Pre-Phase A Report - Lisa - Nasa

Recommendations

Info

ii Contact address: Prof. Karsten Danzmann Max-Planck-Institut für Quantenoptik Hans-Kopfermann-Straße 1 D – 85748 Garching Tel: +49 (89) 32905 0 Fax: +49 (89) 32905 200 e-mail: kvd@mpq.mpg.de or at: Institut für Atom- und Molekülphysik Universität Hannover Callinstraße 38 D – 30167 Hannover Tel: +49 (511) 762 2229 Fax: +49 (511) 762 2784 3-3-1999 9:33 Corrected version 2.08
Foreword The first mission concept studies for a space-borne gravitational wave observatory began at the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics (JILA) in Boulder, Colorado. In the following years this concept was worked out in more detail by P.L. Bender and J. Faller and in 1985 the first full description of a mission comprising three drag-free spacecraft in a heliocentric orbit was proposed, then named Laser Antenna for Gravitational-radiation ObservationinSpace(LAGOS). LAGOS already had many elements of the present-day Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) mission. In May 1993, the center of activity shifted from the US to Europe when LISA was proposed to ESA in response to the Call for Mission Proposals for the third Medium-Size Project (M3) within the framework of ESA’s long-term space science programme “Horizon 2000”. The proposal was submitted by a team of US and European scientists coordinated by K. Danzmann, University of Hannover. It envisaged LISA as an ESA/NASA collaborative project and described a mission comprising four spacecraft in a heliocentric orbit forming an interferometer with a baseline of 5×106 km. The SAGITTARIUS proposal, with very similar scientific objectives and techniques, was proposed to ESA at the same time by another international team of scientists coordinated by R.W. Hellings, JPL. The SAGITTARIUS proposal suggested placing six spacecraft in a geocentric orbit forming an interferometer with a baseline of 106 km. Because of the large degree of commonality between the two proposals ESA decided to merge them when accepting them for a study at assessment level in the M 3 cycle. The merged study was initially called LISAG and later LISA. It was one of the main objectives of the Assessment Study to make an objective trade-off between the heliocentric and the geocentric option and to find out if the two options would be feasible within the financial constraints of an ESA medium-size project. In the course of the study it turned out that the cost for both options was more or less the same: 669 MAU for four spacecraft in a heliocentric orbit, 704 MAU for six spacecraft in a geocentric orbit (ESA cost figures are inclusive of the launch vehicle and all mission operations but exclusive of the payload which is nationally funded). Because the geocentric option offered no clear cost advantage the Study Team decided to adopt the heliocentric option as the baseline. The heliocentric option has the advantage that it provides for reasonably constant arm lengths and a stable environment that gives low noise forces on the proof masses. In the geocentric orbit the telescopes are exposed to direct sunlight on every orbit and it will be a challenging task to separate the laser light (244 pW at 1064 nm wavelength) coming from the distant spacecraft from the direct sunlight, requiring a filter with 120 layers. In the heliocentric orbit this problem does not exist because the orbital plane of the LISA spacecraft is inclined with respect to the ecliptic. Because the cost for an ESA-alone LISA (there was no expression of interest by NASA in a collaboration at that time) considerably exceeded the M 3 cost limit of 350 MAU it became clear quite early in the Assessment Study that LISA was not likely to be a successful candidate for M 3 and would not be selected for a study at <strong>Phase</strong> A level in the M 3 cycle. In December 1993, LISA was therefore proposed as a cornerstone project for “Horizon 2000 Plus”, involving six spacecraft in a heliocentric orbit. Both the Fundamental Physics Topical Team and the Survey Committee realised the enormous discovery Corrected version 2.08 3-3-1999 9:33 iii
Page 1 and 2: LISA Laser Interferometer Space Ant
Page 3: LISA Laser Interferometer Space Ant
Page 7 and 8: The result of the Team-X study was
Page 9 and 10: Contents Foreword iii Executive Sum
Page 11 and 12: Contents ix 4.2.3 Acceleration nois
Page 13 and 14: Contents xi 9 Science and Mission O
Page 15 and 16: Executive Summary 1 Executive Summa
Page 17 and 18: Executive Summary 3 Complementarity
Page 19 and 20: Mission Summary 5 LISA Mission Summ
Page 21 and 22: Chapter 1 Scientific Objectives By
Page 23 and 24: 1.1 Theory of gravitational radiati
Page 33 and 34: 1.2 Low-frequency sources of gravit
Page 51 and 52: Chapter 2 Different Ways of Detecti
Page 53 and 54: 2.2 Ground-based detectors 39 2.2 G
Page 55 and 56:
2.2 Ground-based detectors 41 Count
Page 57 and 58:
2.4 Spacecraft tracking 43 2.4 Spac
Page 59 and 60:
2.7 Heliocentric versus geocentric
Page 61 and 62:
2.8 The LISA concept 47 telescopes
Page 63 and 64:
2.8 The LISA concept 49 Figure 2.6
Page 65 and 66:
2.8 The LISA concept 51 seem rather
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 3 Experiment Description 3.
Page 69 and 70:
3.1 The interferometer 55 Fiber to
Page 71 and 72:
3.1 The interferometer 57 3.1.4 Sys
Page 73 and 74:
3.1 The interferometer 59 Figure 3.
Page 75 and 76:
3.1 The interferometer 61 3.1.6 Las
Page 77 and 78:
3.1 The interferometer 63 signal sh
Page 79 and 80:
3.1 The interferometer 65 for a sin
Page 81 and 82:
3.2 The inertial sensor 67 design (
Page 83 and 84:
3.2 The inertial sensor 69 and the
Page 85 and 86:
3.2 The inertial sensor 71 Figure 3
Page 87 and 88:
3.2 The inertial sensor 73 sufficie
Page 89 and 90:
3.3 Drag-free/attitude control syst
Page 91 and 92:
3.3 Drag-free/attitude control syst
Page 93 and 94:
Chapter 4 Measurement Sensitivity 4
Page 95 and 96:
4.1 Sensitivity 81 averaged transfe
Page 97 and 98:
4.2 Noises and error sources 83 The
Page 99 and 100:
4.2 Noises and error sources 85 Tab
Page 101 and 102:
4.2 Noises and error sources 87 cod
Page 103 and 104:
4.2 Noises and error sources 89 cha
Page 105 and 106:
4.2 Noises and error sources 91 fre
Page 107 and 108:
4.2 Noises and error sources 93 ele
Page 109 and 110:
4.2 Noises and error sources 95 is
Page 111 and 112:
4.2 Noises and error sources 97 and
Page 113 and 114:
4.2 Noises and error sources 99 Eq.
Page 115 and 116:
4.3 Signal extraction 101 here that
Page 117 and 118:
4.3 Signal extraction 103 phase loc
Page 119 and 120:
4.4 Data analysis 105 • LISA obse
Page 121 and 122:
4.4 Data analysis 107 for ground-ba
Page 123 and 124:
4.4 Data analysis 109 that are defi
Page 125 and 126:
4.4 Data analysis 111 with the phas
Page 127 and 128:
4.4 Data analysis 113 density Sn(f)
Page 129 and 130:
4.4 Data analysis 115 box (in stera
Page 131 and 132:
4.4 Data analysis 117 LISA’s dist
Page 133 and 134:
Chapter 5 Payload Design 5.1 Payloa
Page 135 and 136:
5.2 Payload structural components 1
Page 137 and 138:
5.2 Payload structural components 1
Page 139 and 140:
5.4 Mass estimates 125 5.4 Mass est
Page 141 and 142:
5.7 Thermal analysis 127 the Y-shap
Page 143 and 144:
5.8 Telescope assembly 129 surface
Page 145 and 146:
5.9 Payload processor and data inte
Page 147 and 148:
5.9 Payload processor and data inte
Page 149 and 150:
Chapter 6 Mission Analysis 6.1 Orbi
Page 151 and 152:
6.3 Injection into final orbits 137
Page 153 and 154:
6.4 Orbit configuration stability 1
Page 155 and 156:
6.5 Orbit determination and trackin
Page 157 and 158:
Chapter 7 Spacecraft Design 7.1 Sys
Page 159 and 160:
7.1 System configuration 145 2220 m
Page 161 and 162:
7.1 System configuration 147 7.1.4
Page 163 and 164:
7.2 Spacecraft subsystem design 149
Page 165 and 166:
7.3 Micronewton ion thrusters 151 b
Page 167 and 168:
7.3 Micronewton ion thrusters 153 F
Page 169 and 170:
7.3 Micronewton ion thrusters 155 (
Page 171 and 172:
7.3 Micronewton ion thrusters 157 F
Page 173 and 174:
7.4 Mass and power budgets 159 The
Page 175 and 176:
Chapter 8 Technology Demonstration
Page 177 and 178:
8.1 ELITE - European LISA Technolog
Page 179 and 180:
8.3 ELITE Technologies 165 8.2.2 Co
Page 181 and 182:
8.4 ELITE Satellite design 167 inco
Page 183 and 184:
Chapter 9 Science and Mission Opera
Page 185 and 186:
9.2 Mission operations 171 9.2 Miss
Page 187 and 188:
9.3 Operating modes 173 Power savin
Page 189 and 190:
Chapter 10 International Collaborat
Page 191 and 192:
10.3 Schedule 177 The ESA Project M
Page 193 and 194:
References [1] C.W. Misner, K.S. Th
Page 195 and 196:
References 181 [35] C. Cutler, T.A.
Page 197 and 198:
References 183 [77] J.E. Faller and
Page 199 and 200:
References 185 [104] E. Grun, H.A.
Page 201 and 202:
List of Acronyms - and other abbrev
Page 203 and 204:
List of Acronyms 189 LHC Large Hadr
Page 205:
Rear cover figure : This Report has
show all

Pre-Phase A Report - Lisa - Nasa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?