-
#20
by
Star One
on 24 Aug, 2018 14:49
-
Wouldn’t there be a place for another mission to study the Sun by flying over its poles. There has only been the Ulysses mission to study the solar poles so far as I am aware.
Solar Orbiter
Thanks I see it’s planned to do co-observations with this probe.
-
#21
by
JH
on 24 Aug, 2018 17:01
-
Yeah, PSP and SO complement each other extremely well.
-
#22
by
mn
on 24 Aug, 2018 18:22
-
-
#23
by
Star One
on 24 Aug, 2018 18:36
-
Yeah, PSP and SO complement each other extremely well.
On Wikipedia it just says Atlas V as the launch vehicle with no configuration? From its orbit should I assume something like 541 or 551?
-
#24
by
JH
on 24 Aug, 2018 21:34
-
Last I heard, it was on a 411.
-
#25
by
Blackstar
on 25 Aug, 2018 04:29
-
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26605.0I'm trying to find the early 1960s document I found on solar probe. I thought I posted it here. Anyways, it was pretty much just a square box with a shield out front. Earliest iteration I'd seen. If somebody finds it, please post it here.
-
#26
by
Star One
on 25 Aug, 2018 08:30
-
Last I heard, it was on a 411.
Thanks. Surprised at that.
-
#27
by
AnalogMan
on 25 Aug, 2018 10:27
-
-
#28
by
Blackstar
on 25 Aug, 2018 12:15
-
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26605.0
I'm trying to find the early 1960s document I found on solar probe. I thought I posted it here. Anyways, it was pretty much just a square box with a shield out front. Earliest iteration I'd seen. If somebody finds it, please post it here.
Might this be the document you were thinking of?
That's it. I found that in an archive many years ago. I believe this is the earliest proposed configuration for a Solar Probe. In the other thread that I linked to I included another report, ca. 1964. It's possible that other one predates this one by a few months. I'll go find that and post it here.
-
#29
by
Blackstar
on 25 Aug, 2018 12:31
-
Okay, so the earlier study posted above dates from March 1964. This one dates from August 1964. It is a much more detailed study than that short paper and represents a lot more engineering analysis.
It's probably no coincidence that both of these were produced in 1964. Either the first inspired the second, they were both inspired by something else, or they were preparing them for a conference or a decision-making process like a National Academies committee.
-
#30
by
starbase
on 27 Aug, 2018 13:51
-
-
#31
by
YesRushGen
on 30 Aug, 2018 18:02
-
Random questions regarding PSP...
1. Certainly, PSP is designed primarily for studying the sun. Would any of it's instruments be useful in searching for the hypothetical Vulcanoids? PSP definitely will have a unique vantage point.
2. If the spacecraft remains healthy following it's primary mission and receives an extension... Is it possible to use additional Venus flybys to increase PSP's orbital inclination about the Sun? If so, we could have ourselves the "Polar Parker Solar Probe" - PPSP.
Kelly
-
#32
by
speedevil
on 30 Aug, 2018 21:43
-
Random questions regarding PSP...
1. Certainly, PSP is designed primarily for studying the sun. Would any of it's instruments be useful in searching for the hypothetical Vulcanoids? PSP definitely will have a unique vantage point.
2. If the spacecraft remains healthy following it's primary mission and receives an extension... Is it possible to use additional Venus flybys to increase PSP's orbital inclination about the Sun? If so, we could have ourselves the "Polar Parker Solar Probe" - PPSP.
Kelly
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273351399_The_Wide-Field_Imager_for_Solar_Probe_Plus_WISPR - is interesting.
Page 18 mentions it will in principle be able to view vulcanoids.
As to going polar - as the spacecraft leaves venuses orbital plane, encounters with it would be extraordinarily rare, meaning any orbital change stops.
Also, the nominal mission is out to 2025.
-
#33
by
CuddlyRocket
on 31 Aug, 2018 07:54
-
Common sense would question why you would even come up with a design needing RTGs when you’re going towards the source of all Solar Power. Surely they are only needed when there isn’t enough sunlight for solar panels.
Because you'd have to expose your solar panels to the Sun for them to work, which is highly problematical at the temperatures anything on the probe exposed to the Sun is going to reach! Plus you have to worry about heat conduction down the power cables.
-
#34
by
Star One
on 31 Aug, 2018 15:02
-
Common sense would question why you would even come up with a design needing RTGs when you’re going towards the source of all Solar Power. Surely they are only needed when there isn’t enough sunlight for solar panels.
Because you'd have to expose your solar panels to the Sun for them to work, which is highly problematical at the temperatures anything on the probe exposed to the Sun is going to reach! Plus you have to worry about heat conduction down the power cables.
So where Parker is going is at the limit of Solar panel design then.
-
#35
by
speedevil
on 31 Aug, 2018 15:11
-
So where Parker is going is at the limit of Solar panel design then.
There was an earlier variant with a deeper dive, with solar panels.
If you put the solar panels so they can only see a tiny crescent of the sun, that fixes most of the issues. Pointing becomes more critical - but it was critical anyway.
Secondly, for the closer orbits, the time spent in them is tiny.
It spends (in the latter orbits) 35 hours within 15 radii of the sun every few months, but only 5 hours within 10 radii.
5 hours is in the realm of 'easy to do with batteries', especially given that they only need to do a couple of dozen cycles over their life, and there is no RADAR, or other high powered instruments required during this time.
-
#36
by
JH
on 31 Aug, 2018 15:17
-
So where Parker is going is at the limit of Solar panel design then.
Yes, the solar panel design on PSP is unique, but the RTGs in older designs were necessary because Jupiter flybys were used to increase inclination. SPP (now rechristened PSP) decreased mission cost partly by abandoning higher inclination orbits (the plasma environment around the sun is markedly different at higher latitudes).
-
#37
by
zhangmdev
on 31 Aug, 2018 16:12
-
-
#38
by
Sam Ho
on 31 Aug, 2018 22:58
-
2. If the spacecraft remains healthy following it's primary mission and receives an extension... Is it possible to use additional Venus flybys to increase PSP's orbital inclination about the Sun? If so, we could have ourselves the "Polar Parker Solar Probe" - PPSP.
As to going polar - as the spacecraft leaves venuses orbital plane, encounters with it would be extraordinarily rare, meaning any orbital change stops.
Also, the nominal mission is out to 2025.
The PSP final orbit is designed to avoid planetary encounters. Specifically, the orbit is the same period as Mercury's, but phased so it never encounters the planet. Because of that, the next time PSP comes anywhere near Venus after the final flyby is in May of 2030.
For repeated Venus flybys to increase inclination, you want ESA's Solar Orbiter.
-
#39
by
GClark
on 01 Sep, 2018 13:12
-
For repeated Venus flybys to increase inclination, you want ESA's Solar Orbiter.
FWIW, I have (somewhere) the mission plans for JAXA's Solar-D (formerly Solar-C Plan A), which will use SEP & EGAs to get to a +/- 40-degree inclination.
ISTR that China also has a an Out-of-Ecliptic mission in the pipeline.