Science opportunities with solar sailing smallsats
Authors:
Slava G. Turyshev,
Darren Garber,
Louis D. Friedman,
Andreas M. Hein,
Nathan Barnes,
Konstantin Batygin,
G. David Brin,
Michael E. Brown,
Leroy Cronin,
Artur Davoyan,
Amber Dubill,
T. Marshall Eubanks,
Sarah Gibson,
Donald M. Hassler,
Noam R. Izenberg,
Pierre Kervella,
Philip D. Mauskopf,
Neil Murphy,
Andrew Nutter,
Carolyn Porco,
Dario Riccobono,
James Schalkwyk,
Kevin B. Stevenson,
Mark V. Sykes,
Mahmooda Sultana
, et al. (3 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Recently, we witnessed how the synergy of small satellite technology and solar sailing propulsion enables new missions. Together, small satellites with lightweight instruments and solar sails offer affordable access to deep regions of the solar system, also making it possible to realize hard-to-reach trajectories that are not constrained to the ecliptic plane. Combining these two technologies can…
▽ More
Recently, we witnessed how the synergy of small satellite technology and solar sailing propulsion enables new missions. Together, small satellites with lightweight instruments and solar sails offer affordable access to deep regions of the solar system, also making it possible to realize hard-to-reach trajectories that are not constrained to the ecliptic plane. Combining these two technologies can drastically reduce travel times within the solar system, while delivering robust science. With solar sailing propulsion capable of reaching the velocities of ~5-10 AU/yr, missions using a rideshare launch may reach the Jovian system in two years, Saturn in three. The same technologies could allow reaching solar polar orbits in less than two years. Fast, cost-effective, and maneuverable sailcraft that may travel outside the ecliptic plane open new opportunities for affordable solar system exploration, with great promise for heliophysics, planetary science, and astrophysics. Such missions could be modularized to reach different destinations with different sets of instruments. Benefiting from this progress, we present the "Sundiver" concept, offering novel possibilities for the science community. We discuss some of the key technologies, the current design of the Sundiver sailcraft vehicle and innovative instruments, along with unique science opportunities that these technologies enable, especially as this exploration paradigm evolves. We formulate policy recommendations to allow national space agencies, industry, and other stakeholders to establish a strong scientific, programmatic, and commercial focus, enrich and deepen the space enterprise and broaden its advocacy base by including the Sundiver paradigm as a part of broader space exploration efforts.
△ Less
Submitted 19 July, 2023; v1 submitted 27 March, 2023;
originally announced March 2023.
Moons Are Planets: Scientific Usefulness Versus Cultural Teleology in the Taxonomy of Planetary Science
Authors:
Philip T. Metzger,
William M. Grundy,
Mark Sykes,
S. Alan Stern,
James F. Bell III,
Charlene E. Detelich,
Kirby D. Runyon,
Michael Summers
Abstract:
We argue that taxonomical concept development is vital for planetary science as in all branches of science, but its importance has been obscured by unique historical developments. The literature shows that the concept of planet developed by scientists during the Copernican Revolution was theory-laden and pragmatic for science. It included both primaries and satellites as planets due to their commo…
▽ More
We argue that taxonomical concept development is vital for planetary science as in all branches of science, but its importance has been obscured by unique historical developments. The literature shows that the concept of planet developed by scientists during the Copernican Revolution was theory-laden and pragmatic for science. It included both primaries and satellites as planets due to their common intrinsic, geological characteristics. About two centuries later the non-scientific public had just adopted heliocentrism and was motivated to preserve elements of geocentrism including teleology and the assumptions of astrology. This motivated development of a folk concept of planet that contradicted the scientific view. The folk taxonomy was based on what an object orbits, making satellites out to be non-planets and ignoring most asteroids. Astronomers continued to keep primaries and moons classed together as planets and continued teaching that taxonomy until the 1920s. The astronomical community lost interest in planets ca. 1910 to 1955 and during that period complacently accepted the folk concept. Enough time has now elapsed so that modern astronomers forgot this history and rewrote it to claim that the folk taxonomy is the one that was created by the Copernican scientists. Starting ca. 1960 when spacecraft missions were developed to send back detailed new data, there was an explosion of publishing about planets including the satellites, leading to revival of the Copernican planet concept. We present evidence that taxonomical alignment with geological complexity is the most useful scientific taxonomy for planets. It is this complexity of both primary and secondary planets that is a key part of the chain of origins for life in the cosmos.
△ Less
Submitted 22 October, 2021;
originally announced October 2021.
The Reclassification of Asteroids from Planets to Non-Planets
Authors:
Philip T. Metzger,
Mark V. Sykes,
Alan Stern,
Kirby Runyon
Abstract:
It is often claimed that asteroids' sharing of orbits is the reason they were re-classified from planets to non-planets. A critical review of the literature from the 19th Century to the present shows this is factually incorrect. The literature shows the term asteroid was broadly recognized as a subset of planet for 150 years. On-going discovery of asteroids resulted in a de facto stretching of the…
▽ More
It is often claimed that asteroids' sharing of orbits is the reason they were re-classified from planets to non-planets. A critical review of the literature from the 19th Century to the present shows this is factually incorrect. The literature shows the term asteroid was broadly recognized as a subset of planet for 150 years. On-going discovery of asteroids resulted in a de facto stretching of the concept of planet to include the ever-smaller bodies. Scientists found utility in this taxonomic identification as it provided categories needed to argue for the leading hypothesis of planet formation, Laplace's nebular hypothesis. In the 1950s, developments in planet formation theory found it no longer useful to maintain taxonomic identification between asteroids and planets, Ceres being the primary exception. At approximately the same time, there was a flood of publications on the geophysical nature of asteroids showing them to be geophysically different than the large planets. This is when the terminology in asteroid publications calling them planets abruptly plunged from a high level of usage where it had hovered during the period 1801 - 1957 to a low level that held constant thereafter. This marks the point where the community effectively formed consensus that asteroids should be taxonomically distinct from planets. The evidence demonstrates this consensus formed on the basis of geophysical differences between asteroids and planets, not the sharing of orbits. We suggest attempts to build consensus around planetary taxonomy not rely on the non-scientific process of voting, but rather through precedent set in scientific literature and discourse, by which perspectives evolve with additional observations and information, just as they did in the case of asteroids.
△ Less
Submitted 7 September, 2018; v1 submitted 10 May, 2018;
originally announced May 2018.
