Centauri Dreams
Imagining and Planning Interstellar Exploration
Complex Molecules on Pluto
I hope everyone is having a happy holiday season and looking forward to the upcoming New Year’s festivities. In the intervening window, let’s look at the outer Solar System. No other spacecraft has ever come as close to Pluto as New Horizons now has, already halfway between the Earth and the distant dwarf planet. It’s also worth mentioning that New Horizons is only the fifth spacecraft to venture so deep into the Solar System, following the two Voyagers and the Pioneer spacecraft. July of 2015 will be an extraordinary time as we wait for data return from the mission and begin to find answers to some of the many questions that await us there.
But studies from closer to home are continuing to reveal more about Pluto/Charon as well. The Cosmic Origins Spectrograph aboard the Hubble Space Telescope has found evidence for complex hydrocarbon and/or nitrile molecules on the planetary surface. Alan Stern, principal investigator for New Horizons, is behind the study, whose work was recently published in the Astronomical Journal. It’s assumed that what we’re seeing on Pluto’s surface is the result of interactions between sunlight or cosmic rays with methane, carbon monoxide and nitrogen ices.
Image: The Cosmic Origins Spectrograph aboard NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope recently discovered a strong ultraviolet-wavelength absorber on Pluto’s surface. Credit: NASA/STScI.
“This is an exciting finding because complex Plutonian hydrocarbons and other molecules that could be responsible for the ultraviolet spectral features we found with Hubble may, among other things, be responsible for giving Pluto its ruddy color,” said Stern.
Also more than a little interesting in light of New Horizons’ upcoming encounter is the fact that the team found evidence for changes in Pluto’s ultraviolet spectrum as compared to earlier Hubble measurements from the 1990s. Whether this is the result of differing terrains being observed in the two studies or surface changes related to atmospheric pressure variations during the time period involved is not known. New Horizons, it’s hoped, will tell us much more.
The paper is Stern et al., “First Ultraviolet Reflectance Spectra of Pluto and Charon by the Hubble Space Telescope Cosmic Origins Spectrograph: Detection of Absorption Features and Evidence for Temporal Change,” Astronomical Journal Vol. 143, No., 1 (9 December 2011), p. 22. Abstract available.
A Break for the Holidays
Best holiday wishes to all from Centauri Dreams. I’m now going on an abbreviated schedule, with no post today or on Monday. I’ll follow the same pattern next week as we close in on the New Year. The next regular post, then, will appear Tuesday December 27, and we’ll see what interesting news items accumulate between now and then. Let me also add thanks to the entire readership for high-quality comments all through 2011 that have focused our discussions and opened up new insights on interstellar topics. Here’s to holiday cheer, good companionship and breakthrough ideas.
Planets Survive Red Giant Expansion
The most interesting thing about the worlds known as KOI 55.01 and KOI 55.02 is not just the fact that they are — if current thinking holds — the smallest planets yet detected around an active star other than our Sun, but that they are evidently survivors of the most extreme kind of experience. KOI 55, their host star, is of subdwarf B class, the exposed core of a red giant that has lost most of its gaseous envelope. The two planets that circle it are in such tight orbits that they would have been engulfed when the central star went through its red giant expansion.
What a scenario, one we’ve often contemplated in these pages as we look toward the future of our own Sun. We tend to think in terms of planets that survive the red giant phase by orbiting far enough from the primary not to be swallowed up in it — smaller worlds like Mercury, Venus and the Earth would not survive the experience. But KOI 55.01 and KOI 55.02 evidently were swallowed, and probably represent the remains of gas giants that underwent the plunge. At present, they are thought to have radii 0.76 and 0.87 times the Earth’s radius.
Elizabeth Green (University of Arizona) explains:
“When our sun swells up to become a red giant, it will engulf the Earth. If a tiny planet like the Earth spends 1 billion years in an environment like that, it will just evaporate. Only planets with masses very much larger than the Earth, like Jupiter or Saturn, could possibly survive.”
Green participated in this work as a member of a team led by Stephane Charpinet (Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie, Université de Toulouse-CNRS). The team’s findings make an intriguing case for the proposition that planets may directly influence the development of their host stars in this late phase of stellar evolution. Here they seem to have done it by contributing to the mass loss that is necessary for a subdwarf B star to form.
Here’s Green again on how this would work:
“As the star puffs up and engulfs the planet, the planet has to plow through the star’s hot atmosphere and that causes friction, sending it spiraling toward the star. As it’s doing that, it helps strip atmosphere off the star. At the same time, the friction with the star’s envelope also strips the gaseous and liquid layers off the planet, leaving behind only some part of the solid core, scorched but still there.”
Finding remnant planets around a stellar core, planets that have passed through the maelstrom of red dwarf expansion, is surprising enough, but the work also came from an unexpected direction. The team’s objective had been to use Kepler data to study astroseismology, examining the rhythmic expansions and contractions that pressure and gravitational forces produce inside a star as it burns. It’s useful stuff because with enough data, astronomers can estimate the star’s mass, temperature and size, as well as learning something about its internal structure.
Astroseismology takes time as researchers accumulate information about the star’s variations in brightness and compare these to theoretical models of stellar interiors. Green had already been studying hot subdwarf stars in the galactic plane and had accumulated spectra of KOI 55 with instruments on Kitt Peak before the Kepler mission was launched. Kepler was able to show the star’s pulsational modes with great clarity and it was in the midst of examining the Kepler data that periodic modulations occurring every 5.76 and 8.23 hours began to turn up. The researchers were able to show that the modulations could not have been caused by internal pulsations.
Two planets were the best explanation, each orbiting closer to their star than Mercury is to the Sun. Conditions on these worlds today must be hellish, as KOI 55 is much hotter than the Sun, but their tight orbits tell us that things were once worse still, when the planets would have been engulfed during the star’s expansion.
“I find it incredibly fascinating that after hundreds of years of being able to only look at the outsides of stars, now we can finally investigate the interiors of a few stars – even if only in these special types of pulsators – and compare that with how we thought stars evolved,” Green said. “We thought we had a pretty good understanding of what solar systems were like as long as we only knew one – ours. Now we are discovering a huge variety of solar systems that are nothing like ours, including, for the first time, remnant planets around a stellar core like this one.”
The paper is Charpinet, “A compact system of small planets around a former red-giant star,” Nature 480, 496-499 (22 December 2011). Abstract available. This University of Arizona news release offers further details.
Kepler Finds Earth-Sized Planets
I’m delighted that we keep finding solar systems so different from our own. The discovery of two new planets that are roughly the size of the Earth just confirms the feeling — in a galaxy of dazzling fecundity, every system we look at has its own peculiarities to instruct and delight us. The system around the star called Kepler-20 (from its designation by the space observatory studying planetary transits) is a case in point. Yes, it has small, rocky worlds, but it also has three larger planets, and all five orbit closer than the orbit of Mercury in our own system. Kepler-20 is a G-class star somewhat cooler than the Sun located some 950 light years from Earth in the constellation Lyra.
Moreover, while we once assumed that smaller planets orbited close to stars while larger gas giants orbited further out in the system (again based on our own system and our assumptions about it), our new discoveries point to different scenarios. In Kepler-20 we have a system where the larger planets (all smaller than Neptune) orbit in alternating fashion with the rocky planets. We get a big planet and then a little one, then another large one, another rocky planet, followed by a third large world. Kepler 20-b, 20c and 20d are the large planets, with diameters of 24,100, 39,600, and 35,400 kilometers respectively, and orbital periods of 3.7, 10.9, and 77.6 days.
“The Kepler data are showing us some planetary systems have arrangements of planets very different from that seen in our solar system,” said Jack Lissauer, planetary scientist and Kepler science team member at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif. “The analysis of Kepler data continues to reveal new insights about the diversity of planets and planetary systems within our galaxy.”
As you would expect, it’s the small planets that command the headlines this morning, their presence seen as another step in the goal of finding an Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone. These worlds at least fit the bill in terms of size, although water on the surface is out of the question, as temperatures are thought to reach 760 degrees Celsius on the inner world and 426 degrees Celsius on the outer. With an orbit of 6.1 days, Kepler 20e is equivalent to 0.87 times the size of Earth, with a diameter of 11,100 kilometers. Kepler-20f, orbiting the host star every 19.6 days, has a diameter of 13,200 kilometers, quite close to the size of the Earth. Both planets are expected to be rocky, with masses less than 1.7 and 3 times that of Earth.
Image: This chart compares the first Earth-size planets found around a sun-like star to planets in our own solar system, Earth and Venus. NASA’s Kepler mission discovered the new found planets, called Kepler-20e and Kepler-20f. Kepler-20e is slightly smaller than Venus with a radius .87 times that of Earth. Kepler-20f is a bit larger than Earth at 1.03 times the radius of Earth. Venus is very similar in size to Earth, with a radius of .95 times that our planet. Prior to this discovery, the smallest known planet orbiting a sun-like star was Kepler-10b with a radius of 1.42 that of Earth, which translates to 2.9 times the volume. Credit: NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech.
So there we are, the smallest planets yet confirmed around a Sun-like star, a likely case of planetary migration in which planets form much farther from the host star and migrate inward because of interactions with the protoplanetary disk. Although Kepler’s transit methodology is finely tuned, the radial velocity signature of planets like the smaller two around Kepler-20 is out of the detection range of current technology. Kepler’s ‘long stare’ at the starry patch in Cygnus, Lyra and Draco was able to turn up the planetary candidates here, but intense computer simulations by way of follow-up were necessary to demonstrate the likelihood of the smaller detections being planets.
The paper is Fressin et al., “Two Earth-sized planets orbiting Kepler-20,” published online in Nature (20 December 2011). Abstract available.
Update on Innovative Interstellar Explorer
by Ralph McNutt
Because of the interest that the Innovative Interstellar Explorer mission generates whenever I write about it, I was pleased to receive Ralph McNutt’s latest update on IIE. This was written in response to a recent article in these pages on the Voyager missions and refers to several of the comments in that thread. I first talked to Dr. McNutt about interstellar precursors back in 2003, when researching my Centauri Dreams book. Now at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, the physicist’s space experience is comprehensive. He is Project Scientist and a Co-Investigator on NASA’s MESSENGER mission to Mercury, Co-Investigator on NASA’s Solar Probe Plus mission to the solar corona, Principal Investigator on the PEPSSI investigation on the New Horizons mission to Pluto, a Co-Investigator for the Voyager PLS and LECP instruments, and a Member of the Ion Neutral Mass Spectrometer Team on the Cassini Orbiter spacecraft. He has published over 150 science and engineering papers and over 250 scientific and engineering abstracts. I’m also pleased to say that he is an active consultant on the Project Icarus interstellar design in addition to continuing the push for an interstellar precursor mission.
Nice article on Voyager on 15 December. With the questions posted about a followup mission, I thought that an update might prove helpful. We are, of course, not currently funded for any work, so this effort remains a loose consortium of interested scientists, engineers, and others. We did present a poster at the recent American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco (attached) to update the summary of where all of this is. The current real question is what will be said about the idea of an interstellar probe in the Heliophysics Decadal Survey which should be out in the next few months. NASA science missions have always required prioritization and the current economic climate has made that an even more pressing issue. The fact that restarting Pu-238 production in the U.S. – required for any real mission past Jupiter, to Europa, and for some closer to home as well – has been so difficult is a reflection of the those economic challenges.
One of the recent things we did was to take a quick look at what Falcon Heavy might enable (see poster). SpaceX continues to work hard to bring that – and other products – to market, so the performance is yet to be known in the same detail as that of a Delta IVH. Our look suggests that the advantage may be in the the cost but not the performance. At this time the Delta IVH looks more capable for high-energy Earth escape trajectories, but that could change. The two are certainly in the same class of performance.
To set the record straight, as with Ulysses, we would not have a camera for imaging Jupiter. The Juno and follow-on missions to the Jupiter system would be better for that task. What will be the significant issue with Interstellar probe will be asymptotic speed away from the gravitational pull from the Sun. The key to that performance will be a mass-optimized payload for the primary science of the mission along with a performance optimized propulsion system. Energetic neutral atom imager(s) to look at the interaction of the solar wind and interplanetary medium as well as IR imager(s) to look at the dust environment may be in the cards, but visible imagers will not be – the mass is simply not there.
You are correct that the 2014 window will not be used. That is also related to the prime propulsion question. What is still “on the table” is some combination of large launch vehicle, plus a Jupiter gravity assist, plus (hopefully!) radioisotope propulsion (REP) for 10 to 15 years or a solar sail. Both approaches need additional real engineering study (i.e. study $$s) to pin down better. On paper, a solar sail looks like a potentially better approach: small launch vehicle, high speed out of the solar system, and no worry about (because no advantage from) a Jupiter flyby.
All of that said, I am not at the moment optimistic about using a sail for implementing an interstellar probe. While IKAROS and NanoSail-D have demonstrated sail deployment – a significant technical step – they are a very long way from the characteristics of a sail required for an interstellar probe. The basic requirements can be found here, as those have not changed. A good comparison is Pioneer 10/11 (Pioneer 11 had an additional magnetometer): 258 kg mass (including the instrument payload), 165 W of electrical power (nominal), and a 2.74-m diameter high gain antenna (cf. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1972-012A). Even if payload electronics can be miniaturized to “zero mass” (which they can’t) spacecraft sensor-and-subsystem mass can only be taken so low due to real physical constraints.
So one is likely looking at a 250 kg spacecraft sans sail, a ~400m diameter sail, and still ~1 g/m^2. But to get the required performance, the system will have to tack its way in to ~0.25 AU and then reflect the full solar pressure of the Sun at that distance. The problem is that – as with a probe applying a large delta-V at a close perihelion pass (cf. http://interstellarexplorer.jhuapl.edu/mission/niac_study.html although the link to the NIAC studies is now gone) – there is no way of actually testing this critical part of the mission without actually doing the mission. That is a real problem, which is not going to go away.
Image: An early Innovative Interstellar Explorer design concept. Credit: Ralph McNutt/APL).
The Voyagers will be going “off line” ~2025 as the Pu-238 that powers the subsystems continues to decay. Even for Voyager 1 – the fastest and furthest spacecraft from the Sun (New Horizons will be slower as it continues to climb out of the Sun’s gravity well) – 200 AU will not be reached. It is also worth recalling the cancellation of the initial “Grand Tour” mission due to cost driven by the mission requirement of a 12-year lifetime, replaced by the Voyagers with a 5-year lifetime (and they were almost turned off in 1983-4 because that requirement had been met!).
So 200 AU may be “pretty uninspiring” – but it is still really difficult. Hence, many of us believe that (1) the next step past Voyager needs to be taken and that scientific case can be made, (2) speed is important, and (3) one has to be realistic about what can – and cannot – be accomplished with that next step. A large launch vehicle, upper stage, Jupiter gravity assist, and REP continues – at least to me – to look like the current best bet, but I am always open to practical suggestions. To get to the “interesting” region of the sky as seen by Cassini MIMI and IBEX instruments in the last couple of years, the next window for a Jupiter gravity assist opens in ~2024 – and that could be done.
I hope that this helps to clarify where we are and some of the current thinking. No one ever said any of this is easy.
For further information, see McNutt et al., “Enabling interstellar probe,” Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 790-801 and McNutt et al., “Interstellar Probe: Impact of the Voyager and IBEX results on science and strategy,” Acta Astronautica 69 (2011) 767-776. Dr. McNutt also sends a link to this video showing the original interstellar precursor concept as developed in studies for NASA’s Institute for Advanced Concepts.
Into the Planetary Rainforest
So-called ‘super-Earths,’ planets larger than the Earth but smaller than Neptune, pose problems to our theories of planet formation. The most recent illustration of this came in the announcement that the candidate planets found by Kepler had now reached 2,326. Remember, many of these will not be confirmed — they’re candidates — but taken in the aggregate, what is interesting here is that one-third to one-half of these candidates fit the super-Earth category. And just as we had a problem with ‘hot Jupiters’ in trying to figure out their orbital position, many of these new planets are likewise in orbits close to their parent star, where the models say they shouldn’t be.
Things seemed so much simpler when we just had a single solar system to worry about, our own. Then, the idea of core accretion could readily account for everything we saw. The dust in the protoplanetary disk was thought to have aggregated into small planetesimals which, in the course of time and numerous collisions, bulked up into planets. It made sense that planets in the inner system would be smaller because the inner part of the disk was thought to have less material for growth, whereas an outer planet would become larger, growing into a gas giant massive enough to pull in a thick atmosphere from the surrounding disk.
As this article by Eric Hand in Nature News points out, the basic model was challenged by finding gas giants in tight orbits, forcing the development of a migration model in which these huge worlds formed out beyond the ‘snow line’ and later made their way into the inner system. Now we have to account for the latest super-Earth findings, as the article points out:
…these models predicted that anything reaching super-Earth size should either become a gas giant or be swallowed by its star, creating a ‘planetary desert’ in this size range. Kepler’s discoveries wreck those predictions. “It’s a tropical rainforest, not a desert,” says Andrew Howard, an astronomer at the University of California, Berkeley. “We hope the theory is going to catch up.”
Hand goes on to talk to Jack Lissauer (NASA Ames), who suggests that some super-Earths could have begun as smaller cores in the outer system that simply never reached the kind of runaway growth that would lead to a Jupiter-class world. Lissauer thinks a planet like this could grow to super-Earth size, and his ideas could explain some of the super-Earths we’ve found with low densities, implying a small rocky core surrounded by a large gas envelope. Even so, we’re still not able to explain denser super-Earths of the kind that are now beginning to be detected.
Kepler’s gradual revelation of smaller and smaller worlds keeps pointing us in the direction of new planet formation models like Norm Murray’s. The astrophysicist (University of Toronto) has tweaked the migration model to have the process of planet formation occur after planetesimals have migrated inward on their own, with the subsequent accretion occurring near the host star. Who knows whether this theory will stand up to the next wave of Kepler results, but if there is one thing we’ve learned from the exoplanet hunt so far, it’s that surprises are abundant, and too doctrinaire a view at this stage is simply asking for revision down the road.