG
mailing list (one of the two I run):
"Two orbiters! I trust that, as someone here had already hypothesized,
that the primary imaging orbiter will have a periapsis complementary
in latitude to MESSENGER. Then the magnetic field orbiter ought to
have an inclination complementary to MESSENGER's. If both are
operational at the same time, the quality of the science regarding
Mercury's magentic field and its interaction with the Sun as Mercury
varies considerably in its distance from the Sun could be of essential
interest, much like the simultaneous Cassini-Galileo observations. In
fact, this could churn out even more interesting results, as they'd be
over a much longer time, with much more variety in the data due to the
rapidly-changing spacecraft locations with respect to Mercury, and
that of Mercury with respect to the Sun. This is the best reason yet
for flying both missions.
I'm not sure I get the lander's mission. Ground truth imaging will be
interesting to an extent (does anyone expect it not to look like the
Moon?). Seismology could be a top-notch mission goal, but only if the
sensitivity of the instruments is sufficient. Also, a short lifetime
for the lander (a week) minimize the chances of seeing seismic
events.
Is there still still trace volcanism on Mercury? Is there still modest
crustal compression? Note that not only Mercurian seismology but also
the influx of impactors in that part of space is of interest. But I
don't see much point to the temperature and material strength
observations. Temperature can be monitored from orbit, or even from
Earth. Local thermal inertia (won't even survive one dawn or dusk) and
structural properties -- I don't see much point.
Surface composition would be of great interest. Particularly, as (over
timel won't happen in this mission), the different terrains on Mercury
were dated. Mercury appears to be a touch younger than the Moon;
verifying these dates would tell us a lot about the planet's thermal
history as well as impactor populations in the first billion years of
the solar system. But BC won't get a chance to do this.
Overall, I see more point to the mission now than I did before. Also,
a lander would give ESA their first striking "first" in planetary
exploration (on a mission that is ESA all the way; Mars Express
results pending)."
The following is a reply to this excerpt by Bruce Moomaw:
"Where have you been, Mr. Rehling, over all these past months of my
interminable fight with Robert Clements over the value of Bepi
Colombo?
We've both been pointing out from the start that there were two
orbiters on
this thing: a big mapping orbiter (by far the biggest and most
expensive
part of the project) which would be put into a much lower-altitude
elliptical orbit than Messenger, and a much smaller spin-stabilized
magnetospheric orbiter which would be put into a highly elliptical
orbit.
We've also agreed with the ESA that it would nice if the latter could
make
simultaneous magnetospheric measurements with Messenger (although,
according
to the current schedule, Messenger will have completed its one-year
primary
mission two years before B.C. even gets to Mercury). The squabble has
been
over whether that big mapping orbiter is worth its very high cost,
even
given that it will provide higher-resolution coverage of Mercury's
southern
hemisphere than Messenger.
I also maintain that ESA isn't even playing to its primary scientific
strength in this mission -- namely, that lander. Clements says that
"about
90%" of the scientific value of B.C. lies in its lander; I don't go
quite
that far, but it's certainly by far the biggest thing B.C. will do
that
Messenger won't. But, as you say, it won't even work more than a week
or
so, which means that its seismic data (one of the most important
things it
could do) will be so brief as to be almost worthless. Now, if B.C.
consisted of two or three small but long-lived landers focusing on
seismic,
surface-composition and maybe heat-flow data (imaging, as you say, is
much
less important), plus a small cheap data-relay orbiter that could also
make
some high-priority scientific measurements, it really would make
sense --
and it would also make sense as a mission by itself even if Messenger
failed. But ESA is apparently pigheaded in their determination to
flush at
least $200 million of their hard-earned dollars down the toilet (the
cost of
the current B.C. mission is 466 million U.S. dollars). There's
nothing I
can do about that. The only remotely sensible thing they've done,
according
to the official announcement, is collaborate with Japan on this
mission
(although I have no details)."
Here is a excerpt from a post on ISSDG by Robert Clements:
"The lander's basically an upgraded version of the Japanese Lunar-B
impactors (or the failed DS2s)... i'm not sure whether they will be
ESA
designs or ISAS/ESA coops (the Japanese have definitely folded their
own
Mercury orbiter plans into BepiColombo). My guess is that the the
nominal
mission is rather like Sojourner's; & very nominal indeed: if the
impactors are still doing surface science after a week, they probably
last quite a bit longer."
"As with all impactors, the goal is to make subsurface sampling
measurements; & also demonstrating that this theoretical technology
can
actually be made to work (something the Japanese have struggled with &
NASA spectacularly failed at)... everything else is scientific cream.
I
like the idea of it being able to do surface imaging, though...."
Jason Perry
volcanopele@...
Moderator of the Outer Planets Mailing List (subscribe at
http://www.egroups.com/group/jupiter_list )
Webmaster of the Io Home Page (
http://members.fortunecity.com/volcanopele/ )
ESA Science News
http://sci.esa.int
13 Oct 2000
Let's go! ESA's Future Science missions get full approval
At its 92nd meeting, on 11-12 October 2000, ESA's Science Programme
Committee took the final step to consolidate the future of the science
programme by unanimously endorsing the recommendations of the Space
Science Advisory Committee of 15 September, which proposed a package
to be implemented in the years 2008-2013.
The package consists of five missions and one reserve, namely:
* The Cornerstone BepiColombo to explore the planet Mercury, which
will
be the fifth Cornerstone of Horizons 2000, to be launched in 2009 in
collaboration with Japan;
* The Cornerstone GAIA, which will analyse the composition, formation
and evolution of our Galaxy by mapping with unprecedented precision
one
billion stars, to be launched no later than 2012;
* The Cornerstone LISA, the first gravitational waves space
observatory,
in collaboration with NASA, at the cost of one Flexi-mission;
* The Flexi-mission NGST, the Next Generation Space Telescope, again
in
collaboration with NASA;
* The Flexi-mission Solar Orbiter, the successor of the SOHO and
Ulysses
missions;
* The "reserve" Flexi-mission Eddington, a mission to map stellar
evolution
and find habitable planets, which could be implemented depending on
the
NGST and LISA schedules or provision of further resources.
The SSAC recommended a package instead of a limited number of
missions,
because the schedule of both NGST and LISA is outside of the control
of ESA.
These are all exciting missions, which could be implemented between
2008
and 2013 if the yearly budget were to remain at the present level,
albeit
with a yearly compensation for inflation.
The SPC , while endorsing the SSAC recommendations, added the
following
resolution:
* The SPC supports the recommendation of the SSAC regarding the
decision
on future Cornerstones and the selection of F2/F3 missions
(SSAC(2000)4).
* The SPC reiterates the need to revisit the implementation of the
selected
missions at each decision on the Level of Resources.
* The SPC emphasises the need to maintain flexibility for new ideas
and the
earliest appropriate implementation of GAIA.
With the choices made, by around 2013, ESA will also substantially
contribute
to creating a catalogue of dangerous NEO's.
The SPC also approved the other recommendations of the SSAC:
* support costing up to 2 MEuro to the mission COROT (COnvection,
ROtation
and planetary Transits ) of CNES;
* support costing up to 5 Meuro to the mission MICROSCOPE:
MICROSatellite
à traînée COmpensée" pour l'Observation du Principe d'Equivalence.
In return for the support, both missions will be "europeanised", the
details
are yet to be worked out.
These missions will also fill the foreseen "gap" in launches of ESA
scientific
missions, which will extend from 2003 to 2007.
In 2004 the IR mission ASTRO-F, of the Institute of Space and
Astronautical
Sciences (ISAS) of Japan will also be launched. The SPC recommended
the
collaboration between ESA and ISAS on this mission, for a total cost
to ESA
of approximately 3.8 Meuro.
Finally, the SPC will decide the implementation of SMART-2, a
technological
mission supporting future cornerstones, at an extraordinary meeting to
be
held on 8 November 2000.
For further information, please contact:
Mr. Hugo Marée
ESA Science Programme Communication Service
Tel: +33 (0)1 5369 7106
Fax: +31 (0)1 5369 7236
Mr. Franco Bonacina
Media Relations Office
Tel: +33 (0) 1 53 69 7155
Fax: +33 (0) 1 53 69 7690
USEFUL LINKS FOR THIS STORY
* Future missions selection
http://sci.esa.int/content/doc/28/24360_.htm
IMAGE CAPTIONS:
[Image 1:
http://sci.esa.int/content/searchimage/searchresult.cfm?aid=1&cid=1&oo
id=24441]
Artist's Impression of the Solar Orbiter -- A High-Resolution Mission
to the
Sun and Inner Heliosphere.
[Image 2:
http://sci.esa.int/content/searchimage/searchresult.cfm?aid=1&cid=1&oo
id=11741]
Bold ideas short-listed for future ESA science projects.
Jason Perry
volcanopele@...
Moderator of the Outer Planets Mailing List (subscribe at
http://www.egroups.com/group/jupiter_list )
Webmaster of the Io Home Page (
http://members.fortunecity.com/volcanopele/ )
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Lee" <jacques@...>
To: <planetmercurysociety@...>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 3:06 AM
Subject: [planetmercurysociety] Note for David and all
> My knowledge of Mercury is weak currently except in the very
> technical area involving the nano project. Please one and all, send
> along ideas and links.
AS far as instruments go, here are some suggestions:
1) gamma-ray spectrometer to measure hydrogen abundances on Mercury.
This would show us where the water ice is (a la Lunar Prospector)
2) Imager to map the unseen hemisphere at 1-2 km. Not very high
resolution (this is a nanomission) but enough to wet our appetites for
Bepi Columbo and MESSENGER
3) Magnetometer to observe the Hermian (sp?) magentosphere
I don't know how far your nanomission could go with 2-3 Mercury
missions planned for the next decade. Bepi Columbo calls for two
spacecraft. The first to arrive would study the surface of Mercury
using remote sensing instruments. The second would actually have two
components. The first is a magentospheric orbiter. The second would
be a lander. Also, don't forget MESSENGER which is an orbiter with
both remote sensing and magnetospheric sensing instruments. No lander
though.
I can get you more information in a few minutes.
Jason Perry
volcanopele@...
> -Jacques Noel (aka Harry Lee -thanks to a mistake I can't get rid of
> from Juno.Com.)
> Seattle, WA
Hi-
A note for David and all the rest.
No lobbying is intended. At this time, it is unrealistic. I am in a
small group working on a nanosatillite for Mercury which might get a
free ride off earth and a boost from one of the launches, but I do
not see that as an item for this egroup. Rather, I started this as a
general interest item at the suggestion of one of the students at the
University of Washington in Seattle.
I am retired and a geographer by degrees and training. I specialized
in photogeology and taught it along with other geographic systems. I
live near and spend most evenings at the U. of WA in their science
libraries.
My knowledge of Mercury is weak currently except in the very
technical area involving the nano project. Please one and all, send
along ideas and links.
I have not been able to work very often on the egroup because the
rivers are still low in W. Washington and I am doing personal
research on the sandbank islands in a local river before the Fall
rains make access impossible. (The next window for work on the
islands is next July or August!)
I suggested a playing with the idea of a manned Mercury flight as a
focal point to get interest up.
And...the egroup is PUBLIC and we have visitors fr Europe who are not
members. So, our numbers are not as small as it might seem. Hang in
here David and all others and let us make something of the egroup for
whatever end! I will write some messages in the future in German and
English to help some of our visitors.
-Jacques Noel (aka Harry Lee -thanks to a mistake I can't get rid of
from Juno.Com.)
Seattle, WA
Looks like the system ate my introductory message.
Here is a basic repeat.
--- In planetmercurysociety@egroups.com, "Harry Lee" <jacques@c...>
wrote:
> September 24, 2000
>
> We are just beginning and hope to have a number of members from all
> over the world interested in the planet Mercury. We are looking
> right
> now for good links of general interest. We hope to have several
from
> the moderator by next week, but please send whatever you have.
Right now you are at the threshold of success or failure. If you
look around at other e-groups, most are defunct and never had more
than passing interest. Some go through spells of feast or famine.
From the postings so far, none list the highbrow research
specifically-about-Mercury journal out for around a decade. I
haven't accessed it for a couple of years, but I think it is still
on line.
I once tried to colonize the deserted alt.sci.planets.mercury
site but found out that messages only lasted 3 months there and
had to give up. By-the-way, how long does yahoo egroups give
you in theory? "Forever"? I would like to know before I spend
any serious time on this site.
>
> We hope to have amateurs and professionals in astronomy alike. Any
> ideas or info are welcome.
>
> We hope to have a large groups and be active enough that we can act
> as a lobby to encourage Mercury exploration at a greater pace than
we
> now see. NASA, Japan, etc. all have the capability and we would
like
> to see them devote more resources to Mercury.
>
I have been active in getting information about Mercury for 10 years
(for reasons that will remain unsaid for the time being). I could
relate quite a bit, but one thing worries me. I am not interested
in "lobbying" for a mission to Mercury. Sure, I would like to see
one do some serious exploring. But it matters little whether it
happens in 5 years or 25. It will happen if us humans advance
anywhere close to the rate we seem to be doing presently. So, if
this site largly becomes a bully pulpit for that, count me out
in advance.
Anyway, I wish your site well Mr. Parry and Mr. Lee (the only posters
so far).
You can call me by my pen name David Semloh
--- In planetmercurysociety@egroups.com, "jacques noel"
<mercuryclub@b...> wrote:
> Hi All!
>
> I would like to recommend two books on Mercury.
>
> They both deal with Mariner 10's mission to Mercury. Both have
good
> info on the project details and pics and explanations of what was
> found.
>
> 1) The Voyage of Mariner 10 by James Dunne and Eric Burgess. This
was
> the official NASA publication done in 1978.
>
> 2) Flight to Mercury by Bruce Murray and Eric Burgess. Printed by
> Columbia University Press in 1977.
>
> Both have very good pics and extensive, easy to read texts.
>
> -Jacques Noel
--- In planetmercurysociety@egroups.com, "jacques noel"
<mercuryclub@b...> wrote:
> Hi All!
>
For serious study, the Arizona University (Tucson)solar system series
(I think it was them) has a thick book on many properties of Mercury.
But if I recall correctly (read it last year) it was published in
1988. It didn't have any details on the ice on the polar zones bit.
Also unclear is whether Tom Gehrels chaired it.
This series is one of the best references for serious studies
of Mercury and also for other planet bodies. The Mercury book
had about 800 pages. It had highly technical language and mainly
dealt with teneous atmosphere composition, cratering, old basaltic
lava flows, etc. The basics are buried in the details.
-David Semloh
Hi All-
I am reviewing some good Mercury sites including the complete
pictures taken by Pioneer 10.
Will be out of contact with this egroup for 6-7 days, but when I
return I will list in detail the sites and what you can expect from
each.
Take care-
-Jacques Noel
Hi Everyone!
Just for the fun of it, I have decided to work-up a manned mission to
Mercury proposal. Would everyone give some in-put into this idea?
A good freind of mine is an artist of some merit and I plan to ask
him to draw some colour pictures of any proposald we cook-up!
Why is it so difficult to throw a probe to the Mercury? Can someone
find some info on this fact?
I understand that it takes a great deal of lift to get Mercury. I
would like to know why since a mission most toward the Sun with its
great magnetic pull. I know the fast Mercury orbit has something to
do with it.
I discovered that Mercury has about the same gravity as Mars which is
much larger. The little planet is solid- very much so! Good info on
this in the European Space Agency web site.
-Jacques Noel
Check out the following websites:
[38.04] High-Resolution Radar Imaging of Mercury's North Pole with the
upgraded Arecibo Radar
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v31n4/dps99/197.htm
MERCURY: SODIUM ATMOSPHERIC ENHANCEMENTS, RADAR BRIGHT SPOTS,
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rhill/planatmos/mercspots.html
MERCURY
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/tepswg/mercury/mercury.html
In summary, radar mapping of Mercury showed small polar ice caps,
several large craters, and a possible shield volcano. I will try to
get more information in a few hours.
Jason Perry
volcanopele@...
----- Original Message -----
From: "jacques noel" <mercuryclub@...>
To: <planetmercurysociety@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 1:41 AM
Subject: [planetmercurysociety] Radar Work done on Mercury's surface
some years ago
> Hi All!
>
> Does anyone remember if there was radar bounced off of the surface
of
> Mercury years ago? If you do, do you have any idea where the
> results can be found and who did it?
>
> It popped into my mind today, an artifact of the past. Am I right?
>
> Note: Does anyone live in an area where the skies are usually clear
> in the morning or evening at least half of the days of the year? If
> someone does, I think I can direct them, if they would like, to
> observe Mercury and report back to us. I can give you good tips on
> finding the planet and how to best observe and/or photograph it. If
> you can find Mercury with binoculars, but have no telescope, I might
> be able to loan you one, if you are willing to try to take pictures.
>
> Observing Mercury is not easy. But, very much worth while.I live in
> the Pacific NorthWest near British Columbia and it is very hard to
> get a clear morning or evening except on rare occasion in the
Winter.
> We have the rain forest you know! And the rain and clouds to go with
> it.
>
> Take care.
>
> -Jacques Noel
>
Hi All!
Does anyone remember if there was radar bounced off of the surface of
Mercury years ago? If you do, do you have any idea where the
results can be found and who did it?
It popped into my mind today, an artifact of the past. Am I right?
Note: Does anyone live in an area where the skies are usually clear
in the morning or evening at least half of the days of the year? If
someone does, I think I can direct them, if they would like, to
observe Mercury and report back to us. I can give you good tips on
finding the planet and how to best observe and/or photograph it. If
you can find Mercury with binoculars, but have no telescope, I might
be able to loan you one, if you are willing to try to take pictures.
Observing Mercury is not easy. But, very much worth while.I live in
the Pacific NorthWest near British Columbia and it is very hard to
get a clear morning or evening except on rare occasion in the Winter.
We have the rain forest you know! And the rain and clouds to go with
it.
Take care.
-Jacques Noel
Hi All!
I would like to recommend two books on Mercury.
They both deal with Mariner 10's mission to Mercury. Both have good
info on the project details and pics and explanations of what was
found.
1) The Voyage of Mariner 10 by James Dunne and Eric Burgess. This was
the official NASA publication done in 1978.
2) Flight to Mercury by Bruce Murray and Eric Burgess. Printed by
Columbia University Press in 1977.
Both have very good pics and extensive, easy to read texts.
-Jacques Noel
Hi All!
Thanks again Jason! I was unable to find the site about the European
meeting.
I think the most important aspect of the whole Mercury mission
projects is to get a vehicle on the polar areas. Everything else
aside, a touchdown is critical to discoverying what Mercury really is
composed of and how the materials interact.The polar regions, of
course, might allow a vehicle to survive for some time and the
possiblity of water or related ice-like material is a compelling
thought.
Jason's first suggested web site is the best introduction. It is at
http://sd-www.jhuapl.edu/MESSENGER or you can find it by going to
www.nasa.gov and find it at the bottom of the page under Discovery
Programs.
Has anyone seen a possible diagram of the possible lander and orbital
relay ship (if they plan one?) I will email out messages and see if
I can find more detail by writing to the folks working on the project.
Take care!
-Jacques Noel (again Harry Lee is only my pen name and it got hooked
up in the egroups system and I can't seem to get it to change- Oh! I
love computers when they don't work.
--- In planetmercurysociety@egroups.com, "Harry Lee" <jacques@c...>
wrote:
> Hi All-
>
> Thank you Jason.
>
> Please invite anyone who you think would have an interest in
Mercury
> into the group.
>
> This site is just for fun...and I hope, to encourage some space
> agency in the world to put a mission onto the surface of Mercury
> within the next decade.
>
> Let me know a little about everone. I am retired and a geographer
who
> specializes in photogeology and related items. I am 60 and have
been
> involved in any aspects of amateur astronomy for 40 years.
>
> I am also into politic which I hope would help promote any project
> we might cook up.
>
> Let's hear some ideas.
>
> I am wide open for thoughts. I have an artist as a close friend
> which might come in handy for the group.
>
> I am busy until next week but please continue to email.
Here is some information from the European Geophyical Society
conference in June on the possible BepiColumbo lander that could be
launched in 2009. It is possible that the BepiColumbo mission could
be split into two missions. One would be launced in 2007 only if the
MESSENGER NASA mission to Mercury fails. This mission would be a
mapping orbiter and would provide higher resolution data over the
southern hemisphere than MESSENGER. The second mission would be
launched regardless in 2009 and would a magnetospheric mapper and
polar lander. Here is some info on that lander:
A LANDER ON MERCURY
J. Brückner (1)
(1) Max-Planck-Institut f. Chemie, Postfach 3060, D-55030 Mainz,
Germany,
brueckner@..., Fax: +49-6131-371290
To explore the poorly known planet Mercury, knowledge on the chemical
composition of its surface will provide essential clues to its
present state and
historical evolution. Orbital remote sensing using gamma or X rays
will provide
chemical concentrations on large and regional scales, only. Based on
the success of
Martian and lunar landers, in-situ investigations on a landing site
will expand
exploration and complement remote sensing. The proposed Mercury
lander will be a
very robust device to guarantee safe touchdown (semi-hard or soft)
and to survive in
the harsh thermal environment. The preliminary scientific payload
will consist of
imaging, geophysical and geochemical packages. The camera (or
cameras) will
provide images during descent and of the panorama after landing. The
geophysical
package will measure temperatures, heat flux, acceleration, and
density (and seismic
activities), and will be placed inside a small penetrating device,
which will break
into the ground before touchdown of the lander. The geochemical
package that will
determine elemental and mineralogical composition data will be
mounted on a small
mobile device (micro rover). It will carry very lightweight
instruments, such as
Alpha X-ray spectrometer, Moessbauer spectrometer, etc., and make in-
situ
measurements of soil (regolith) and rocks. Even, if the lander seems
to be a great
technical challenge, it will augment our knowledge about the surface
tremendously
(exemplarily at one point), and consequently create a major milestone
in exploring
the elusive planet Mercury.
ESA'S MERCURY CORNERSTONE MISSION
A.Anselmi (1) and G.E.N.Scoon (2)
(1) Alenia Aerospazio (2) ESA/ESTEC
System architectures and enabling technologies are presented
for 'BepiCOLOMBO',
a large scale European mission to Mercury, planned for 2007-2009. The
mission
comprises 1-year observations by 3 scientific elements: a Planetary
Orbiter for
remote sensing, a Magnetospheric Orbiter for particles and fields,
and a Lander for
in-situ analysis. A novel cruise strategy employing both electric
propulsion and
gravity assists will take the three spacecraft to Mercury in about
two years. After
extensive feasibility studies, the focus of the programme has now
moved to a 3-year
technology development phase.
Here is a page with more abstracts from this conference:
http://134.76.234.216/ScientificProgramme/ps2..oral.htmhttp://134.76.234.216/ScientificProgramme/ps2..post.htm
Jason Perry
volcanopele@...
Hi All-
Thank you Jason.
Please invite anyone who you think would have an interest in Mercury
into the group.
This site is just for fun...and I hope, to encourage some space
agency in the world to put a mission onto the surface of Mercury
within the next decade.
Let me know a little about everone. I am retired and a geographer who
specializes in photogeology and related items. I am 60 and have been
involved in any aspects of amateur astronomy for 40 years.
I am also into politic which I hope would help promote any project
we might cook up.
Let's hear some ideas.
I am wide open for thoughts. I have an artist as a close friend
which might come in handy for the group.
I am busy until next week but please continue to email.
September 24, 2000
Hi All!
We are just beginning and hope to have a number of members from all
over the world interested in the planet Mercury. We are looking
right
now for good links of general interest. We hope to have several from
the moderator by next week, but please send whatever you have.
We hope to have amateurs and professionals in astronomy alike. Any
ideas or info are welcome.
We hope to have a large groups and be active enough that we can act
as a lobby to encourage Mercury exploration at a greater pace than we
now see. NASA, Japan, etc. all have the capability and we would like
to see them devote more resources to Mercury.
Take care.
More later.
-Jacques Noel
P.S. my pen name is Harry Lee and will occur in egroup info
Hi,
my name is Jason Perry. I run the ISSDG mailing list (dealing with
the inner solar system and the asteroid belt) and Jupiter_list
(dealing with the outer solar system and the Kupiter Belt). I also
run a website on Jupiter's Moon Io. Check it out at
http://members.fortunecity.com/volcanopele .
Here is also a note from Bruce Moomaw, a member of the ISSDG list:
"Space.com has a piece on the ESA's latest mission decisions:
http://space.com/news/spaceagencies/esa_science_000919.html
... which seems to confirm that there was no mutual planning behind
ESA's
decision to fly BepiColombo -- they're just hoping that the mapping-
orbiter
part of the mission will provide enough additional data to be
justifiable
even after Messenger. Since the article also confirms that that part
of
BepiColombo will, by itself, cost almost one full year of the total
ESA
space science budget, this gets odder and odder.
The article also confirms that ESA will split the costs of the LISA
gravity
wave mission 50-50 with NASA, and that it will provide 15% of the
NGST. (By
the way, the ESA and JPL webpages for LISA both confirm that that
particular
international collaboration has been probable and carefully planned
for a
long time -- at least since 1993.)"
Even more stuff from Bruce:
"I'm beginning to see a possible sensible plan behind ESA's selection
of
BepiColombo after all. That Space.com article on the ESA's
selections said
that BC will be launched in 2009 -- "a little later than had been
planned".
And the ESA itself says that there is a great deal of elasticity in
the new
Cornerstone and Flexi plans, to try and deal with possible funding and
scheduling problems in coming years.
That means that what the ESA can do is simply begin development work
on all
of BC, including the possibly superfluous mapping orbiter -- and
then, if
Messenger is launched and successfully starts its journey to Mercury
in
2004, ESA has enough time to cancel the mapping-orbiter part of BC and
redivert almost all the development work done up to then on that
spacecraft
to the very similar Solar Orbiter spacecraft. No waste of money --
and
flexibility to cope with whatever happens up to then."
Jason Perry
volcanopele@...
Send Email
