Members Can Post Anonymously On This Site
10 years preparing for 'Armageddon'
-
Similar Topics
-
By Space Force
The U.S. Space Force celebrates its fifth year of existence securing the nation’s interest in, from and to space.
View the full article
-
By NASA
Earth Observer Earth Home Earth Observer Home Editor’s Corner Feature Articles Meeting Summaries News Science in the News Calendars In Memoriam More Archives 40 min read
GPM Celebrates Ten Years of Observing Precipitation for Science and Society
Introduction
On February 27, 2014, the four-ton Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Core Observatory (CO) spacecraft launched aboard a Japanese H-IIA rocket from Tanegashima Space Center in southern Japan. On that day, the GPM mission, a joint Earth-observing mission between NASA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), began its journey to provide the world with an unprecedented picture of global precipitation (i.e., rain and snow). GPM continues to observe important precipitation characteristics and gain physical insights into precipitation processes using an advanced radar and passive microwave (PMW) radiometer on the GPM–CO along with leveraging a constellation of satellites. (The Earth Observer reported on the GPM–CO launch and plans for the mission in its November–December 2013 issue – see GPM Core Observatory: Advancing Precipitation Instruments and Expanding Coverage.)
As GPM is now well into its 10th year in orbit, the time is fitting to reflect on and celebrate what this mission has accomplished and showcase its contributions to science and society. While occasionally dealing with equipment malfunction, the GPM–CO has operated nearly continuously over its lifetime and recently was put into a higher orbit to conserve station-keeping fuel. As a result, GPM remains in extended operations and continues its observations after 10 years, making significant advances in the precipitation field through improving sensor calibration, retrieval algorithms, and ground validation measurements. GPM data continues to further our understanding of the characteristics of liquid and frozen precipitation around the world and improving our scientific knowledge of Earth’s water and energy cycles. These advances have extended to numerous societal benefits related to operational weather prediction, situational awareness and prediction of extreme events, hydrological and climate model development, water resource and crop management activities, and public health alerts. Additionally, this information has informed the K–12 and post-secondary audiences, influencing the next generation of scientists. More information is available at NASA’s GPM website.
Advancing Precipitation Measurements: The Need for the GPM Mission
Precipitation is a vital component of global water and energy cycles and crucially impactful to life on Earth. The distribution, frequency, and extremes in precipitation affect everything from agriculture to the insurance industry, to travel and your weekend plans. Prior to the meteorological satellite era, precipitation observations were limited to populated areas leaving wide swaths of land and almost the entirety of the oceans (70% of Earth’s surface) unobserved. GPM builds on decades of advances in satellite precipitation observations.
Early precipitation observations from space (e.g., from the Nimbus series) used visible and infrared measurements that gave the first, approximate estimates. PMW radiometers, however, gave a next generation of more direct and improved precipitation measurement. The NASA–JAXA Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), launched in November 1997, significantly advanced the field with the addition of a Precipitation Radar (PR) alongside a wider-swath PMW radiometer. This was groundbreaking for precipitation research and advancement of measurement techniques, but was limited to the tropics and a single satellite in low Earth orbit. To move toward the goal of a globally distributed, high-frequency, physically consistent satellite precipitation product a new mission design was conceived in GPM.
The GPM Mission: Science Requirements, Objectives, and Instruments
The GPM–CO spacecraft is an advanced successor to the TRMM spacecraft, providing additional channels on both the Dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) and the GPM Microwave Imager (GMI) to enhance capabilities to sense light rain and falling snow. The GPM–CO, another NASA–JAXA partnership, operates in an inclined, non-Sun synchronous orbit that allows the spacecraft to sample precipitation across all hours of the day, as did TRMM. However, TRMM only covered tropical and subtropical regions, while the GPM–CO also covers middle and sub-polar latitudes.
The GPM mission has several key scientific objectives, including:
advancing precipitation measurements from space; improving our knowledge of precipitation systems, water cycle variability, and freshwater availability; improving climate modeling and prediction; improving weather forecasting and four-dimensional [4D – i.e., three-dimensional (3D) spatial plus temporal] reanalysis; and improving hydrological modeling and prediction. GPM Core Observatory Instruments
The GMI and DPR instruments together provide a powerful synergistic tool to assess precipitation structure, intensity, and phase globally at relatively high (regional) spatial resolutions. The DPR’s Ku-band (13.6 GHz) and Ka-band (35.5 GHz) channels provide 3D retrievals of precipitation structure with a vertical resolution of 250 m (~820 ft) and a horizontal resolution of ~5 km (~3 mi) across a swath up to 245 km (152 mi). The GMI is a 13-channel conically scanning PMW radiometer providing observations across a wide swath [885 km (~550 mi)] to estimate precipitation estimates at resolutions as fine as 5 km – see Figure 1.
When scientists and engineers collaborated on the design of GMI, they knew it would need to meet exacting requirements so that its data could be used both to support development of precipitation retrieval algorithms and to provide a calibration standard for the partner sensors in the GPM constellation. The attention to detail has paid off. To this day, GMI is deemed to be one of the best calibrated conically scanning PMW radiometers in space.
Together, these two well-calibrated GPM–CO instruments gather scientifically advanced observations of precipitation between 68°N and 68°S – which covers where the majority of the Earth’s population falls. This coverage allows opportunities to observe both surface precipitation rates and 3D precipitation structure and allows observations of diverse weather systems, including hurricanes and typhoons (e.g., from formation to their transition from the tropics to midlatitudes), severe convection, falling snow, light rain, and frontal systems over both land and ocean.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the GPM Core Observatory’s Dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) and GPM Microwave Imager (GMI) instruments. Figure credit: GPM website GPM Constellation
While the GPM–CO is a key component of the GPM mission, another fundamental component is the constellation of national and international partner satellites known as the GPM Constellation, which has numbers ~10 at any given time – with the current members listed at the link referenced above. Each GPM Constellation partner designed and operated the satellites for their own particular missions, but they agreed to share the data from their missions to enable the next-generation of unified global precipitation estimates. The combination of these partner satellites and the GPM–CO allow frequent intersections of their orbits, permitting colocated and cotemporal observations to be made, which are crucial to ensure effective intercalibration.
The GPM–CO serves as the “calibrator” to unify precipitation estimates across these different partners’ satellite sensors, ensuring that the observed microwave brightness temperatures (TB) are consistent among the sensors with expected differences after accounting for variations in the observing frequencies, bandwidths, polarizations, and view angles. The advanced calibration across the sensors is a remarkable achievement, and it allows the project to focus on the precipitation products rather than TB uncertainties. This careful calibration enables high-quality datasets that support and enable detailed investigations on the distribution of precipitation and how these patterns change over days, seasons, and years, enabling a breadth of science and societal applications at local and global scales.
Ground Validation Activities: Significant Contributions to the GPM Mission
An integral part of a successful satellite mission is a robust and active ground validation (GV) program. During the TRMM era, the TRMM PR, and/or the TRMM PMW radiometer instruments limited GV to simple comparisons of rain rates to surface measurements from radars and/or rain gauges, which is referred to as statistical validation. It soon became obvious that a more robust GV program would be needed to better aid future satellite algorithm developers to improve the physics of their algorithms rather than just justifying tweaking their outputs. As a result, unlike TRMM, GPM’s GV program has been part of the mission concept from its inception. The GPM team developed a three-tiered approach that uses: statistical validation, as done during TRMM; physical validation, where the emphasis is on better understanding of the physics and microphysics of different precipitating systems; and hydrological validation, which emphasizes improving precipitation retrievals over large-scale areas (e.g., watersheds).
To address these goals, there have been several pre- and post-launch field campaigns conducted. In chronological order, these include the:
Light Precipitation Evaluation Experiment (LPVEx), a prelaunch field campaign taking place in September and October 2010 over the Gulf of Finland; GPM Cold Season Precipitation Experiment (GCPEX) over and near the Ontario, Canada/Great Lakes Environment Canada Centre for Atmospheric Research Experiments (CARE) from January 17 to February 29, 2012; Mid-Latitude Continental Convective Cloud Experiment (MC3E) in north–central Oklahoma, April 22 to June 6, 2012; Iowa Flood Studies (IFloodS)) in eastern Iowa, May 1 to June 15, 2013; Integrated Precipitation & Hydrology Experiment (IPHEx) from May 1 to June 15, 2014, in the mountains of central North Carolina; and Olympic Mountain Experiment (OLYMPEX), the last full-scale, postlaunch, and GPM-sponsored field campaign – and one of the most logistically challenging – conducted over the Olympic Peninsula and adjacent waters from November 1, 2015 to January 31, 2016. Each of these field campaigns were designed to provide insight into different precipitation regimes and types to improve GPM satellite observations. For example, MC3E allowed for comprehensive observations of intense convection over continental regions. The researchers deployed an extensive network of ground instruments (e.g., radars, disdrometers, rain gauges), in coordination with flights of NASA’s ER-2 and University of North Dakota’s Cessna Citation II research aircrafts, to sample varied precipitation types (e.g., severe thunderstorms, Mesoscale Convective Systems (MCS)). Data from MC3E allowed for improvement of both active (DPR) and passive (GMI) retrievals over land. GCPEx has allowed for sampling of snowing systems. During this campaign, NASA’s ER-2 flew high above the clouds in coordination with NASA’s DC-3 aircraft flying within the clouds. Here again, GCPEx participants deployed a vast network of ground instruments (e.g., snow gauges, disdrometers). The goal for GCPEx was to formulate and validate frozen/mixed precipitation retrievals from the GPM satellite. (Note that from 2011–2015, The Earth Observer published articles on five of the six GV campaigns described in this section; the reader can locate these articles on The Earth Observer Archives Page. Scroll down to the “Bibliography of Articles with Historical Context Published in The Earth Observer” listicle and look for Field Campaigns.)
While these large-scale campaigns were extremely beneficial for achieving GPM science objectives, the costs of deploying instruments and personnel in these remote regions can be substantial. In order to provide long-term measurements at reasonable costs, the GPM GV established the Precipitation Research Facility (PRF) at the Wallops Flight Facility (WFF). The goal of this facility was to provide long-term measurements from the myriad instruments that have been deployed at the various field campaigns and manage them with full-time GV personnel. The linchpin of the PRF is NASA’s S-band, Dual-Polarimetric Radar (NPOL) – see Photo 1. NPOL was deployed in a farm field about 38 km (~24 mi) northeast of WFF to provide areal estimates of surface precipitation as well as profiles of precipitating systems above other GV surface instruments (e.g., profiling radars, disdrometers, and rain gauges). To add to this effort, the PRF staff established a network of rain gauges and disdrometers, which are deployed over the eastern shore of Maryland. These data are telemetered so that an added benefit to this effort is that the GPM GV data provide valuable, near-real-time data to many of the numerous farmers on the Delmarva Peninsula. The PRF’s principal activity is to design new GV instruments, test new validation methods, and assess instrument uncertainties using the abundant infrastructure of the GPM GV validation program. This coordination between GPM GV instruments, WFF-based staff, and regional data collection, quality control, and analysis are the core components of the PRF.
Photo 1. The NASA S-Band Dual Polarimetric Radar (NPOL) deployed in central Iowa in support of the IFloodS field campaign in Iowa during the spring of 2013. The radar, when disassembled, fits within the five, white sea-containers located around the radar in this photo; it can be transported via 18-wheelers. In addition to IFloodS, NPOL has also been deployed for field campaigns in Oklahoma (MC3E), North Carolina (IPHEx), and Washington (OLYMPEX) – all of which are mentioned in the text above. Photo credit: David Wolff/WFF GPM Data Products
GPM data products and services have played an important role in research, applications, and education. The Precipitation Processing System (PPS) housed at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) produces and distributes GPM products that are archived and distributed at the Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) as well.
GES DISC is one of a dozen discipline-oriented Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs) that NASA operates for processing the terabytes of data returns from its satellites, aircraft, field campaigns, and other sources. (To learn more about Earth Science Data Operations, which includes the DAACs, see Earth Science Data Operations: Acquiring, Distributing, and Delivering NASA Data for the Benefit of Society. The Earth Observer, Mar–Apr 2017, 29:2, 4–18. A chart listing all the DAACs appears on pp. 7–8 of this article.)
In addition to precipitation estimates, users can access variables, such as calibrated TB, radar reflectivity, latent heating, and hydrometeor profiles in GPM products. See the Table 1 below for a listing of NASA GPM data products.
Table 1. Overview of GPM data collection.
Product Level Products and Description Level 1 (L1)1 1A – Reconstructed, unprocessed instrument data at full resolution for GPM GMI; TRMM TMI 1B – Brightness temperatures (Tb) for GPM GMI; and TRMM TMI, PR, and VIRS1C – Calibrated Tb for GPM GMI, TRMM TMI, and a constellation of PMW radiometers. Level 2 (L2)2 2A Radar – Single-orbit radar rainfall estimates for GPM DPR, Ka, Ku; TRMM PR2A Radiometer (GPROF & PRPS) – Single-orbit PMW rainfall estimates from GPM GMI, TRMM TMI, and constellation radiometers; 2B Combined – Single-orbit rainfall estimates from combined radar/radiometer data (e.g., GPM GMI & DPR; and TRMM TMI & PR); and 2H CSH – Single-orbit cloud (latent) heating estimates from combined radar/radiometer data (GPM GMI & DPR, TRMM TMI & PR). Level 3 (L3)3 IMERG Early Run – Near real-time, low-latency gridded global multi-satellite precipitation estimates; IMERG Late Run – Near real-time, gridded global multi-satellite precipitation estimates with quasi-Lagrangian time interpolation; and IMERG Final Run – Research-quality, gridded global multisatellite precipitation estimates with quasi-Lagrangian time interpolation, gauge data, and climatological adjustment. 3A Radar – Gridded rainfall estimates from radar data (GPM DPR, TRMM PR). 3A Radiometer (GPROF) – Gridded rainfall estimates from GPM GMI, TRMM TMI, and constellation PMW radiometers; 3B Combined – Gridded rainfall estimates from combined radar/radiometer data (GPM GMI & DPR, TRMM TMI & PR); 3G CSH – Gridded cloud (latent) heating estimates from combined radar/radiometer data (GPM GMI & DPR, TRMM TMI & PR). Product Definitions: 1 Level 1 (L1): L1A data are reconstructed, unprocessed instrument data at full resolution, time referenced, and annotated with ancillary information, including radiometric and geometric calibration coefficients and georeferencing parameters (i.e., platform ephemeris), computed and appended – but not applied, to Level-0 (L0) data; L1B data are radiometrically corrected and geolocated L1A data that have been processed to sensor units; and L1C data are common intercalibrated brightness temperature (Tb) products that use the GPM Microwave Imager (GMI) L1B data as a reference standard. 2Level 2 (L2) products are derived geophysical parameters at the same resolution and location as those of the L1 data. 3Level 3 (L3) products are geophysical parameters that have been spatially and/or temporally resampled from L1 or L2 data. List of acronyms used in Table (in order of occurrence): GPM Microwave Imager (GMI); TRMM Microwave Imager (MI); TRMM Precipitation Radar (PR); Visible and Infrared Scanner (VIRS); Dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR); Ku-band and Ka-band channels; GPM Profiling Algorithm (GPROF); Precipitation Retrieval and Profiling Scheme Algorithm (PRPS); Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG); Goddard Convective-Stratiform (CSH) (Latent) Heating Algorithm.
Detailed information of each product and links for data access and visualizations are available on NASA GPM Data Directory.
From the beginning, GPM was conceptualized as incorporating all available satellite data – not as a single-satellite mission. One of the key mission requirements of the PPS was to ensure that processing and reprocessing always include data from the TRMM era (starting in December 1997). Algorithm development would ensure that the same algorithm would be used to process both TRMM- and GPM-era data collected from the TRMM and GPM spacecrafts and the GPM constellation. As a result, an important part of this cross-mission processing is the intercalibration of PMW radiometers using GMI. Using data from the overlap period of GMI and TMI, TMI is intercalibrated to GMI and is then used to intercalibrate the radiometer data during the TRMM era. This intercalibration manifests itself in the intercalibrated brightness temperatures (Tc) provided in the Level 1C (L1C) product for each radiometer. The GPM Profiling Algorithm (GPROF) retrieval uses these intercalibrated L1C products and guarantees consistent mission intercalibrated precipitation retrievals. For example, the L2 product stage that converts TB into precipitation estimates applies the same GPROF to the GPM constellation of PMW radiometers.
Continued Improvement of GPM Algorithms
One important achievement of GPM is the continued improvements in GPM’s algorithms that produce the immense amount of precipitation data that are used by scientific researchers and stakeholders alike. GPM’s five algorithms – DPR-, GPROF-, Combined-, Convective-Stratiform Heating-, and Multisatellite – have all undergone version updates several times (e.g., Version 01–07), with additional updates planned for the next 1–4 years. Each update entails a tremendous amount of work behind the scenes from GPM’s algorithm developers to ensure that quality data are available to the public.
Each new version provides a complete reprocessing of the entire data record using the improved retrieval algorithms, based on validation against reliable GV data, feedback from users, new understanding of the processes, and improved techniques. This not only helps ensure a consistent data record and fair comparisons against past events but also helps refine and improve the data to capture precipitation phenomena more exactly. Just as an original photograph capturing a past event can be reanalyzed with new technology, reprocessing revisits the observed satellite instruments’ “raw” radiances and refines the process of converting them to the end product of precipitation quantities.
“We know more now about the global rain and snowfall in, say, 2010, than we did when it actually happened.” – George Huffman [GPM Project Scientist]
This process is an inverse problem that helps determine the physical quantities (e.g., precipitation rate) given the observed signal (e.g., microwave radiance). For precipitation, this retrieval process relies on complex algorithms and is by no means straightforward. This is an underconstrained problem where different combinations of physical quantities can give the same observed signal, especially for passive instruments. Thus it requires additional information or assumptions.
The aim of each version in GPM is to have “better” estimates of the precipitation variables than the previous version. However, what better means can involve trade-offs. An excellent example is a change implemented from V06 to V07 in one of GPM’s most widely-used products – the Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG) algorithm – which is NASA GPM’s multisatellite product that combines information from the GPM satellite constellation to estimate precipitation over the majority of the Earth’s surface. The resulting IMERG products provide near-global precipitation data at a resolution of 10 km (~6mi), every 30 minutes covering latitudes of 60°N–60°S, and are available at different latencies (Early, Late, and Final, as defined in Table 1) to cater to a range of end-user communities for operational and research applications. IMERG is particularly valuable over areas of Earth’s surface that lack ground-based, precipitation-measuring instruments, including oceans and remote areas. Specifically, this change to IMERG V07 resulted in improvements towards the distribution of precipitation rates, allowing for a better representation of precipitation areas and extremes. However, it reduced correlation against ground reference data. Another example is the gauge adjustment process in IMERG that offers a substantial improvement at the expense of higher random error.
The result of these intricate reprocessing cycles is a family of precipitation products that improves accuracy, a longer record, and expanding coverage, all while responding to feedback and requests from users. This is especially the case for downstream products like IMERG, which is widely used for science and applications due to its completeness and regularity, and inherits the improvements in each reprocessing cycle across the family.
Meeting User Needs
The number one requirement on PPS was to provide well-curated standard reference products with carefully curated provenience. For each data product version, a complete record is kept of spacecraft maneuvers and issues, data input issues, and data formats. This makes GPM data products a standard against which others can be compared and the standard products themselves improved.
The GPM mission also requires near-real-time (NRT) products. As a research agency, NASA does not generally specify operational NRT requirements. Instead, these NRT products are usually provided on a “best effort” basis. During its core mission (the first three years), PPS did have NRT requirements. Since then, PPS continues to fulfill these as budget permits. The half-hourly 0.1 x 0.1º L3 global IMERG products are provided in NRT with latency objectives for the IMERG Early (Late) run of 4+ (14+) hours after data collection.
To facilitate data interoperability and interdisciplinary science, the PPS and the Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) have developed value-added data services and products since the TRMM era, including data subsetting (spatial and temporal), L3 data regridding, network common data form (NetCDF) format conversion, remote data access (e.g., via Open Data Access Protocol (OPeNDAP), Grid Analysis and Display System (GrADS) Data Server [GDS]), NASA GIS translation of GPM data for various accumulation periods, GPM Applications Programming Interface (API), and data visualization tools. For example, the more technical Hierarchical Data Formats (HDF) mission IMERG products are reformatted and accumulated to GIS-friendly additions in Geographic Tagged Image File Format (geoTIFF) format for both Early and Late Run IMERG products at 30-min, 3-hour, and 1-day temporal resolution. Other value-added products include the daily products for IMERG Early, Late, and Final Runs from GES DISC. Quick visualization tools, such as the IMERG Global Viewer, are freely available to the public to access and view the latest NRT GPM IMERG global precipitation datasets at 30-minute, 1-day, and 7-day intervals, on an interactive 3D globe in a web browser. User services and tutorials (e.g., Frequently Asked Questions, How-Tos, help desk, user forum) are also available across the GPM, PPS, and GES DISC webpages.
Along with the other DAACs, GES DISC is facilitating data access and use by migrating its products and services to NASA’s Earthdata cloud. Once the migration is finished, users will be able to access all NASA’s Earth data products from the 12 DAACs in one place, which can simplify interdisciplinary science studies. Over 50% of the archived GES DISC products have been migrated to the cloud as of this writing. Users can either access them directly in the NASA Earthdata cloud environment or download data in their own computing environment.
To broaden the GPM user community – especially for users who are either non-technical or not familiar with NASA data – GES DISC has developed an online interactive tool called Giovanni, for viewing, analyzing, and downloading multiple Earth science datasets (including GPM) from within a web browser, allowing users to circumvent downloading data and software. At present, GPM L3 precipitation products (IMERG) along with over 2000 interdisciplinary variables from other NASA missions or projects are available in Giovanni. Over 20 plot types are included in Giovanni to facilitate data exploration, product comparison, and research. Links to results and data can be shared with colleagues. Data in different formats (e.g., NetCDF, comma separated values, or CSV) can be downloaded as well. A list of referral papers utilizing Giovanni is available.
Data services continue to evolve to meet increasing user requirements, such as the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) guiding principles, open science, data integration, interdisciplinary science, and data democratization.
Science and Societal Application Highlights from 10 Years of Observing Precipitation with GPM
As scientists and stakeholder organizations have made use of GPM datasets for analysis and research over the past decade, myriad scientific discoveries have been made leading to the emergence of a wide variety of real-time and retrospective societal applications for GPM data. These GPM user communities continue to dig into scientific questions and provide time-critical decision support to the public. This portion of the article highlights several of the scientific and application achievements made possible since the mission launched in 2014. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather demonstrates GPM’s unique accomplishments and what the mission offers for science and society.
Capturing Microphysical Properties and Vertical Structure Information of Precipitating Systems
Figure 2. Seasonal average cloud latent heating at a height of 6 km (~4 mi) derived from GSFC’s Goddard Convective–Stratiform (Latent) Heating Algorithm (CSH) algorithm for the period December 2020–November 2023. Heating arises from cloud and precipitation processes making its spatial distribution highly correlated with precipitation. CSH shows deep, intense cloud heating in the tropics within the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), west Pacific Ocean, and tropical land masses. Broad areas of heating at higher latitudes are associated with midlatitude storm tracks. Seasonal shifts in heating are most prominent over land. Image credit: Steven Lang /GSFC/Science Systems and Applications, Inc. (SSAI) One of GPM’s main charges was to provide microphysical properties and vertical structure information of precipitating systems using passive and active remote sensing techniques. Measurements of the vertical structure of clouds are fundamentally important to improving our understanding of how they affect both local- and large-scale environments. Achieving this goal has required considerable enhancement of the NASA GPM algorithms – including the DPR, GPROF, Combined (CMB), and Convective–Stratiform (Latent) Heating (CSH) algorithms – from their original capabilities at the time of launch.
The advanced instrumentation of GPM’s dual-frequency, Ku/Ka-band radar added new capabilities beyond the TRMM PR’s single Ku band. As a result, the DPR algorithms provide vertical hydrometeor profiles at the radar range bin level [~5 km (~3 mi) horizontal, 125 m (~410 ft) vertical]. Such detailed measurements are critical for classifying precipitation events (e.g., convective or stratiform) and characterizing the dominant types of precipitation particles, precipitation characteristics, and freezing level height. Additionally, these DPR algorithms have played a significant role in retrieving parameters of the particle size distribution (PSD) in rain. All of these factors help support and elucidate the understanding of storm systems and their impacts at local and regional scales.
More recently falling snow microphysics have received increasing attention. Characterizing snow remains a challenging problem for precipitation measuring/modeling due to varying particle habits, shapes, and snow mass densities. The higher frequencies added on both the DPR and GMI instruments have enabled improved observations of ice and snow, not only revealing new insights into the intensity and microphysical composition of cold-season precipitation but enabling an increased understanding of precipitation, clouds, and climate feedbacks.
Another important parameter that is derived from GPM vertical profile information is latent heating (LH), which is so named because it measures the “hidden” energy when water changes phase but doesn’t impact its temperature. The vertical structure of LH is a key parameter for understanding the coupling of the Earth’s water and energy cycles. Although it cannot be directly observed, GPM-derived precipitation estimates, microphysical properties, and vertical structure provide critical information for inferring the vertical structure of LH – see Figure 2. Researchers can access this information using the U.S. Science Team’s CSH datasets as well as the Japanese Science Team’s Spectral Latent Heating (LSH) datasets. GPM’s sampling of higher latitudes – not available from TRMM – has resulted in estimates of the intensity and variability of 3D LH structures of precipitation systems beyond the tropics. The CSH algorithm has advanced during the GPM era due to improvements in numerical cloud models and higher accuracy vertical precipitation structure profiles.
Improve knowledge of Precipitation Systems, Water Cycle Variability, and Freshwater Availability
A key success of GPM – both from information from the GPM–CO and from combining with the information from the constellation satellites – is the expansion of knowledge of precipitation systems both in the tropics and at middle and high latitudes. In addition, the program contributes to water availability and variations in time and space. The radar and PMW instruments on the GPM–CO lead to the most accurate surface precipitation rate estimates and vertical structure of the systems, allowing researchers to study key features of these systems on an instantaneous basis and then compile precipitation statistics over time for accurate climatological determinations. The inclined orbit of the GPM–CO results in sampling the entire diurnal (day–night) cycle of precipitation, which is key information for validating numerical models. By combining the “best estimate” data from the GPM–CO with more frequent precipitation estimates from GPM constellation satellites results in the IMERG analyses (30-min resolution), which has allowed for the examination of fine-scale variations in all types of systems, the application of the IMERG NRT analyses for monitoring precipitation systems, and the use in a multitude of applications (e.g., hydrology, agriculture, and health) that depend on fresh water availability information.
In the tropics, the GPM–CO data have been combined with similar data from TRMM for a 25-year total observational record to study the rainfall structure and variations of tropical cyclones, the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), and the mean rainfall climate of the tropics. Tropical mesoscale systems have been tracked with the 30-minute IMERG data to understand their life cycles and contributions to climatological rainfall. Tropical cyclone precipitation has been analyzed to understand storm initiation and variations with time over various ocean basins. Hailstorms have been studied with specifically developed hail algorithms over various continents, with particular focus on the extremely intense storms over South America.
In midlatitudes, the structure of large-scale cyclonic systems, including atmospheric rivers (ARs), have been examined, as well as their relation to moisture source regions and impact in driving heavy precipitation events. At higher latitudes, GPM’s focus on better precipitation retrievals – especially related to snow detection and estimation – has led to improved knowledge of storm systems in this important, changing environment.
Looking across the globe, extreme precipitation events – often with accompanying flood and landslide events – have also been examined and cataloged, both on a local and regional basis, but with increasing ability on a quasi-global basis as the time record extends forward.
On longer timescales, the GPM–CO (and TRMM) data have contributed to our knowledge and estimates of mean climatological precipitation providing different estimates (from different products) for intercomparison and through “best estimate” ocean climatological values using combined radar data and passive microwave information from GPM, TRMM, and CloudSat. This best estimate is used to calibrate a new, long-term Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly analysis (1983–present), which has resulted in a refined estimate of the mean ocean climatological value, that fits global water and energy budget studies better – see Figure 3. The GPM IMERG analyses are also now used as a key input to the GPCP global daily analyses, enabling finer-resolution climatological studies.
Figure 3. Example of Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Daily Climate Data Record (CDR) for January 28, 2018. GPCP incorporates GPM–CO and IMERG information to produce maps like the one shown here. Image credit: Bob Adler/University of Maryland, College Park, Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center (ESSIC)] GPM Precipitation Estimates Improving Climate Models and Constraining Predictions
The multifaceted, multiscale physical processes that affect precipitation locally and globally continue to be a challenge for climate models to accurately represent. Ongoing research and analysis reveals that the process-level representation is a much stronger constraint on climate model prediction fidelity than mean state climatological skill. Though high-quality climate models, such as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), are currently not run at the resolution of GPM observations, they are increasingly simulating cloud and thunderstorm-scale rainfall as subcomponents within their lower-resolution grid boxes. This allows for the model-simulated rain intensity over thunderstorm areas to be compared with GPM precipitation estimates that are averaged over the equivalent GPM DPR-identified convective cloud types. This evaluation inevitably involves assessing extremes, and with 10 years and counting of GPM data now avaiable, such extremes in different weather regimes will be increasingly useful to study – see Figure 4.
Figure 4. Average rainfall patterns from 2014–2020 in January using the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies’ (GISS) – E3 climate model [top] and precipitation estimates derived from GPM’s multisatellite product, IMERG [bottom]. Climate models such as the GISS-E3 must accurately simulate seasonal cycles observed by GPM for their predictions to be more reliable. Using the GPM rainfall magnitudes as benchmarks, new model equations are being developed to improve this area of rainfall simulation and improve climate projections. Image credit: Greg Elsaesser/GISS Additionally, the diurnal cycle of precipitation – another challenge for climate models to simulate – remains an important focus. Recent studies have suggested that the systematic differences in cloud occurrence across the diurnal cycle are crucially important for atmospheric water vapor changes as well as cloud feedbacks and their role in climate change. This expanded understanding provides even more motivation for improving diurnal cycle representation in models. With the long GPM record, diurnal precipitation composites can be made in varying weather or climate states (e.g., El Niño/Southern Oscillation), and additional novel analyses of regime-dependent diurnal cycle composites will be important for constraining processes.
Figure 5. Schematic of GPM observed latent heating in convective cores (i.e., thunderstorms) relative to a larger thunderstorm complex (i.e., mesoscale convective system). Image credit: Greg Elsaesser; model is from a May 2022 paper published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres Availability of and improvements in GPM estimated stratiform rainfall will progressively enable addressing the longstanding deficiencies in simulating mesoscale convective systems – see Figure 5. Alongside use of “process-relevant” precipitation diagnostics, new efforts seek to use machine learning techniques to ensure that numerous climatological water and energy cycle diagnostics remain in good agreement with GPM and other satellite estimates. These joint efforts that leverage both mean-state global precipitation estimates plus the process-oriented precipitation diagnostics will ensure that coarser-resolution climate models that support numerous CMIP experiments will increase in predictive capability.
GPM Applications: Continuing to Grow and Enable Communities Across Local and Global Scales
As noted above, one GPM focus is the application of satellite precipitation estimates for societal decision-making. As a result, GPM data have supported applications such as weather forecasting, water resource management, agriculture and food security monitoring, public health, animal migration, tropical cyclone location and intensity estimation, hydropower management, flood and landslide monitoring and forecasting, and land system modeling – see Figure 6.
Figure 6. GPM Applications icon highlights six thematic and primary societal application areas supported by GPM data: ecological management, water resources and agriculture, energy, disasters monitoring and response, public health, and weather and climate modeling. Image credit: GPM website; Mike Marosy/GSFC/Global Science and Technology Inc. (GST) To support this focus, the GPM Applications team strives to focus on engaging users through trainings and interviews, workshops, webinars, and programs, with the objective of guiding new and existing users to integrate GPM data into their systems and processes to drive actions that positively impact society. These activities help elucidate data needs and identify data barriers faced by stakeholders. The team also helps identify opportunities and gaps to create effective engagement and outreach resources and help facilitate the use of GPM data to support decision making and improve situational awareness across different sectors. All of these efforts have helped increase the visibility of GPM and attract new users from federal and state partners, academic institutions, international agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private and non-profit companies. A few examples of GPM Application engagement activities since launch include:
three GPM Mentorship Programs that bridge the gap between GPM scientists and application communities to promote operational applications; seventeen GPM trainings to support new and existing users on data access and use for applications; six GPM stakeholder-driven application workshops to facilitate discussions between scientists and end users of GPM data about how NASA data could be better leveraged to inform decision making for societal applications; and three white papers that articulate and identify user needs and data requirements across communities. The GPM Applications team has tabulated over 10,000+ unique users across 130 countries who have accessed or routinely access GPM data from NASA data archives. Additionally, the value of these activities can be seen in over 175 GPM case study application examples that have been publicized at NASA, featured on social media and posted at NASA GPM Applications webpage, over the last 5 years alone – see sampling of applications in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Collage of GPM case study examples enabling societal applications, including weather forecasting, nowcasting of extremes, agricultural and drought monitoring, weather index insurance, and data management platforms. Image credit: Andrea Portier /GSFC/ SSAI Over the past decade of GPM observations, several themes have emerged with these efforts across the applications community. One key component of enabling GPM applications is the ability to access and download NRT data products that meet applications needs. About 40% of GPM end users rely on NRT GPM products for time-sensitive applications. Additionally, GPM’s global-gridded IMERG product plays a significant role for applications. It is used nearly 17 times more for research and applications compared to other GPM products, with ~30% of users accessing and downloading IMERG Early and Late NRT data and applying them towards operational uses. As noted earlier, the reprocessing of all TRMM precipitation-era data using the IMERG algorithm ensured a longer, continuous precipitation data record with consistent retrievals that are available from June 2000 to the present. The longer precipitation record has enabled new science research and data applications to benefit society across a diverse range of end-users, helping them to compare and contrast past and present data to support and develop more accurate climate and weather models, understand normal and anomalous extreme precipitation events, and strengthen the baseline information and situational awareness for applications, such as disasters, agriculture and food security, water resources, and energy production. Table 2 presents several broader examples of how these GPM data products are used for societal applications. The subsections that follow demonstrate the value of GPM data to facilitate research and applications even more through case studies.
Table 2. The table includes examples of user communities, by organizational sectors, that highlight how GPM data products are being used for situational awareness and decision-making. Application description includes type of GPM level products. For more information on level product definitions, see NASA Data Product Levels and GPM Data Directory.
User Community Topic Application of GPM Data Meteorological agencies and organizations Numerical weather prediction Assimilation of Level 1 (L1) PMW TBs for initializing numerical weather prediction model runs to improve weather forecasts Tropical cyclones Improved characterization of tropical cyclone track and intensity using GPM L1 and L2 products to improve weather forecasts and provide more accurate hurricane warnings Subseasonal to seasonal and climate modeling Verification and validation of seasonal and climate modeling using L2 LH products and IMERG (Final) to improve understanding and predictability of climate behavior Data-driven agriculture organizations Agricultural forecasting and food security Integration of IMERG (Early, Late) precipitation estimates within agricultural models to estimate growing season onset and crop productivity Disaster risk management organizations Flooding Incorporation of IMERG (Early, Late) in hydrologic routing models for flood estimation Disaster response and recovery Situational awareness of extreme precipitation using IMERG (Early, Late) in potentially affected areas to support disaster response and recovery efforts Disaster risk management platforms Integration of IMERG (Early, Late, Final) into models to deliver real-time weather insights to customers Energy infrastructure and management organizations Renewable energy infrastructure and management Assessment of freshwater inputs and quantification of water fluxes using IMERG (Early, Late, Final) as a precipitation data source for hydropower development, production, and flow forecasting Reinsurance companies Parametric insurance and reinsurance modeling Definition of extreme precipitation thresholds using IMERG (Early, Late, Final) for developing multiperil index-based insurance products and improve situational awareness of rainfall to trigger policy payouts Water resource management organizations and companies Water resources and drought Evaluation of precipitation anomalies using IMERG (Final) leveraging the extended temporal record, and assessment of freshwater input using IMERG (Early, Late) to basins and reservoirs to better quantify water fluxes Public health Vector- and water-borne disease monitoring Tracking of precipitation variations using IMERG (Early, Late, Final) with other environmental variables to track and predict vector or water-borne diseases and issue public health alerts Operational Numerical Weather and Hurricane Prediction
Looking towards the application of GPM L3 products, several agencies [e.g., the U.S. Air Force’s (USAF) Weather Agency (557th Weather Wing), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology] use IMERG to support reanalysis of NWP models to conduct data assimilation and validation activities and as inputs to numerical models. For example, the USAF ingests IMERG Early into its operational weather forecasts and advisories, supporting global land surface characterization capabilities. This information is then provided routinely to decision-makers across the military, agricultural, and research sectors.
Water Resources, Agricultural Forecasting and Food Security
GMI L1 TB products are operationally assimilated into numerical weather prediction (NWP) models across the globe to improve short- to long-term weather forecast quality (by tuning and developing microphysics and convection parameterizations) and correct the track forecasts for tropical cyclones. Agencies and organizations, such as NASA’s Global Modeling Assimilation Office (GMAO), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Hurricane Center (NHC), Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), and European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) ingest GMI TB data to support their operational systems. For example, the all-sky assimilation of GMI Tb over ice-free ocean surfaces helps improve initial conditions and overall forecast quality to ECMWF’s 24-hour forecasts, increasing not only the number of satellite observations assimilated but also the types of variables analyzed, such as hydrometeors (e.g., liquid cloud, ice cloud, rain, and snow).
GPM’s L2 precipitation and L3 IMERG products are used as input into hydrological and land surface models to better understand the land–atmosphere interactions and better predict and monitor water resources and agricultural output on scales ranging from days to years. For example, IMERG serves as a key component to Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) Land Data Assimilation System hydrology products that are designed to enhance agricultural monitoring in data-sparse regions and support humanitarian response initiatives. IMERG Early products are actively used as a data source for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service operations where IMERG estimates are routinely evaluated against World Meteorological Organization station data above 50˚N latitude for consensus to produce crop assessments in those regions and support extratropical agrometeorological crop monitoring. In the private sector, companies, such as Nutrien Ag Solutions, use IMERG Early precipitation estimates to capture and evaluate extreme precipitation events. This information is part of Nutrien’s daily delivery of weather content to the company and their clients, where these efforts help the clients prepare for potential disruptions across the global supply chain.
Disaster Response and Insurance
The IMERG spatial and temporal resolution – as well as the availability of the data across more than two decades – has been invaluable for examining precipitation extremes that may result in flooding, landslides, drought, and fires. These data provide key situational awareness for disaster response and recovery. Rainfall information has been developed in Web Map Service (WMS) and ArcGIS formats with Representational State Transfer (REST) endpoints so that they can be pulled into geospatial portals at Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Army Geospatial Intelligence Unit and data management platform companies (e.g., CyStellar), and provided to the National Geospatial Agency, the State Department, and insurers. The IMERG product has also been critical to global disaster models, such as the near-global Landslide Hazard Assessment for Situational Awareness (LHASA) system, which uses NRT IMERG rainfall in a decision tree framework that issues a moderate or high landslide nowcast based on rainfall thresholds. The model is routinely updated with a latency of four hours. The LHASA versions are running routinely and used by U.S. agencies and international agencies and organizations, including the World Food Programme.
IMERG data are also being used at multiple reinsurance companies, including the Microinsurance Catastrophe Risk Organisation (MiCRO), to develop drought and rainfall indices using climatology data from IMERG.
Looking Across and Forward for Applications
Common themes that have emerged in stakeholder feedback include the need for continuity of data products, identifying uncertainty estimates, having easily accessible case study examples, and creating public trainings for data access and use. The Applications team works closely with GPM members and leadership to ensure that there are clear and open communication pathways across the GPM mission on engagement activities and to accelerate stakeholder feedback to GPM algorithm developers to aid in the improvement of GPM data products and services for the public. In addition, these insights can be used to formulate a framework for applications related to future mission planning, e.g., NASA’s Earth System Observatory missions.
Bridging the Gap Between Precipitation Measurements and the Public: A View into Outreach Efforts
Several years before the launch of GPM, the Education and Public Outreach (EPO) team was busy in the background, working to bring Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) into the classroom and taking advantage of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) that were being implemented in curriculums across the U.S. The launch of GPM offered a perfect opportunity to showcase and amplify the incredible science and technology behind the GPM mission and the myriad of potential applications that could stem from its data.
Early in the GPM mission’s development, the GPM EPO team curated existing NASA educational resources related to the themes of Earth’s water cycle, weather and climate, technology behind Earth Observing missions, and societal applications. The EPO team created a website, entitled Precipitation Education that has been wildly successful from its launch. The team also developed a Rain EnGAUGE toolkit and engaged both formal and informal educators from around the world to host “Family Science Night” programs and implement some of the interactive activities that the team developed for these events. Thus, even before the launch of GPM, the EPO effort had momentum as team members shared the incredible ways in which NASA’s Earth observation systems were helping us to better understand and protect our home planet.
After launch, the EPO Team worked annually with international teams of “GPM Master Teachers.” This process selected teachers, who participated throughout the school year and received a small stipend for their work. They helped to align the science behind the GPM mission and other NASA Earth observation systems with the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program and developed many lessons and activities that were made available to educators around the globe.
The EPO team also worked with NASA’s Earth to Sky program, training National Park Service and other interpreters to understand the science behind the GPM mission, and to find ways to share this information in meaningful and relevant ways with their audiences across the U.S.
Newer activities have been developed to enable the general public to interact with open science as they follow a very easy “data recipe” to retrieve GPM precipitation observations since 2000 for their location. They are encouraged to use the GLOBE program’s app, GLOBE Observer, and take an observation of either a tree height or clouds. Contributors input the latitude and longitude from that location and find out how much precipitation fell for that location since 2000. This gives the participants the opportunity to collect data from the ground, and then look at satellite data for that same location to better understand the impact of precipitation in their local environment. GLOBE Participants can share their Tree Stories and Water Stories and compare their data with others around the world.
In addition to providing a wide suite of online resources, the GPM Outreach team attends many public events each year, ranging from large NASA-sponsored Earth Day events to local family STEM nights – see Photos 2 and 3. The GPM Outreach team has developed many hands-on activities that help the public explore the varied amounts of precipitation falling in locations around the world. By interacting with these activities and learning how NASA is helping us better understand and protect our home planet, participants walk away with a richer understanding of how NASA’s Earth science programs are improving life around the world.
A decade after the launch of GPM, the “Precipitation Education” website continues to be incredibly popular, with an average of 90,000 visits per month. GPM education and outreach resources are considered the state of the art among practitioners, and the team updates existing and adds new resources as opportunities arise.
Photo 2. Montgomery County’s (Maryland) Georgian Forest Family Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Night. Shown here is a triptych of parents and children using “Precipitation Towers” to explore precipitation patterns measured by GPM in different locations throughout the world. Photo credit: Dorian Janney/GSFC/ ADNET Systems Inc. (ADNET) Photo 3. The GPM Outreach Team engaging the public at Maryland Day 2023, hosted by the University of Maryland (UMD), College Park on Saturday, April 29, 2023. The Team represented GPM at the NASA exhibit where they interacted with hundreds of attendees and highlighted the many benefits of using GPM data for research and societal applications. Photo credit: Dorian Janney Conclusion
In more than 10 years of operations, the GPM mission has made incredible contributions in our understanding of global precipitation, from scientific studies to real-world, societal impacts through applications of the data products. With a robust validation program and successive algorithm improvements, our knowledge of precipitation distribution across the globe continues to advance. This has had measurable effects on global modeling and weather forecasting, real-time severe weather monitoring, education, and many other areas. With hardware continuing to function – and a recent fuel-saving orbit boost – GPM continues to add to this valuable data record. The community’s experience with GPM helps illustrate what new observations or combinations of observations will be needed in coming decades to advance precipitation science and maintain needed global monitoring. GPM’s cohort of researchers, instrument specialists, mission operators, and other key personnel across the community are providing the backbone of future mission development efforts.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge several contributing members of the Global Precipitation Measurement Science Team who played a part in writing this anniversary article. They include: Gerald Heymsfield, Dorian Janney, Chris Kidd, Steven Lang, Zhong Liu, Adrian Loftus, Erich Stocker, and Jackson Tan [all at GSFC]; David Wolff [NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility (WFF)]; Gregory Elsaesser [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)/ Columbia University]; and Robert Adler [University of Maryland].
Andrea Portier
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Science Systems and Applications, Inc
andrea.m.portier@nasa.gov
Sarah Ringerud
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
sarah.e.ringerud@nasa.gov
George J. Huffman
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
george.j.huffman@nasa.gov
Share
Details
Last Updated Oct 03, 2024 Related Terms
Earth Science View the full article
-
By NASA
On Sept. 30, 1994, space shuttle Endeavour took to the skies on its 7th trip into space. During the 11-day mission, the STS-68 crew of Commander Michael A. Baker, Pilot Terrence “Terry” W. Wilcutt, and Mission Specialists Steven L. Smith, Daniel W. Bursch, Peter J.K. “Jeff” Wisoff, and Payload Commander Thomas “Tom” D. Jones operated the second Space Radar Laboratory (SRL-2) as part of NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth. Flying five months after SRL-1, results from the two missions provided unprecedented insight into Earth’s global environment across contrasting seasons. The astronauts observed pre-selected sites around the world as well as a volcano that erupted during their mission using SRL-2’s U.S., German, and Italian radar instruments and handheld cameras.
Left: The STS-68 crew patch. Right: Official photo of the STS-68 crew of Thomas D. Jones, front row left, Peter J.K. “Jeff” Wisoff, Steven L. Smith, and Daniel W. Bursch; Michael A. Baker, back row left, and Terrence W. Wilcutt.
In August 1993, NASA named Jones as the SRL-2 payload commander, eight months before he flew as a mission specialist on STS-59, the SRL-1 mission. When NASA could not meet JPL’s request to fly their personnel as payload specialists on the SRL missions, the compromise solution reached had one NASA astronaut – in this case, Jones – fly on both missions. Selected as an astronaut in 1990, STS-59 marked Jones’ first flight and STS-68 his second. In October 1993, NASA named the rest of the STS-68 crew. For Baker, selected in 1985, SRL-2 marked his third trip into space, having flown on STS-43 and STS-52. Along with Jones, Wilcutt, Bursch, and Wisoff all came from the class of 1990, nicknamed The Hairballs. STS-68 marked Wilcutt’s first spaceflight, while Bursch had flown once before on STS-51 and Wisoff on STS-57. Smith has the distinction as the first from his class of 1992 – The Hogs – assigned to a spaceflight, but the Aug. 18 launch abort robbed him of the distinction of the first to actually fly, the honor going instead to Jerry M. Linenger when STS-64 ended up flying before STS-68.
Left: The Spaceborne Imaging Radar-C (SIR-C) in Endeavour’s payload bay in the Orbiter Processing Facility at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Middle: Endeavour on Launch Pad 39A. Right: STS-68 crew in the Astrovan on its way to Launch Pad 39A for the Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test.
The SRL payloads consisted of three major components – the Spaceborne Imaging Radar-C (SIR-C), built by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, the X-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (X-SAR) sponsored by the German Space Agency DLR and the Italian Space Agency ASI, and the Measurement of Air Pollution from Satellites (MAPS), built by NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. Scientists from 13 countries participated in the SRL data gathering program, providing ground truth at preselected observation sites. The SIR system first flew as SIR-A on STS-2 in November 1981, although the shortened mission limited data gathering. It flew again as SIR-B on STS-41G in October 1984, and gathering much useful data.
Building on that success, NASA planned to fly an SRL mission on STS-72A, launching in March 1987 into a near-polar orbit from Vandenberg Air Force, now Space Force, Base in California, but the Challenger accident canceled those plans. With polar orbits no longer attainable, a 57-degree inclination remained the highest achievable from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida, still allowing the radar to study more than 75% of Earth’s landmasses. As originally envisioned, SRL-2 would fly about six months after the first mission, allowing data gathering during contrasting seasons. Shuttle schedules moved the date of the second mission up to August 1994, only four months after the first. But events intervened to partially mitigate that disruption.
Left: Launch abort at Launch Pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Right: A few days after the launch abort, space shuttle Discovery arrives at Launch Pad 39B, left, with space shuttle Endeavour still on Launch Pad 39A, awaiting its rollback to the Vehicle Assembly Building.
Endeavour arrived back at KSC following its previous flight, the STS-59 SRL-1 mission, in May 1994. Workers in KSC’s Orbiter Processing Facility refurbished the SRL-1 payloads for their reflight and serviced the orbiter, rolling it over to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) on July 21 for mating with its External Tank and Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). Endeavour rolled out to Launch Pad 39A on July 27. The six-person STS-68 crew traveled to KSC to participate in the Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test on Aug. 1, essentially a dress rehearsal for the launch countdown. They returned to KSC on Aug. 15, the same day the final countdown began.
Following a smooth countdown leading to a planned 5:54 a.m. EDT launch on Aug. 18, Endeavour’s three main engines came to life 6.6 seconds before liftoff. With just 1.8 seconds until the two SRBs ignited to lift the shuttle stack off the pad, the Redundant Set Launch Sequencer (RSLS) stopped the countdown and shutdown the three main engines, two of which continued running past the T-zero mark. It marked the fifth and final launch abort of the shuttle program, and the closest one to liftoff. Bursch now had the distinction as the only person to have experienced two RSLS launch aborts, his first one occurring on STS-51 just a year earlier. Engineers traced the shutdown to higher than anticipated temperatures in a high-pressure oxygen turbopump in engine number three. The abort necessitated a rollback of Endeavour to the VAB on Aug. 24 to replace all three main engines with three engines from Atlantis on its upcoming STS-66 mission. Engineers shipped the suspect engine to NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi for extensive testing, where it worked fine and flew on STS-70 in July 1995. Meanwhile, Endeavour returned to Launch Pad 39A on Sept. 13.
Liftoff of Endeavour on the STS-68 mission.
On Sept. 30, 1994, Endeavour lifted off on time at 6:16 a.m. EDT, and eight and half minutes later delivered its crew and payloads to space. Thirty minutes later, a firing of the shuttle’s Orbiter Maneuvering System (OMS) engines placed them in a 132-mile orbit inclined 57 degrees to the equator. The astronauts opened the payload bay doors, deploying the shuttle’s radiators, and removed their bulky launch and entry suits, stowing them for the remainder of the flight.
Left: The Space Radar Laboratory-2 payload in Endeavour’s cargo bay, showing SIR-C (with the JPL logo on it), X-SAR (the long bar atop SIR-C), and MAPS (with the LaRC logo on it). Middle: The STS-68 Blue Team of Daniel W. Bursch, top, Steven L. Smith, and Thomas D. Jones in their sleep bunks. Right: Tile damage on Endeavour’s starboard Orbital Maneuvering System pod caused by a strike from a tile from Endeavour’s front window rim that came loose during the ascent.
Left: Steven L. Smith, left, and Peter J.K. “Jeff” Wisoff set up the bicycle ergometer in the shuttle’s middeck. Middle: The STS-68 Red Team of Terrence W. Wilcutt, top, Wisoff, and Michael A. Baker in their sleep bunks. Right: Wilcutt consults the flight plan for the next maneuver.
The astronauts began to convert their vehicle into a science platform, and that included breaking up into two teams to enable 24-hour-a-day operations. Baker, Wilcutt, and Wisoff made up the Red Team while Smith, Bursch, and Jones made up the Blue Team. Within five hours of liftoff, the Blue Team began their sleep period while the Red Team started their first on orbit shift by activating the SIR-C and X-SAR instruments in the payload bay and some of the middeck experiments. During inspection of the OMS pods, the astronauts noted an area of damaged tile, later attributed to an impact from a tile from the rim of Endeavour’s front window that came loose during the ascent to orbit. Engineers on the ground assessed the damage and deemed it of no concern for the shuttle’s entry.
Left: Michael A. Baker prepares to take photographs through the commander’s window. Middle: Thomas D. Jones, left, Daniel W. Bursch, and Baker hold various cameras in Endeavour’s flight deck. Right: Terrence W. Wilcutt with four cameras.
Left: Thomas D. Jones, left, and Daniel W. Bursch consult a map in an atlas developed specifically for the SRL-2 mission. Middle: Jones takes photographs through the overhead window. Right: Steven L. Smith takes photographs through the overhead window.
By sheer coincidence, the Klyuchevskaya volcano on Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula began erupting on the day STS-68 launched. By the mission’s second day, the astronauts trained not only their cameras on the plume of ash reaching 50,000 feet high and streaming out over the Pacific Ocean but also the radar instruments. This provided unprecedented information of this amazing geologic event to scientists who could also compare these images with those collected during SRL-1 five months earlier.
Left: Eruption of Klyuchevskaya volcano on Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula. Middle: Radar image of Klyuchevskaya volcano. Right: Comparison of radar images of Mt. Pinatubo in The Philippines taken during SRL-1 in April 1994 and SRL-2 in October 1994.
The STS-68 crew continued their Earth observations for the remainder of the 11-day flight, having received a one-day extension from Mission Control. On the mission’s eighth day, they lowered Endeavour’s orbit to 124 miles to begin a series of interferometry studies that called for extremely precise orbital maneuvering to within 30 feet of the orbits flown during SRL-1, the most precise in shuttle history to that time. These near-perfectly repeating orbits allowed the construction of three-dimensional contour images of selected sites. The astronauts repaired a failed payload high rate recorder and continued working on middeck and biomedical experiments.
Left: Steven L. Smith, left, conducts a biomedical experiment as Michael A. Baker monitors. Right: Peter J.K. “Jeff” Wisoff, left, and Smith repair a payload high rate recorder.
A selection of STS-68 crew Earth observation photographs. Left: The San Francisco Bay area. Middle left: The Niagara Falls and Buffalo area. Middle right: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Right: Another view of the Klyuchevskaya volcano on Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula.
The high inclination orbit afforded the astronauts great views of the aurora australis, or southern lights.
On this mission in particular, the STS-68 astronauts spent considerable time looking out the window, their images complementing the data taken by the radar instruments. Their high inclination orbit enabled views of parts of the planet not seen during typical shuttle missions, including spectacular views of the southern lights, or aurora australis.
Two versions of the inflight STS-68 crew photo.
On flight day 11, with most of the onboard film exposed and consumables running low, the astronauts prepared for their return to Earth the following day. Baker and Wilcutt tested Endeavour’s reaction control system thrusters and aerodynamic surfaces in preparation for deorbit and descent through the atmosphere, while the rest of the crew busied themselves with shutting down experiments and stowing away unneeded equipment.
Left: Endeavour moments before touchdown at California’s Edwards Air Force Base. Middle: Michael A. Baker brings Endeavour home to close out STS-68 and a successful SRL-2 mission. Right: Baker gets a congratulatory tap on the shoulder from Terrence W. Wilcutt following wheels stop.
Left: As workers process Endeavour on the runway, Columbia atop a Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) flies overhead on its way to the Palmdale facility for refurbishment. Right: Mounted atop an SCA, Endeavour departs Edwards for the cross-country trip to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
On Oct. 11, the astronauts closed Endeavour’s payload bay doors, donned their launch and entry suits, and strapped themselves into their seats for entry and landing. Thick cloud cover at the KSC primary landing site forced first a two-orbit delay in their landing, then an eventual diversion to Edwards Air Force Base (AFB) in California. The crew fired Endeavour’s OMS engines to drop out of orbit. Baker piloted Endeavour to a smooth landing at Edwards, ending the 11-day 5-hour 46-minute flight. The crew had orbited the Earth 182 times. Workers at Edwards safed the vehicle and placed it atop a Shuttle Carrier Aircraft for the ferry flight back to KSC. The duo left Edwards on Oct. 19, and after stops at Biggs Army Airfield in El Paso, Texas, Dyess AFB in Abilene, Texas, and Eglin AFB in the Florida panhandle, arrived at KSC the next day. Workers there began preparing Endeavour for its next flight, STS-67, in March 1995. Meanwhile, a Gulfstream jet flew the astronauts back to Ellington Field in Houston for reunions with their families.
Diane Evans, SIR-C project scientist, summarized the scientific return from STS-68, “We’ve had a phenomenally successful mission.” The radar instrument collected 60 terabits of data, filling 67 miles of magnetic tape during the mission. In 1990s technology, that equated to a pile of floppy disks 15 miles high! In 2006, using an updated comparison, astronaut Jones equated that to a stack of CDs 65 feet high. The radar instruments completed 910 data takes of 572 targets during about 80 hours of imaging. To complement the radar data, the astronauts took nearly 14,000 photographs using 14 different cameras. To image the various targets required more than 400 maneuvers of the shuttle, requiring 22,000 keystrokes in the orbiter’s computer. The use of interferometry, requiring precision orbital tracking of the shuttle, to create three-dimensional topographic maps, marks another significant accomplishment of the mission. Scientists published more than 5,000 papers using data from the SRL missions.
Enjoy the crew narrate a video about the STS-68 mission. Read Wilcutt’s recollections of the mission in his oral history with the JSC History Office.
Explore More
15 min read 55 Years Ago: Celebrations for Apollo 11 Continue as Apollo 12 Prepares to Revisit the Moon
Article 2 weeks ago 8 min read 65 Years Ago: First Powered Flight of the X-15 Hypersonic Rocket Plane
Article 2 weeks ago 8 min read 55 Years Ago: Space Task Group Proposes Post-Apollo Plan to President Nixon
Article 2 weeks ago View the full article
-
By NASA
A decade ago, on Sept. 21, 2014, NASA’s MAVEN (Mars Atmospheric and Volatile EvolutioN) spacecraft entered orbit around Mars, beginning its ongoing exploration of the Red Planet’s upper atmosphere. The mission has produced a wealth of data about how Mars’ atmosphere responds to the Sun and solar wind, and how these interactions can explain the loss of the Martian atmosphere to space.
During its first 10 years at Mars, MAVEN has helped to explain how the Red Planet evolved from warm and wet early on into the cold, dry world that we see today.
Download this video in high-resolution from NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/14690/
Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Dan Gallagher Today, MAVEN continues to make exciting new discoveries about the Red Planet that increase our understanding of how atmospheric evolution affected Mars’ climate and the previous presence of liquid water on its surface, potentially determining its prior habitability.
“It is an incredibly exciting time for the MAVEN team as we celebrate 10 years of Martian science and see the tremendous impact this mission has had on the field,” said Shannon Curry, the principal investigator of MAVEN and a researcher at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado Boulder. “We also look forward to the future discoveries MAVEN will bring.”
In celebration of this mission milestone, we recap some of the most significant scientific results of this unique and long-lasting Mars aeronomy mission.
Extreme atmospheric erosion
One of MAVEN’s first big results was discovering that the erosion of Mars’ atmosphere increases significantly during solar storms. The team studied how the solar wind — a stream of charged particles continually streaming from the Sun — and solar storms continually strip away Mars’ atmosphere, and how this process played a key role in altering the Martian climate from a potentially habitable planet to today’s cold, arid planet. Sputtering to space
To better understand how Mars lost much of its atmosphere, MAVEN measured isotopes of argon gas in the upper Martian atmosphere. Argon is a noble gas, meaning it rarely reacts with other constituents in the Martian atmosphere. The only way it can be removed is by atmospheric sputtering — a process where ions crash into the Martian atmosphere at high enough speeds that they knock gas molecules out of the atmosphere. When the MAVEN team analyzed argon isotopes in the upper atmosphere, they were able to estimate that roughly 65% of the argon originally present had been lost through sputtering over the planet’s history. A new type of aurora
MAVEN has discovered several types of auroras that flare up when energetic particles plunge into the atmosphere, bombarding gases and making them glow. The MAVEN team showed that protons, rather than electrons, create auroras at Mars. On Earth, proton auroras only occur in very small regions near the poles, whereas at Mars they can happen everywhere. Martian dust storm
In 2018, a runaway series of dust storms created a dust cloud so large that it enveloped the planet. The MAVEN team studied how this “global” dust storm affected Mars’ upper atmosphere to understand how these events affect how the escape of water to space. It confirmed that heating from dust storms can loft water molecules far higher into the atmosphere than usual, leading to a sudden surge in water lost to space. Map of Martian winds
MAVEN researchers created the first map of wind circulation in the upper atmosphere of Mars. The new map is helping scientists better understand the Martian climate, including how terrain on the planet’s surface is disturbing high-altitude wind currents. The results provide insight into how the dynamics of the upper Martian atmosphere have influenced the Red Planet’s climate evolution in the past and present. Twisted tail
Mars has an invisible magnetic “tail” that is twisted by its interaction with the solar wind. Although models predicted that magnetic reconnection causes Mars’ magnetotail to twist, it wasn’t until MAVEN arrived that scientists could confirm that the predictions were correct. The process that creates the twisted tail could also allow some of Mars’ already thin atmosphere to escape to space. Mapping electric currents
Researchers used MAVEN data to create a map of electric current systems in the Martian atmosphere. These form when solar wind ions and electrons smash into the planet’s induced magnetic field, causing the particles to flow apart. The resulting electric currents, which drape around the planet, play a fundamental role in the atmospheric loss that transformed Mars from a world that could have supported life to an inhospitable desert. Disappearing solar wind
MAVEN recently observed the unexpected “disappearance” of the solar wind. This was caused by a type of solar event so powerful that it created a void in its wake as it traveled across the solar system. MAVEN’s measurements showed that when it reached Mars, the solar wind density dropped significantly. This disappearance of the solar wind allowed the Martian atmosphere and magnetosphere to balloon out by thousands of kilometers. Ultraviolet views of the Red Planet
MAVEN captured stunning views of Mars in two ultraviolet images taken at different points along the Red Planet’s orbit around the Sun. By viewing the planet in ultraviolet wavelengths, scientists gain insight into the Martian atmosphere and view surface features in remarkable ways. Mars’ response to solar storms
In May 2024, a series of solar events triggered a torrent of energetic particles that quickly traveled to Mars. Many of NASA’s Mars missions, including MAVEN, observed this celestial event and captured images of glowing auroras over the planet. MAVEN’s principal investigator is based at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado Boulder. LASP is also responsible for managing science operations and public outreach and communications. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, manages the MAVEN mission. Lockheed Martin Space built the spacecraft and is responsible for mission operations. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California provides navigation and Deep Space Network support.
By Willow Reed
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP), University of Colorado Boulder
Media Contact: Nancy N. Jones
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
Explore More
6 min read NASA’s Hubble, MAVEN Help Solve the Mystery of Mars’ Escaping Water
Article
3 weeks ago
5 min read NASA’s MAVEN Observes the Disappearing Solar Wind
In December 2022, NASA’s MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN) mission observed the dramatic and…
Article
10 months ago
3 min read NASA’s MAVEN Spacecraft Stuns with Ultraviolet Views of Red Planet
NASA’s MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN) mission acquired stunning views of Mars in two…
Article
1 year ago
View the full article
-
By NASA
In September 1969, celebrations continued to mark the successful first human Moon landing two months earlier, and NASA prepared for the next visit to the Moon. The hometowns of the Apollo 11 astronauts held parades in their honor, the postal service recognized their accomplishment with a stamp, and the Smithsonian put a Moon rock on display. They addressed Congress and embarked on a 38-day presidential round the world goodwill tour. Eager scientists received the first samples of lunar material to study in their laboratories. Meanwhile, NASA prepared Apollo 12 for November launch as the astronauts trained for the mission with an increased emphasis on lunar science. Plans called for additional Moon landings in 1970, with spacecraft under construction and astronauts in training.
Apollo 11
For Apollo 11 astronauts Neil A. Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Edwin E. “Buzz” Aldrin, their busy August 1969 postflight schedule continued into September with events throughout the United States and beyond. These included attending hometown parades, dedicating a stamp to commemorate their historic mission, unveiling a display of a Moon rock they collected, addressing a Joint Meeting of Congress, and visiting contractor facilities that built parts of their rocket and spacecraft. They capped off the hectic month with their departure, accompanied by their wives, on a presidential round-the-world goodwill tour that lasted into early November.
Left: Neil A. Armstrong at his hometown parade in Wapakoneta, Ohio. Image credit: Ohio Historical Society. Middle: Edwin E. “Buzz” Aldrin at his hometown parade in Montclair, New Jersey. Image credit: Star-Register. Right: Michael Collins at his adopted hometown parade in New Orleans, Louisiana. Image credit: AP Photo.
On Sep. 6, each astronaut appeared at hometown events held in their honor. Apollo 11 Commander Armstrong’s hometown of Wapakoneta, Ohio, welcomed him with a parade and other events. Montclair, New Jersey, held a parade to honor hometown hero Lunar Module Pilot (LMP) Aldrin. And New Orleans, Louisiana, the adopted hometown of Command Module Pilot (CMP) Michael Collins, honored him with a parade.
Left: Apollo 11 astronauts Michael Collins, left, Neil A. Armstrong, and Edwin E. “Buzz” Aldrin with Postmaster General Winton M. Blount display an enlargement of the stamp commemorating the first Moon landing. Right: Aldrin, left, Collins, and Armstrong examine a Moon rock with Smithsonian Institution Director General of Museums Frank A. Taylor.
Three days later, the astronauts reunited in Washington, D.C., where they appeared at the dedication ceremony of a new postage stamp that honored their mission. The U.S. Postal Service had commissioned artist Paul Calle in 1968 to design the stamp. The Apollo 11 astronauts had carried the stamp’s master die to the Moon aboard the Lunar Module (LM) Eagle and after its return to Earth the Postal Service used it to make the printing pages for the 10¢ postage stamp. At the National Postal Forum, Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin unveiled the stamp together with Postmaster General Winton M. Blount, and each astronaut received an album with 30 of the “First Man on the Moon” stamps. On Sep. 15, the crew returned to Washington to present a two-pound rock they collected in the Sea of Tranquility during their historic Moon walk to Frank A. Taylor, the Director General of Museums at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. The rock went on public display two days later at the Smithsonian’s Arts and Industries Building, the first time the public could view a Moon rock.
Left: Apollo 11 astronauts Michael Collins, left, Edwin E. “Buzz Aldrin, and Neil A. Armstrong each addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress, with Vice President Spiro T. Agnew and Speaker of the House John W. McCormack seated behind them. Middle: Apollo 11 astronauts’ wives Joan Aldrin, left, Patricia Collins, and Janet Armstrong receive recognition in the Visitors Gallery of the House Chamber. Right: The Apollo 11 astronauts and their wives cut at a cake at a reception at the Capitol.
With their wives observing from the Visitors Gallery of the House of Representatives, on Sep. 16 Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress. In this same chamber in May 1961, President John F. Kennedy committed the nation to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth before the end of decade. In a sense, the astronauts reported on the safe and successful completion of that challenge. Speaker of the House John W. McCormack introduced the astronauts to the gathering, as Vice President Spiro T. Agnew looked on. Each astronaut reflected on the significance of the historic mission.
Armstrong noted that their journey truly began in the halls of Congress when the Space Act of 1958 established NASA. Aldrin commented that “the Apollo lesson is that national goals can be met when there is a strong enough will to do so.” Collins shared a favorite quotation of his father’s to describe the value of the Apollo 11 mission: “He who would bring back the wealth of the Indies must take the wealth of the Indies with him.” Armstrong closed with, “We thank you, on behalf of all the men of Apollo, for giving us the privilege of joining you in serving – for all mankind.” After their speeches, the astronauts presented one American flag each to Vice President Agnew in his role as President of the Senate and to Speaker McCormack. The flags, that had flown over the Senate and House of Representatives, had traveled to the Moon and back with the astronauts. Speaker McCormack recognized the astronauts’ wives Jan Armstrong, Joan Aldrin, and Pat Collins for their contributions to the success of the Apollo 11 mission.
Left: Neil A. Armstrong and Michael Collins address North American Rockwell employees in Downey, California. Right: Presidential Boeing VC-137B jet at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston to take the Apollo 11 astronauts and their wives on the Giantstep goodwill world tour.
On Sep. 26, Armstrong and Collins visited two facilities in California of North American Rockwell (NAR) Space Division, the company that built parts of the Saturn V rocket and Apollo 11 spacecraft. First, they stopped at the Seal Beach plant that built the S-II second stage of the rocket, where 3,000 employees turned out to welcome them. Armstrong commented to the assembled crowd that during the July 16, 1969, liftoff, “the S-II gave us the smoothest ride ever.” Collins added that despite earlier misgivings about using liquid hydrogen as a rocket fuel, “after the ride you people gave us, I sure don’t have doubts any longer.” About 7,000 employees greeted the two astronauts and showered them with confetti at their next stop, the facility in Downey that built the Apollo Command and Service Modules. Both Armstrong and Collins thanked the team for building an outstanding spacecraft that took them to the Moon and returned them safely to Earth. The astronauts inspected the Command Module (CM) for Apollo 14, then under construction at the plant.
On the morning of Sep. 29, a blue and white Boeing VC-137B presidential jet touched down at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Neil and Jan Armstrong, Buzz and Joan Aldrin, and Mike and Pat Collins boarded the plane and joined their entourage of State Department and NASA support personnel. They departed Houston for Mexico City, the first stop on the Apollo 11 Giantstep goodwill world tour. They didn’t return to the United States until Nov. 5, having visited 29 cities in 24 countries, just nine days before Apollo 12 took off on humanity’s second journey to land on the Moon.
Distribution of Apollo 11 lunar samples to scientists at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory at the Manned Spacecraft Center, now NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston.
Back in Houston, distribution to scientists of samples of the lunar material returned by the Apollo 11 astronauts began on Sep. 17 at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL) at the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC), now NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. Daniel H. Anderson, curator of lunar samples at the LRL, supervised the distribution of approximately 18 pounds – about one-third of the total Apollo 11 lunar material – to 142 principal investigators from the United States and eight other countries according to prior agreements. The scientists examined the samples at their home institutions and reported their results at a conference in Houston in January 1970. They returned to the LRL any of the samples not destroyed during the examination process.
Apollo 12
In September 1969, NASA continued preparations for the second Moon landing mission, Apollo 12, scheduled for launch on Nov. 14. The Apollo 12 mission called for a pinpoint landing in Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) near where the robotic spacecraft Surveyor 3 had touched down in April 1967. They planned to stay on the lunar surface for about 32 hours, compared to Apollo 11’s 21 hours, and conduct two surface spacewalks totaling more than 5 hours. During the first of their two excursions, the astronauts planned to deploy the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) and collect lunar samples. During the second spacewalk, they planned to visit Surveyor 3 and remove some of its equipment for return to Earth and collect additional lunar samples. The Apollo 12 prime crew of Commander Charles “Pete” Conrad, CMP Richard F. Gordon, and LMP Alan L. Bean and their backups David R. Scott, Alfred M. Worden, and James B. Irwin continued intensive training for the mission.
Left: The Apollo 12 Saturn V exits the Vehicle Assembly Building on its way to Launch Pad 39A. Middle: The Apollo 12 Saturn V rolling up the incline as it approaches Launch Pad 39A. Right: Apollo 12 astronauts Alan L. Bean, left, Richard F. Gordon, and Charles “Pete” Conrad pose in front of their Saturn V during the rollout to the pad.
On Sep. 8, the Saturn V rocket with the Apollo 12 spacecraft on top rolled out from Kennedy Space Center’s (KSC) Vehicle Assembly Building to Launch Pad 39A. The rocket made the 3.5-mile trip to the pad in about 6 hours, with Conrad, Gordon, and Bean on hand to observe the rollout. Workers at the pad spent the next two months thoroughly checking out the rocket and spacecraft to prepare it for its mission to the Moon. The two-day Flight Readiness Test at the end of September ensured that the launch vehicle and spacecraft systems were in a state of flight readiness. In addition to spending many hours in the spacecraft simulators, Conrad and Bean as well as their backups Scott and Irwin rehearsed their lunar surface spacewalks including the visit to Surveyor 3. Workers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, shipped an engineering model of the robotic spacecraft to KSC, and for added realism, engineers there mounted the model on a slope to match its relative position on the interior of the crater in which it stood on the Moon. Conrad and Scott used the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV) at Ellington Air Force Base (AFB) near MSC to train for the final 200 feet of the descent to the lunar surface.
Left: Apollo 12 astronauts Alan L. Bean, left, and Charles “Pete” Conrad rehearse their lunar surface spacewalks at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Middle: Conrad trains in the use of the Hasselblad camera he and Bean will use on the Moon. Right: Bean, left, and Conrad train with an engineering model of a Surveyor spacecraft.
With regard to lunar geology training, the Apollo 12 astronauts had one advantage over their predecessors – they could inspect actual Moon rocks and soil returned by the Apollo 11 crew. On Sep. 19, Conrad and Bean arrived at the LRL, where Lunar Sample Curator Anderson met them. Anderson brought out a few lunar rocks and some lunar soil that scientists had already tested and didn’t require to be stored under vacuum or other special conditions, allowing Conrad and Bean to examine them closely and compare them with terrestrial rocks and soil they had seen during geology training field trips. This first-hand exposure to actual lunar samples significantly augmented Conrad and Bean’s geology training. To highlight the greater emphasis placed on lunar surface science, the Apollo 12 crews (prime and backup) went on six geology field trips compared to just one for the Apollo 11 crews.
Left: Apollo 12 astronauts Charles “Pete” Conrad, left, Richard F. Gordon, and Alan L. Bean prepare for water egress training aboard the MV Retriever in the Gulf of Mexico. Middle: Wearing Biological Isolation Garments and assisted by a decontamination officer, standing in the open hatch, Apollo 12 astronauts await retrieval in the life raft. Right: The recovery helicopter hoists the third crew member using a Billy Pugh net.
Although the Apollo 11 astronauts returned from the Moon in excellent health and scientists found no evidence of any harmful lunar microorganisms, NASA managers still planned to continue the postflight quarantine program for the Apollo 12 crew members, their spacecraft, and the lunar samples they brought back. The first of these measures involved the astronauts donning Biological Isolation Garments (BIG) prior to exiting the spacecraft after splashdown. Since they didn’t carry the BIGs with them to the Moon and back, one of the recovery personnel, also clad in a BIG, opened the hatch to the capsule after splashdown and handed the suits to the astronauts inside, who donned them before exiting onto a life raft.
On Sep. 20, the Apollo 12 astronauts rehearsed these procedures, identical to the ones used after the first Moon landing mission, in the Gulf of Mexico near Galveston, Texas, using a boilerplate Apollo CM and supported by the Motorized Vessel (MV) Retriever. As it turned out, NASA later removed the requirement for the crew to wear BIGs, and after their splashdown the Apollo 12 crew wore overalls and respirators.
Apollo 13
Left: Apollo 13 prime crew members James A. Lovell and Thomas K. “Ken” Mattingly in the Command Module (CM) for an altitude chamber test – Fred W. Haise is out of the picture at right – at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Middle: Apollo 13 backup astronaut John L. “Jack” Swigert prepares to enter the CM for an altitude chamber test. Right: Apollo 13 backup crew members John W. Young, left, and Swigert in the CM for an altitude chamber test – Charles M. Duke is out of the picture at right.
Preparations for Apollo 13 continued in parallel. In KSC’s Manned Spacecraft Operations Building (MSOB), Apollo 13 astronauts completed altitude chamber tests of their mission’s CM and LM. Prime crew members Commander James A. Lovell, CMP Thomas K. “Ken” Mattingly, and LMP Fred W. Haise completed the CM altitude test on Sep. 10, followed by their backups John W. Young, Jack L. Swigert, and Charles M. Duke on Sep. 17. The next day, Lovell and Haise completed the altitude test of the LM, followed by Young and Duke on Sep. 22. At the time of these tests, Apollo 13 planned to launch on March 12, 1970, on a 10-day mission to visit the Fra Mauro highlands region of the Moon. To prepare for their lunar surface excursions, Lovell, Haise, Young, and Duke, accompanied by geologist-astronaut Harrison H. “Jack” Schmitt and Caltech geologist Leon T. “Lee” Silver, spent the last week of September in Southern California’s Orocopia Mountains immersed in a geology boot camp.
Apollo 14 and 15
Left: At North American Rockwell’s (NAR) Downey, California, facility, workers assemble the Apollo 14 Command Module (CM), left, and Service Module. Right: NAR engineers work on the CM originally intended for Apollo 15.
Looking beyond Apollo 13, the Apollo 14 crew of Commander Alan B. Shepard, CMP Stuart A. Roosa, and LMP Edgar D. Mitchell and their backups Eugene A. Cernan, Ronald E. Evans, and Joe H. Engle had started training for their mission planned for mid-year 1970. At the NAR facility in Downey, engineers prepared the CM and SM and shipped them to KSC in November 1969. Also at Downey, workers continued assembling the CM and SM planned for the Apollo 15 mission in late 1970. As events transpired throughout 1970, plans for those two missions changed significantly.
NASA management changes
Left: Portrait of NASA astronaut James A. McDivitt. Right: NASA Administrator Thomas O. Paine, right, swears in George M. Low as NASA deputy administrator.
On Sept. 25, NASA appointed veteran astronaut James A. McDivitt as the Manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office at MSC. McDivitt, selected as an astronaut in 1962, commanded two spaceflights, Gemini IV in June 1965 that included the first American spacewalk and Apollo 9 in March 1969, the first test of the LM in Earth orbit. He succeeded George M. Low who, in that position since April 1967, led the agency’s efforts to recover from the Apollo 1 fire and originated the idea to send Apollo 8 on a lunar orbital mission. Under his tenure, NASA successfully completed five crewed Apollo missions including the first human Moon landing. MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth initially assigned Low to plan future programs until Nov. 13, when President Richard M. Nixon nominated him as NASA deputy administrator. The Senate confirmed Low’s nomination on Nov. 25, and NASA Administrator Thomas O. Paine swore him in on Dec. 3. Low filled the position vacant since March 20, 1969.
To be continued …
News from around the world in September 1969:
September 2 – The first automated teller machine is installed at a Chemical Bank branch in Rockville Center, New York.
September 13 – Hannah-Barbera’s “Scooby Doo, Where Are You?” debuts on CBS.
September 20 – John Lennon announces in a private meeting his intention to leave The Beatles.
September 22 – San Francisco Giant Willie Mays becomes the second player, after Babe Ruth, to hit 600 career home runs.
September 23 – “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” starring Paul Newman and Robert Redford, premieres.
September 24 – Tokyo’s daily newspaper Asahi Shimbun announced that it would be the first to deliver an edition electronically, using a FAX machine that could print a page in five minutes.
September 26 – Apple Records releases “Abbey Road,” The Beatles’ 11th studio album.
Explore More
8 min read 65 Years Ago: First Powered Flight of the X-15 Hypersonic Rocket Plane
Article 2 days ago 8 min read 55 Years Ago: Space Task Group Proposes Post-Apollo Plan to President Nixon
Article 3 days ago 7 min read 15 Years Ago: Japan launches HTV-1, its First Resupply Mission to the Space Station
Article 1 week ago View the full article
-
-
Check out these Videos
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.