Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:44:45.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Power of Sample Return Missions - Stardust and Hayabusa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2011

Scott A. Sandford
Scott A. Sandford*
Affiliation:
Astrophysics Branch, NASA-Ames Research Center, Mail Stop 245-6, Moffett Field, CA 94035USA email: Scott.A.Sandford@nasa.gov
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Sample return missions offer opportunities to learn things about other objects in our Solar System (and beyond) that cannot be determined by observations using in situ spacecraft. This is largely because the returned samples can be studied in terrestrial laboratories where the analyses are not limited by the constraints - power, mass, time, precision, etc. - imposed by normal spacecraft operations. In addition, the returned samples serve as a scientific resource that is available far into the future; the study of the samples can continue long after the original spacecraft mission is finished. This means the samples can be continually revisited as both our scientific understanding and analytical techniques improve with time.

These advantages come with some additional difficulties, however. In particular, sample return missions must deal with the additional difficulties of proximity operations near the objects they are to sample, and they must be capable of successfully making a round trip between the Earth and the sampled object. Such missions therefore need to take special precautions against unique hazards and be designed to successfully complete relatively extended mission durations.

Despite these difficulties, several recent missions have managed to successfully complete sample returns from a number of Solar System objects. These include the Stardust mission (samples from Comet 81P/Wild 2), the Hayabusa mission (samples from asteroid 25143 Itokawa), and the Genesis mission (samples of solar wind). This paper will review the advantages and difficulties of sample return missions in general and will summarize some key findings of the recent Stardust and Hayabusa missions.

Keywords

Stardust MissionHayabusa Missioncomets: generalcomets: individual (Wild 2)asteroidssample return
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 7 , Symposium S280: The Molecular Universe , June 2011 , pp. 275 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2011

References

Abe, M., et al. 2006, Science, 312, 1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abe, M., et al. 2011, LPSC, 42, 1638Google Scholar
Brownlee, D. E., et al. 2003, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8111Google Scholar
Brownlee, D. E., et al. 2004, Science, 304, 764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownlee, D. E., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, D. S., Barraclough, B. L., Bennett, R., Neugebauer, M., Oldham, L. P., Sasaki, C. N., Sevilla, D., Smith, N., Stansbery, E., Sweetnam, D., & Wiens, R. C. 2003, Space Sci. Rev., 105 (3-4), 509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemett, S. J., Sandford, S. A., Nakamura-Messenger, K., Hörz, F., & McKay, D. S. 2010, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 45, 701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cody, G. D., et al. 2008, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 43, 353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsila, J. E., Glavin, D. P., & Dworkin, J. P. 2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 44, 1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, G. J., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujiwara, A., et al. 2006, Science, 312, 1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glavin, D. P., Dworkin, J. P., &, Sandford, S. A. 2008, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 43, 399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiken, G. H. et al. (eds.) 1991, Lunar Source Book, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 736Google Scholar
Hörz, F., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, L. P., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanzirotti, A., Sutton, S. R., Flynn, G. J., Newville, M., & Rao, W. 2008, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 43, 187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levison, H. F. & Duncan, M. J. 1997, Icarus, 127, 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matrajt, G., Ito, M., Wirick, S., Messenger, S., Brownlee, D. E., Joswiak, D., Flynn, G., Sandford, S., Snead, C., & Westphal, A. 2008, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 43, 315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeegan, K. D., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 1724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagao, K., et al. 2011, LPSC, 42, 2119Google Scholar
Nakamura, T., et al. 2011, Science, in pressGoogle Scholar
Noguchi, T., et al. 2011, LPSC, 42, 1596Google Scholar
Okada, T., et al. 2006, Science, 312, 1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotundi, A., et al. 2008, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 43, 367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandford, S. A., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 1720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandford, S. A., et al. 2010, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 45, 406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sekanina, Z., Brownlee, D. E., Economou, T. E., Tuzzolino, A. J., & Green, S. F. 2004, Science, 304, 769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadermann, F. J., Hoppe, P., Floss, C., Heck, P. R., Hörz, F., Huth, J., Kearsley, A. T., Leitner, J., Marhas, K. K., McKeegan, K. D., & Stephan, T. 2008, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 43, 299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsou, P., Brownlee, D. E., Sandford, S. A., Hörz, F., & Zolensky, M. E. 2003, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8113Google Scholar
Tsuchiyama, A., et al. 2011, Science, in pressGoogle Scholar
Tuzzolino, A. J., et al. 2006, Science, 304, 1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yano, H., et al. 2004, Science, 312, 1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yurimoto, H., et al. 2011, LPSC, 42, 1755Google Scholar
Zolensky, M. E. & Kinard, W. H. 1993, Adv. Space Res., 13, (8)75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zolensky, M. E., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zolensky, M. E., et al. 2008, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 43, 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar