Month: June 2021

From NASA

The Hubble Space Telescope is deployed from the space shuttle Discovery on April 25, 1990. Hubble avoids distorting the atmosphere and has an unobstructed view of planets, stars and galaxies, some of which are more than 13.4 billion light years away. Credits: NASA / Smithsonian Institution / Lockheed Corporation

June 22, 2021 – Tests are underway to identify the problem and restore NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope payload computer

NASA continues to work to fix an issue with the Hubble Space Telescope’s payload computer that was halted on June 13th. After testing multiple memory modules on the computer, the results suggest that some other computer hardware might be causing the problem, with memory errors being just a symptom. The operations team investigates whether the Standard Interface (STINT) hardware, which bridges the communication between the computer’s Central Processing Module (CPM) and other components, or the CPM itself is responsible for the problem. The team is currently developing tests that will be run over the next few days to try to further isolate the problem and identify a possible solution.

This step is important in determining which hardware is still working properly for future references. If the payload computer problem cannot be resolved, the operations team is ready to upgrade to the STINT and CPM hardware on board the backup payload computer. The team has conducted ground tests and operational procedures reviews to verify any commands required to perform this switch on the spacecraft.

With the backup payload computer’s CPM and STINT hardware turned on, it will take several days to assess computer performance and restore normal scientific operations. The backup computer has not been turned on since it was installed in 2009; however, it was thoroughly tested on the ground before being installed on the spacecraft.

The payload computer is a NASA Standard Spacecraft Computer-1 (NSSC-1) system built in the 1980s and located on the Science Instrument Command and Data Handling (SI C&DH) unit. After 18 years in orbit, the original SI C&DH suffered a failure in 2008 that delayed the final maintenance mission to Hubble while a replacement was being prepared for flight. In May 2009, STS-125 was launched and the astronauts installed the existing unit. The replacement includes original hardware from the 1980s with four independent 64K memory modules made from Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) memory. Only one memory module is used during operation, the other three serve as a backup. All four modules can be used and accessed by any of the redundant payload computers.

Hubble was founded in 1990 and has been in operation for more than 30 years, and has made observations that have sparked our imaginations and deepened our knowledge of the cosmos around the world.

For more information about the Science Instrument Command and Data Handling unit, see the following PDF file:

Extract from the Science Instrument Command and Data Handling Unit

June 18, 2021 – NASA Hubble Space Telescope payload computer recovery operations continue

NASA continues to work on solving an issue with the Hubble Space Telescope’s payload computer. The operations team will run tests and collect more information about the system to further isolate the problem. The scientific instruments will stay in Safe Mode until the problem is resolved. The telescope itself and the scientific instruments remain in good condition.

The computer was paused on Sunday, June 13th. An attempt to restart the computer on Monday June 14th failed. However, when the operations team tried to switch to a backup storage module, the command to initiate the backup module failed. Another attempt was made on both modules on Thursday evening to get more diagnostic information while trying again to bring these memory modules online. However, these attempts were unsuccessful.

The payload computer is a NASA Standard Spacecraft Computer-1 (NSSC-1) system built in the 1980s and located on the Science Instrument Command and Data Handling Unit. The purpose of the computer is to control and coordinate the scientific instruments and to monitor them for health and safety purposes. It is completely redundant in that there is a second computer and associated hardware in orbit, which can be switched to in the event of a problem. Both computers can access and use each of four independent memory modules, each of which contains 64K of complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) memory. The payload computer uses only one memory module at a time, the other three serve as a backup.

Hubble was founded in 1990 and has been a major contributor to our understanding of the universe over the past 30 years.

More information about Hubble can be found at: www.nasa.gov/hubble

June 16, 2021 – NASA is working to resolve an issue with the Hubble Space Telescope’s payload computer

NASA is working to resolve an issue with the Hubble Space Telescope’s payload computer. The computer stopped shortly after 4 p.m. EDT on Sunday, June 13th. After analyzing the data, the Hubble operations team investigates whether a deteriorating memory module has caused the computer to stall. The team is preparing to switch to one of several backup modules on Wednesday, June 16. The computer will then run for about a day to see if the problem has been resolved. The team would then restart all scientific instruments and return the telescope to normal scientific operation.

The payload computer has the task of controlling and coordinating the scientific instruments on board the spacecraft. After the stop on Sunday, the main computer no longer received a “keep-alive” signal, which is a standard handshake between the payload and the spacecraft’s main computers to indicate that everything is in order. The main computer then automatically placed all scientific instruments in a safe mode configuration. Personnel at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center control center in Greenbelt, Maryland restarted the payload computer on Monday, June 14, but the same problem soon emerged.

The payload computer is a NASA Standard Spacecraft Computer-1 (NSSC-1) system that was built in the 1980s. It is part of the Science Instrument Command and Data Handling module that was replaced during the last astronaut maintenance mission in 2009. The module has various levels of redundancy that can be switched on as the primary system if required.

More information about Hubble can be found at: www.nasa.gov/hubble

Like this:

To like Loading…

connected

In the coming years, multiple space agencies will be sending astronauts to the Moon for the first time since the closing days of the Apollo Program. For NASA, this will represent the long-awaited “return to the Moon,” while every other space agency will see it as a tremendous step for their space programs. One thing they all have in common is that this time around, the goal is to build the necessary infrastructure that will allow for a long-term human presence.

However, amid all the excitement of this approaching moment in history are concerns about the lack of an international framework that will ensure our efforts are for the sake of “for all humankind.” Whereas NASA is seeking partners for its Artemis Program through bilateral agreements, Russia and China are pursuing an agreement of their own. They call it the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), and they too are looking for partners in this endeavor.

The detailed plan for the ILRS was made public with the release of the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) Guide for Partnership, a document prepared by the China National Space Agency (CNSA) on June 16th, 2021. As the first volume in what is clearly an evolving mission architecture, the Guide lays out the purpose and intent of the Sino-Russian agreement and establishes a roadmap and a timeline for the ILRS’ development.

Intent

According to the Guide, the ILRS represents a merger of Russia and China’s plans for lunar exploration, something that has been in the works for many years. In 2019, the two countries signed bilateral agreements to establish a common data center for lunar and deep-space exploration. They also agreed to cooperate with their respective Chang’e 7 and Luna 26, both of which will explore the Moon’s South Pole-Aitken Basin in 2024. As is stated in the Preface to the Guide:

“Considering the fruitful experience from the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation in the areas of space technology, space science and space application, China National Space Administration (CNSA) and the State Space Corporation “Roscosmos” (ROSCOSMOS) jointly initiated the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) based on their [respective] existing lunar exploration plan.

“The most efficient and productive investigation, exploration and use of the Moon can be achieved only in a broad international partnership with an attraction of other countries, international organizations and international partners. CNSA and Roscosmos jointly invite all interesting international partners to cooperate and contribute more for the peaceful exploration and use of Moon in the interests of all humankind, adhering to the principles of equality, openness and integrity.”

In this respect, the Guide constitutes the official reply of China and Russia to the Artemis Accords, the series of bilateral agreements designed to establish common principles for lunar exploration. The Accords are grounded in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the historic charter that established that “the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind.”

Yutu rover emblazoned with Chinese Flag as seen by the Chang’e 3 lander on the moon on Dec. 15th, 2013. Credit: China Space

To date, twelve countries have signed the Accords, including the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, South Korea, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, and Brazil. However, when the Accords were first announced in May of 2020, Roscosmos director-general Dmitry Rogozin stated they were “US-centric” and strayed too far from the framework for the ISS. As such, Russia would not participate.

The following October, during the International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Rogozin went on to say:

“The most important thing here would be to base this program on the principles of international cooperation that we’ve all used. If we could get back to considering making these principles as the foundation of the program, then Roscosmos could also consider its participation.”

On March 3rd, 2021, Russian and China made it clear they intended to follow when they announced that they would be partnering to create an ILRS, which they described as “a comprehensive scientific experiment base with the capability of long-term autonomous operation, built on the lunar surface and/or on the lunar orbit.” With the release of the Guide, Russia and China have made the details of their plan public for the first time.

Similar to the Artemis Program, the ILRS calls for the creation of multiple facilities to enable long-term missions to the lunar surface. For Artemis, one of the most vital components is the Lunar Gateway, an orbital habitat that will provide a dock for the Orion spacecraft. The next is the Human Landing System (HLS), a reusable lunar lander that will carry astronauts to and from the surface. Last, there is the Artemis Base Camp that will support the long-term exploration of the surface.

Timeline of the Artemis Program. Credit: NASA

China and Russia have a similar idea in mind for the ILRS, which is defined thusly in the Guide. [Note: some corrections appear in brackets due to translation issues]:

“[The] ILRS is a complex experimental research [facility] to be constructed with [the] possible [involvement] of partners on the surface and/or in orbit of the Moon. [It is] designed for multi-discipline and multi-purpose scientific research activities, including exploration and use of the Moon, moon-based observation, fundamental research experiments[,] and technology verification, with the capability of long-term unmanned operations with the prospect of subsequent human presence.”

According to the design, five facilities will make up the ILRS, starting with the Cislunar Transportation Facility (CLF) – an orbital station that mirrors the purpose of the Gateway. The second is the Support Facility on a lunar surface (similar to the Artemis Base Camp) that will include a command center, a global Telemetry, Tracking, and Command (TT&C) network, an energy supply system, a thermal management system, and various support modules.

The third is the Lunar Transportation and Operation Facility (LTOF), where lunar vehicles will be stowed and maintained when not in use. This will include transporting cargo to other facilities, conducting exploration missions on the surface, or missions to explore the interior of stable lava tubes. The fourth is the Lunar Scientific Facility, which will support lunar science operations on the surface, in-orbit, or in deep space.

The fifth and final facility mentioned is the Ground Support and Application Facility (GSAF), which is intended to offer operational support to communications and missions. It will also serve as a data center for lunar and deep-space missions, which China and Russia previously agreed to establish as part of their joint lunar efforts.

Artist’s conception of the ILRS. Credit: CNSA

Timeline & Objectives

Overall, the Guide lays out the eight objectives for the ILRA, which are similar to what NASA hopes to accomplish with the Artemis Program. They include the characterization of lunar topography, geomorophorology, and the geological structure of the surface. In addition, the joint Chinese-Russian program will seek to characterize the physics and chemistry of lunar materials and the body’s internal structure to get a better understanding of its geological record.

Beyond that, the IRLS will serve as a base for conducting lunar astronomy and Earth observation, in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), and vital biological and medical researcher. These objectives and the development of the ILRS itself are to be met during a three-phase process that will unfold between today and 2035. These include the Reconnaissance, Construction, and Utilization phase, and each incorporates future missions into their planning.

Phase I – Reconnaissance (2021 to 2025)

This is currently underway and is expected to last until mid-decade. The objectives in this phase include exploring the South Pole-Aitken Basin for potential sites for the ILRS, as well as refining the design of the base itself. Another important objective is the verification of technologies that will allow for precise soft landings in the southern polar region. Past and future missions that will (have) contributed are also indicated.

On the Chinese side, these include the Chang’e-4, Chang’e-6, and Chang’e-7 missions. The Chang’e-4 mission, which arrived on the Moon in 2018 and is still operational, consists of the Chang’e Lander, the Yutu 2 (Jade Rabbit 2) rover, and Queqiao relay satellite. The missions will be launched sometime in 2023/2024 and will return samples from the Moon’s southern polar region and scout out locations for a base.

Timeline for the development of the ILRS. Credit: CNSA

On the Russian side, missions related to the ILRS include the Luna-25, Luna-26, and Luna-27, consisting of two landers and one orbiter (Luna 26). These missions will launch beginning in October 2021 (Luna-25), followed by the second and third in 2024 and August 2025 (respectively). If all goes well, China and Russian will be able to begin the next phase of operations by the middle of this decade.

Phase II – Construction (2025 to 2030)

At this point, one of the main goals will be the verification of technologies related to the command center of the ILRS. Similarly, the samples obtained by the Chang’e-6 and Chang’e-7 missions will be returned to Earth for analysis, which will give mission planners a better idea of where the safest and richest resource environment can be found. This will be followed by the delivery of massive amounts of cargo to build the base and the commencement of joint operations.

Missions of note in this phase include China’s Chang’e-8 mission that will launch by 2027. This mission will test technologies like 3D regolith printing and others necessary for the construction of the ILRS. Russia will also be sending its Luna-28 mission that year, a sample return mission that (like Chang’e 6 and 7) will obtain regolith from the southern polar region to determine its composition and the presence of resources.

Phase III – Utilization (2030 to 2035)

This final phase will involve the completion of all in-orbit and surface facilities that provide energy, communication, research, exploration, and transport services. It will also involve the verification of all ISRU-related and other potential technologies. Once the ILRS is complete, China and Russia hope to maintain and expand it as needed. This phase will involve five jointly-developed IRLS missions to establish the base architecture:

• IRLS-1 – establishment of the command center, basic energy, and telecommunications facilities
• IRLS-2 – establishment of lunar research exploration facilities (sample collection, lunar physics, geology, lava tubes)
• IRLS-3 – establishment of lunar ISRU technology verification facilities
• IRLS-4 – verification of general technologies like biomedical experiments, sample collection, and return
• IRLS-5 – establishment of lunar-based astronomy and Earth observation facilities

Illustration of NASA astronauts on the lunar South Pole. Credit: NASA

Partnerships

The Guide also establishes that partner organizations will have the opportunity to conduct their own missions as part of each phase. Those missions are to conform to the objectives of each phase in question, with possible roles ranging from assisting with exploration to the construction of necessary infrastructure in orbit and on the surface, and the creation of base facilities. As it is summarized in the Guide:

“All Partners are encouraged to join ILRS project based on their own situation. Any Partner willing to contribute to the ILRS, through a jointly coordinated negotiation with China and Russia, can participate including co-lead status in any part of the project. The objective, plan, interface, standards, interoperability and scientific application of the participating project(s) or missions shall be aligned with generation architecture and functions of ILRS.”

The Guidelines and Opportunities for these partnerships are laid out in the last two sections of the Guide. The duties of prospective partners are spelled out using a five-tiered alphabetic classification system. For Category A: Space Mission Cooperation, partners are asked to contribute to the “development of the general architecture, scientific objectives, road-map of ILRS, and participate with scientific or engineering missions of ILRS.”

Those partners classified as Category B. Space System Cooperation, must cooperate with China and/or Russia on one or more space systems based on the general architecture and functions of the ILRS. Examples include the ILRS’s power system, a launcher system for another party’s spacecraft, or an independent lunar probe to piggyback on a CNSA or Roscosmos mission. Alternately, they can choose to participate in one or more of the missions led by the CNSA or Roscosmos.

Artist’s impression of surface operations on the Moon. Credit: NASA

For Category C. Subsystem Cooperation, partners will be required to develop one or more space subsystems depending on the specific mission or ILRS system. Much the same is true for Category D. Equipment Cooperation, where partners will provide one or more sets of equipment based on the defined mission or ILRS subsystem. Last, Category E. Ground and Application Cooperation applies to partners cooperating on the building of the CLF, LTOF, and/or GSAF.

Overseeing these partnerships is the Joint Working Group established by the CNSA and Roscosmos, which has designated subgroups for handling legal affairs, scientific objectives, and engineering objectives. Specific opportunities for collaborating on various missions are also laid out, as is a list of contacts for interested parties.

One thing that is abundantly clear from this Guide is the similarities it has to the Artemis Program and the Artemis Accords. These are evident in terms of the mission architecture, but also in terms of the stated purpose of the joint venture and the desire to forge partnerships. As noted, the language used in the preface is indicative of the Outer Space Treaty, especially where it states that the overall aim is “the peaceful exploration and use of the Moon in the interests of all humankind.”

As a comparison, consider Section 1 of the Artemis Accords (Purpose & Scope). “Adherence to a practical set of principles, guidelines, and best practices in carrying out activities in outer space is intended to increase the safety of operations, reduce uncertainty, and promote the sustainable and beneficial use of space for all humankind.”

Illustration of Artemis astronauts on the Moon. Credits: NASA

In both cases, the language is an attempt to call forth the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty. However, as many critics have stated, the Artemis Accords suffer from the fact that they are tied to a specific space agency and program. This was certainly the basis of Rogozin and Russia’s resistance when the Accords were first announced, hence why Russia and China have come together to do the same.

In short, they have decided to establish a set of bilateral agreements that would allow others to participate in their program of lunar exploration. While it’s not clear what the long-term implications of this will be, it could possibly lead to tensions and territorial disputes down the road. After all, one of the hallmarks of the current era of space exploration is its plurality, where multiple space agencies (and commercial space) are involved instead of two competing superpowers.

But when three of the five major space powers create two competing frameworks and ask others to join them, one can be forgiven for concluding that there’s a new Space Race in town! It also makes the need for a truly international legal framework – as advocated by the Space Generation Advisory Council (SGAC) – all the more pressing. If we truly want our future in space to be “for the good of all humankind,” steps need to be taken to prevent it from becoming the “Wild West 2.0.”

Further Reading: CNSA

Like this:

Like Loading…

I had to think about how science was going. Science is a fun animal. It is not a “thing”, it is a process. The process works as follows:

• One or more people make a falsifiable claim about how the physical world works. You support it with logic, math, computer code, examples, experiences, experimental results, thought experiments or other meaningful backup information.
• They make all of this information public so that others can replicate their work.
• Others try to find things that are wrong with the original claim, including errors in logic, math, computer code, examples, and the rest.
• If someone can prove that the original claim is false, that claim will be falsified and rejected.
• If no one can prove that the claim is false, then it will be accepted as scientifically valid for the time being … but only for the time being because any new information of any kind can show that the claim is indeed wrong.

Notice that two things must be there for this process, which we call “science”, to work. The first is total transparency. If the claimant refuses to provide the data, computer code, or any supporting evidence, the claim cannot be replicated or falsified and is therefore not part of the science.

The second necessary component is that the claim must be falsifiable. When I say, “There is a Pastafarian God who controls the universe through his noodle appendages,” no one can falsify that statement … so it is not a scientific claim.

Now let me point out what makes no difference in this process. The following things does not matter in real scientific investigation:

• Nationality, gender, level of education, previous achievements, publications, age, certificates, shoe size or hair color of the person making the claim. They mean nothing – the claim is either true or not, regardless of these meaningless side issues.
• The place where the claim is made. It’s either true or not, whether it’s published in a scientific journal, posted on the internet, or written on an outbuilding wall.
• Nationality, gender, educational level, previous accomplishments or publications, testimonials, shoe size or hair color of the person who identified problems with the entitlement.
• Peer review. The peer reviewers have invested a lifetime in their own work and beliefs and if their worldview is overturned by a new scientific paradigm they can be unemployed. As a result, peer review tends to act as the gatekeeper of consensus these days, preventing the publication of claims that are inconsistent with agreed theories. It is no guarantee of scientific validity. From the National Institutes of Health: “We have little evidence of the effectiveness of peer reviews, but we have considerable evidence of its shortcomings. Besides being bad at spotting gross errors and almost useless for fraud detection, it’s slow, expensive, wastes academic time, very subjective, kind of like a lottery, prone to bias and easily abused. “
• Personal attacks. Attacking the person instead of attacking the person’s ideas is called an “ad hominem” attack, from Latin which means “on the man”. The most common one in climate science is when someone calls their opponent a “denier”. This is a childish attempt to discredit the person instead of dealing with what they are saying. My rule of thumb for such personal attacks is, “If someone starts throwing mud, it is a sure sign that they are running out of ammunition.”
• And finally, to get to the point of this post, it doesn’t matter how many people believe the original claim. Consensus on the claim is pointless. It makes no difference if every learned person in the world, supported by the Catholic Church, believes that an idea is true – as Copernicus and Galileo have shown, scientific validity is not determined by consensus or voting.

In fact, all scientific advances are made the same way. Someone questions revealed wisdom. Someone does not believe the consistent explanation. Someone thinks the current theory is incorrect. Someone contradicts the scientific societies, the consensus of experts, the accepted paradigm.

And in the process, new scientific ideas are brought to light and agreed … until they are discarded again in the future.

So I thought I’d give some quotes from deep thinkers on this very question. Let me start with the polymath Michael Crichton, writer, director, medical student, television producer, Emmy winner, and most interesting man.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that should be stopped now. Historically, the right to consensus was the first refuge of villains; it is a way of avoiding debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear that scientists are in agreement on something, grab your wallet because you are being betrayed. – Michael Crichton

Next, there are a few quotes from the OG Scientific Breakthroughs, Big Al, noted “Isaac Newton Denier”:

Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth. – Albert Einstein

To punish myself for my disregard for authority, fate has made me an authority myself. – Albert Einstein

When a pamphlet called 100 Authors Against Einstein was published, Einstein replied, “If I’m wrong, one would be enough.” – Albert Einstein, maybe apocryphal, but absolutely true

Then there is Richard Feynman, one of the best physicists of the last century:

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. – Richard Feynman

Have no respect for authority; Forget who said it and instead look at what it starts with, where it ends, and ask yourself, “Is that reasonable? – Richard Feynman

Here is Scott Adams, cartoonist, hypnotist, author, and general troublemaker:

I can say with absolute certainty that it is not a good idea to trust the majority of experts in an area that involves both complexity and large sums of money. – Scott Adams

Whenever you have money, reputation, power, ego, and complexity involved, it is irrational to assume that you are seeing objective science. – Scott Adams

And if you will allow me a little digression, I cannot pass up the opportunity without quoting Matt Groening, creator of the Simpsons:

If the authorities warn you about the sinfulness of sex, there is an important lesson to learn. … … not have sex with the authorities. – Matt Groening

Facts are meaningless! You could use facts to prove anything even remotely true – Homer (Simpson)

… But I digress. Let us return to the important issue of the futility of scientific consensus by quoting the aforementioned Galileo Galilei:

In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not as valuable as a tiny spark of sanity in a single person. – Galileo

And Copernicus:

There is general consensus among the authorities that the earth rests in the center of the universe, and they consider it inconceivable and even ridiculous to hold the contrary opinion. On closer inspection, however, the question will turn out to be unresolved and therefore definitely not to be despised. – Nicolaus Copernicus

This idea of ​​questioning the authorities is not new either. One of the clearest visions of how science is the process of the experts’ disbelief comes from the 11th Persian doctor, philosopher and astronomer Abu ‘Ali al-Husayn ibn’ Abd Allah ibn Sina wrote over a thousand years ago:

The seeker of truth is not the one who studies the writings of the ancients and trusts in them following his natural disposition, but the one who suspects his belief in them and questions what he collects from it, who submits to them arguments and proofs and not the statements of People whose nature is fraught with all sorts of imperfections and flaws.

Hence, the duty of the man who examines the writings of scientists, if his aim is to learn the truth, is to make himself the enemy of everything he reads and to get his mind to the core and the margins to concentrate its content, attack it from all sides. He should also suspect himself in his critical examination so as not to fall into prejudice or indulgence. – Avicenna

Amazing insights from a man who writes in the year 1000 … nothing new under the sun.

And why did I write all this? Well, that’s because I’m tired of people saying, “But, Willis, don’t you know that all scientists agree on the ‘climate emergency’? Don’t you realize that you are up against a hundred years of sedentary climate science? Your work cannot possibly be true, it is not peer-reviewed, and besides, you are a climate denier! Surely you need to know that there is 97% consensus that bad people are ruining the climate, and that everyone who is anyone agrees that bad weather can be prevented by poor people paying more for gas? “

Yes, I know all of this … and for all of the reasons given by all of the above, I am not giving a rat gluteus minimus about the existence of any alleged consensus. This is not how science works, never was and never will be.

My best to each and every one of you, commentators, lurkers, haters, the slightly curious and everyone else.

w.

5
23
voices

Item rating

Like this:

To like Loading…

connected

Since the Juno spacecraft has been in orbit around Jupiter for almost five years – July 4, 2016 – you may have forgotten that time in 2013 when Juno passed Earth. The spaceship needed a little extra thrust to reach Jupiter, so it used Earth as a gravity assist. Picture editor Kevin Gill reminded us of this flyby with some breathtaking, newly edited pictures of the earth, captured by the JunoCam, the “Citizen Science” camera on board. Indeed a light blue point!

Juno flew past Earth on October 9, 2013 and received a speed boost of more than 3.9 kilometers per second (about 8,800 mph). Scientists also used the flyby to test the camera and give it its first warm-up in space to take pictures of a colorful planet.

Image of Earth captured by the JunoCam on the Juno spacecraft during a gravity-assisted Earth flyby on October 9, 2013. Photo credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / SwRI / MSSS / Kevin M. Gill.

The flyby also gave amateur photo editors a warm-up for using Junocam images. Because JunoCam was designed as a collaboration between Mission scientists and the public, the JunoCam images will be sent back to Earth and posted on the Mission Juno website where the public can download them for later image processing. The images edited by Citizen Scientists will then be published on the Juno website. They range from detailed scientific images and analysis to beautiful works of art on the subject of space.

“The idea of ​​combining our scientific imaging and understanding of the planet with artistic depictions of not only the importance of the planet but also exploration was very valuable to the mission and the public,” said Paul Steffes of Georgie Tech, one of Juno’s -Science researcher.

Image of Earth captured by the JunoCam on the Juno spacecraft during a gravity-assisted Earth flyby on October 9, 2013. Photo credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / SwRI / MSSS / Kevin M. Gill.

Juno took off from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on August 5, 2011. Juno’s launcher was able to give the spacecraft just enough energy to reach the asteroid belt, at which point the sun’s gravity pulled it back toward the inner solar system. Mission planners designed the oscillation through the earth as a gravity assist to increase the speed of the spacecraft relative to the sun so it could reach Jupiter.

You can see all of the JunoCam Citizen Science images here, and see more of Kevin’s great work on his Flickr page.

Like this:

To like Loading…