Pre-Phase A Report - Lisa - Nasa

Recommendations

Info

iv potential and timeliness of the LISA Project and recommended it as the third cornerstone of “Horizon 2000 Plus”. Being a cornerstone in ESA’s space science programme implies that, in principle, the mission is approved and that funding for industrial studies and technology development is provided right away. The launch year, however, is dictated by the availability of funding. Considering realistic funding scenarios for ESA’s space science programme the launch for LISA would probably not occur before 2017 and possibly even as late as 2023 . It must be expected that even the most optimistic opportunity for ESA to launch the LISA cornerstone will be pre-empted by an earlier NASA mission. In 1996 and early 1997, the LISA team made several proposals how to drastically reduce the cost for LISA without compromising the science in any way: • reduce the number of spacecraft from six to three (each of the new spacecraft would replace a pair of spacecraft at the vertices of the triangular configuration, with essentially two instruments in each spacecraft), • define drag-free control as part of the payload (both the inertial sensor and the attitude detection diodes are at the heart of the payload, and the drag-free control is so intimately related to the scientific success of the mission that it has to be under PI control), • reduce the size of the telescope from 38 to 30 cm (this reduces the size and mass of the payload and consequently of the spacecraft and the total launch mass). With these and a few other measures the total launch mass could be reduced from 6.8 t to 1.4 t and the total cost could be as low as 300 – 400 MAU (exclusive of the payload). Perhaps most importantly, it was proposed by the LISA team and by ESA’s Fundamental Physics Advisory Group (FPAG) in February 1997 to carry out LISA in collaboration with NASA. A contribution by ESA in the range 50 – 200 MAU to a NASA/ESA collaborative LISA mission that could be launched considerably earlier than 2017 would fully satisfy the needs of the European scientific community. A launch in the time frame 2005 – 2010 would be ideal from the point of view of technological readiness of the payload and the availability of second-generation detectors in ground-based interferometers making the detection of gravitational waves in the high-frequency band very likely. It is recalled that the interplanetary radiation environment is particularly benign during solar minimum (2007 – 8) which has certain advantages (see Section 3.1.7 for details). In January 1997, the center of activity shifted from Europe back to the US. At that time a candidate configuration of the three-spacecraft mission was developed by the LISA science team, with the goal of being able to launch the three spacecraft on a Delta-II. The three-spacecraft LISA mission was studied by JPL’s Team-X during three design sessions on 4, 16 and 17 January, 1997 . The purpose of the study was to assist the science team, represented by P.L. Bender and R.T. Stebbins (JILA/University of Colorado), and W.M. Folkner (JPL), in defining the necessary spacecraft subsystems and in designing a propulsion module capable of delivering the LISA spacecraft into the desired orbit. The team also came up with a grass-roots cost estimate based on experience with similar subsystem designs developed at JPL. 3-3-1999 9:33 Corrected version 2.08
The result of the Team-X study was that it appeared feasible to fly the three-spacecraft LISA mission on a single Delta-II 7925 H launch vehicle by utilizing a propulsion module based on a solar-electric propulsion, and with spacecraft subsystems expected to be available by a 2001 technology cut-off date. The total estimated mission cost is $ 465M (based on FY 1997 prices), including development, construction of the spacecraft and the payload, launch vehicle, and mission operations. This revised version of the LISA mission was presented to the Structure and Evolution of the Universe Subcommittee (SEUS) in March 1997 . Although it was not selected as one of the missions recommended for a new start during the period 2000 – 2004 under the recently adopted Office of Space Science (OSS) Strategic Plan it was included in the Technology Development Roadmap for the Structure and Evolution of the Universe Theme with the aim of recommending it for the next series of NASA missions if a technologically feasible and fiscally affordable mission can be defined. NASA would welcome substantial (50 MAU) or even equal participation (175 MAU) in LISA from ESA and European national agencies. In June 1997, a LISA <strong>Pre</strong>-Project Office was established at JPL with W.M. Folkner as the <strong>Pre</strong>-Project Manager and in December 1997, an ad-hoc LISA Mission Definition Advisory Team was formed, involving 36 US scientists. Representatives from ESA’s LISA Study Team are invited to participate in the activities of the LISA Mission Definition Team. The revised version of LISA (three spacecraft in a heliocentric orbit, ion drive, Delta-II launch vehicle; NASA/ESA collaborative) has been endorsed by the LISA Science Team and is described in this report. Corrected version 2.08 3-3-1999 9:33 v
Page 1 and 2: LISA Laser Interferometer Space Ant
Page 3 and 4: LISA Laser Interferometer Space Ant
Page 5: Foreword The first mission concept
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?