SUMMER

198f SYMPOSIUM ON

SCIENTIFIC USES,OF ORBITING. EHTERNRL TRNKS

BOULBEf?, COf OR/?00 RUGUST 3-4 SPONSORED BY: UCRR FOUNBflTION CENTER FOR SPRCE @ GEOSCIENCES PUL ICY NRSR MRRTlN MRRIE7TIp CORPORHTtON USRR

WORKSHOP ON SCIENTIFIC OF ORBITING SHUTTLE EXTERNAL

August
-

USE TANKS

3 - 4, 1987

Monday, 7:30 am

August

3 shuttle service*
registration Walter from

hotels to NCAR

8:00 - 8:30 am
-

National
-

Orr Roberts Board Room Center for Atmospheric Research

8:30 - 9:00 am

welcome and introductory remarks Chairman - Dr. Walter Orr Roberts President Emeritus of UCAR
Current

9:oo - 9:30 am
-

Status of the Space Phoeniz Program Dr. Randolph Ware President, External Tanks Corporation

9:30 - 9:45 am

Roles for Orbiting ETs in the U.S. Civil Space Program Dr. George Morgenthaler Chairman, Department of Aerospace Engineering University of Colorado
A Gamma

9:45 - lo:15
-

am

Ray Ezternal Tank Application Dr. David Koch Principal Investigator, Gamma Ray Imaging
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

Telescope

.-

lo:15
-

- lo:30

am

BREAK GRIT and ET background Dr. Max Nein - Marshall Space Flight Center Billy Davis - Marshall Space Flight Center Tom Mobley - Martin Marietta Corporation L U N C H served in meeting room Initial Comments in Discussion .-Ireas

lo:30

- 11:30 am

11:30 - 12:30

am

12:30 - 1:30 pm

ASTRONOMY AND ASTROIHYSICS Dr. Jack Burns - University of New Mexico Dr. Bill Priedhorsky - Los Alamos National Labs

-2EARTH OBSERVATION AND REMOTE SENSING Dr. Alex Goetz - University of Colorado Dr. John Gille - NCAR Dr. Bill Emery - University of Colorado MATERIALS SCIENCES Dr. Jean Koster - University of Colorado Dr. Byron Lichtenburg - Payload Systems Inc. LIFE SCIENCES Dr. Byron Lichtenburg - Payload Systems Inc. Dr. Marv Luttges - University of Colorado 1:30 - 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 6:30 pm 7:00 pm
Work shuttle shuttle

Sessions in Above Discussion

service * to hotels service* from hotels to banquet

Areas

BANQUET

Dinner

(C or k and Cleaver, 3295 30th, 443-9505) Speaker: Margret Augustine Space Biospheres Ventures

Tuesday,

August

4
shuttle service from hotels to NCAR
-

7:30 am 8:15 - 8:30 am

reconuene

meeting Dr. Walter Orr Roberts

Sessions in Discussion in NCAR Areas

8:30 - 12:00 am 12:00 - 1:00 pm 1:00 - 3:00 pm 3:00 pm

Work

L U N C H Group adjourn

Tree Plaza to Plenary

Presentations workshop

Session
-

*Clarion,

Hotel Boulderado,

and Holiday

Inn

TICAugustine, Margret Project Director C.E.O., Space Biosphere Ventures P.C. Box 689 Oracle, Arizona 85623
-

Baillif, Faye Martin Marietta Michoud P.O. Box 29304 - Dept. 3018 New Orleans, LA 70189 Bell, Dr. William 4415 Hasting Drive Boulder, CO 80303 Bender, Dr.Peter University of Colorado Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics Campus Box 440 Boulder, Colorado Born, Dr. George University of Colorado Director Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research Campus Box 429 Boulder, Colorado 80309 Brumley, Bob Deputy General Counsel Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 Burns, Dr. Jack National Center Univ. of Illinois for 61820 Supercomputer Applications

605 E. Springfield
Champaign
-

, IL

Ave

--

--

Byerly, Dr. Radford, Jr. University of Colorado Director Center for Space and Geosciences Policy Campus Box 184 80309

Cash, Professor Webster C. Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy University of Colorado Campus Box 391 Boulder, Colorado 80309 Clement, David Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications 2321 Rayburn Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dagel, Nancy Johnson Engineering 3055 Ceter Green Dr. Boulder, CO 80301 Davis, Dr. M.H. Program Director, P.O. Box 391 Boulder, Colorado USRA 80306-0391

Edelson, Dr. Burton I. NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications Mail Code AE-3 Washington, D.C. 20546 Emery, Dr. Bill University of Colorado Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research Campus Box 431 Boulder, CO 80309 Esposito, Dr. Larry University of Colorado Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics Campus Box 392 Boulder, CO 80309 Gille, Dr. John National Center for Research Global Observations Room ML-363 P.O. Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307
-

Atmospheric Unit

-._

Goeta, Dr. Alex University of Colorado Center for the Study of Earth from Space Campus Box #449 Gimarc, Major John A. U.S. Air Force Consolidated Space Operations Center 2726 Purgatory Colorado Springs, CO 80918 Grodzka, Dr. Philomena Lockheed Missles & Space Co. Inc. Huntsville Engineering 4800 Bradford Drive Huntsville, AL 35807 Hansen, Elaine University of Colorado Program Director Solar Mesosphere Explorer Campus Box 10 Hill, Mr. Allan Boeing Aerospace Company P.O. Box 3099 - Mail Stop 8K93 Seattle, Washington 98124-2499 Hinners, Director, Flight Greenbelt, Dr. Noel NASA Goddard Space Center Maryland 20771

Hofgard, Jefferson S. Assistant Director Center for Space and Geosciences Policy University of Colorado Campus Box 184

Boulder,

Colorado

80309

S. Neil, Esq. Hosenball, Davis, Graham and Stubbs 1001 22nd Street, N.W., Suite Washington, D.C. 20037 Jenkener, Helmut European Space Agency 3700 San Martin Drive Baltimore, MD

500

Jones, Mr. Ronald W. Phillips Petroleum Robotics 229 PL, PRC Bartlesville, OK 74004 Kellogg, Dr. William Symposium Rapporteur 445 College Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 Koch, Dr. David Smithsonian Astrophysical 60 Garden Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Koster, Dr. Jean N. University of Colorado Associate Director Center for Low Gravity Dynamics and Transport Campus Box # 429 Lampton, Dr. Micheal Univ. of California 1082 Sterling Ave Berkeley, CA 94708 W.

Group

Observatory

Fluid Phenomena

- Berkeley

Levin, Dr. George M. NASA HQ Building 10-B Code MD Washington, D.C. 20546
-

-. -

Lichtenberg, Byron Payload Systems, Inc. 66 Central Street Welesley, MA 02181 Luttges, Dr. Marvin University of Colorado Director Bioserve Space Technology Campus Box 429 Boulder, Colorado 80309 David Mann Confeience Coordinator Center for Space and Geosciences Policy University of Colorado Campus Box 184 Boulder, Colorado 80309

Center

Maryniak, Gregg Exec. Vice President Space Studies Institute P.O. Box 82 Princeton, NJ 08540 Mobley, Tom Martin Marietta Corporation P.O. Box 29304 - Dept. 3010 Michoud Air Space New Orleans, Louisianna 70189 Moore, Dr. Jessie Ball Aerospace Systems Morganthaler, George Dean, School of Engineering University of Colorado Campus Box 422 Boulder, Colorado 80309 Nein, Max Space Flight NASA - Marshall Mail Code PS 02 Building 4200 Marshall Space Flight Center, Padwa, David J. Vice - Chairman External Tanks Corporation 1001 Mapleton Boulder, CO 80302 Priedhorsky, Bill Mail Stop D436 Los Alamos Nat'1 Labs Los Alamos, NM 87545 Roberts, Dr. Walter Orr President Emeritus University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Room 208 P.O. Box 3000 Boulder, Colorado 80307 Rogers, Thomas F. Chairman, External Tanks 7404 Colshire Drive McLean, VA 22102 Schmadel, Kevin Program Director, P.O. Box 391 Boulder, Colorado USRA 80306-0391 Corporation Center Alabama 35812

-__
-

,-

Stone, Dr. William National Bureau of Standards Bldg. 226 - B162 CBT Washington, D.C. 20234 Sterling, Director External University Atmospheric P.O. Box Boulder, Deb Relations Corporation Research 3000 CO 80307 for

Taranik, Dr. James V. Dean, Mackay School of Mines Univ. of Nevada-Reno Reno, NV 89557-0047 Ware, Dr. Randolph H. President, External Tanks Randolph Center 1877 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 Corpation

Williams, Frank Director of Program Development/Advanced Programs Department Martin Marietta Corporation P.O. Box 29304 - Dept. 3010 Michoud Air Space New Orleans, Louisianna 70189

to&H

CONGRESS

Zsf Session

HOUSE

OF REPRESENTATIVES

REPORT

100-204

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AUTHORIZATION

-

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1988

JULY 7. 19&7.--Committed

to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

22 UTZLIZATXON OF ORBITING SHUT~ZE Ekmxxu Tmxs The Committee notes that the Space Shuttle External Tank (ET) is a potentially valuable resource that should be considered for possible space development. Qualified academic research groups could be awarded ET resources for spacebased research much like the land grant concept of the pest. Using orbiting ETs, universities working cooperatively with industry might be able to increase scienti& research opportunities, expand our Nations space infrastructure and broaden the spectrum of private space enterprise. In response to the Committees request in House Authorization Report 99-829, NASA has delivered to the Committee a report specifying the technical, operational, cost, and safety requirements for RT orbit insertion. The NASA report External Tank Utilization on Orbit states: The engineering and operating problems involved with this objective are basically within the current state-ofthe-art of Shuttle operations, support system and technology. The report also specifies the impact on Shuttle payload, propellant requirements for station keeping, requirements for accessibility to orbiting ETs, probability of space debris or micrometeoroid damage, and NASAs estimate of the cost of ET modifications and operations. The Committee appreciates the delivery of this detailed report in response to the Committees specific request. The Committee is pleased to be informed of progress acheived by univeftity groups and NASA in the past year toward realizing the potential value of ET resources: (1) The Universty Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), a Z-year old group of 57 universities and research institutions, is leading the Space Phoenix program to obtain orbiting ETs and develop them for scientific and commercial purposes using non-government funds; (2) NASA has created a high level committee to work with UCAR on the Space Phoenix program; (3) UCAR and the Government are making good progress toward an agreement concerning transfer of one or more FYIs to UCAR; (4) NASA is supporting studies of a Gamma Ray Imaging Telescope (GRIT) which could be installed in an orbiting ET; (5) Zero gravity simulations of GRIT telescope assembly procedures are being conducted at the Marshall Space Flight Center; (6) A symposium of space scientists has been convened by university groups to consider science experiments that can be conducted in and from space using ETs.

iTHEM

JULY 27, 1987.

NEWS

Space Re&irch Advakes dn3 Continents - .. .

9. ;: Marietta, which build8 the &uttb tbeltaokn. ; nkEcope system.
Mthoughtbaidmof&agitlg thetankarpar6nstpropoM!dmany pare ago, NASA bad never expreemd any partilxllar interest in pumuing it-in part becaume no onebadahownanyckarueefora tank,ntranded125mikaahovetbe Efu&thatwouldquicklybecomea dangerolgpkceoff4pacejlmkunka ita orbit were raked and aabil&d. Currently, the tank reaches 98 percent of orbital velocity before Ao extend taok like thla ooe rolled out in 1977 at a NASA heiogdroppedtoburoupovertba facility in New Orleans could be converted into M orbitin IodiaooceM. laboratory that would allow more experimentatios~ in WCC. Tbat at&u& has eofteoed, however. IO February a NASA et& group concluded that the engioeering aod operational requirements gioeem will atteod a cbeed work- to take the eo4oot40og ttulka BY TONY REICEEARDT shop io Boulder to take a fut3t safely to orbit and coove.rt them to crack at ck6nii science require useful v&me are within the %uwAt3ElNcTON-Experimenter8 menta Tar the Iabitaf a3 the Exrent l&ate of the artbf the ahuttk. lltamd br mpaceflight opportuniternal nlok company (En-CO) hat3 Aepecifkuaehaabeeofoundas tknmayfindalIthekbt3pacetbey labeled ib propoeed facility. Tbe well. Under a grant from NASA% oeed in-Earth orbit if a small C-4+ meeting ia eponaored by the UniMarahaU Space Flight Center, Daredo anopany k able to turn the versity Corporation for Atmovid Koch of the Harvard/Smitbaoifpace shuttles giant external fkl spheric Research (WAR)-a cooq iao Center hr Astrophy&s and tankn iota privately owned orbit* sortium of 55 universities that MartiiMarkttaare~ths acieoce Eacilitiea own8 80 percent of ETCOr useofarefurbiitanktomotmt Nextweekrgmupof(Oxiendock--NASA sod aevcml other l 3O-foattha3pemtmrcaIbd tht&~officiakMdeoco-spoosors, including Martin GIUTS,brGammaRayfmmging _.._ _. _._ .-_ -.. _._ _.. .~ Onceinorbit,thetankwouklhe emptied by ktting residual fuel8 boil out and then repwith gas Mronauta would enter the taok through portboka (uodawater trainii atudiea at uarsban have ahowo that thii ia poeeibk) to installtbeGlUIS&ectorand other science equipment brought up by tbe httle. Attitude control, communications and other support equipment would be attached, and tbetankwouldberaiaedtoanaltitudeof300to4OOkilometem.Tbe totalalatlbddtle$zoominb~ divided eveoly between tiy! hardware ad the oparatboal expensea A space sieve

much more ambitious market& dream--selling ib spa&. They e8timate scientists will be able to km3e room inaide the cBvernout3 Labitatataprojectedaxxtof$lper cubic foot per day. President Ftandolph Ware said ITIC eventually wants to involve the wbok university community in civil spnce activities. But ow knowkdgeabk acientiet, who Mid be supported tba companys goab. wan nkeptical that anyone butNASAwou.klhaabletoafford to um the L&tat. University peopk &on% have tbe money, he olmervai. Wue admiUed that the compury,toaucceu&mustattmctalot

LabsFrom Shuttle Tanks

of cxmtomar Em!0 otiicialn My thaycmnkeKpthecoetacbwoby makiogtbafscilityspartanuoeocumbered by bureaucracy and cbdytaibredtobMicexperimentJd.Tb bbitat is Dot competing with NASA% Space Station br wtomen, Ware emphasized Our kiUtykmor8tikeakrgewarehouooatthee&eofaninciustrial

Noooeclaiiitsgoingtobeeay. Space debris k one of my biggest worrka, said Koch. At the altitude planned br GRITS, there ia a 90 percent chaoca that micromeb oroidn would penetrate the taoka thin metal with0 a year, ruptum thepressuritadveneelandruinthe experiment. If you kave it up there brig emu&,m uyr Koch, ~~goiogtohavaaakva

~WUOMillour!3UcceSak
ping cella to ckpaod on their t -:. 1 suc-

Rei&hafdf ir 0 Wnrhington freetonrrWd8rOdditOrOtSSpaOE WOtldmqpdn~

EXTERNAL TANK GAMMA RAY IMAGING TELESCOPE STUDY

Contract

A71128

Final Report

For the Period

15 .July

1986

through

27 January

1987

Principal David Investigator G. Koch

February

1987

Prepared for Martin Marietta Corporation 70189 New Orleans, Louisiana

Smithsonian Institution Astrophysical Observatory Cambridge, Massachusetts

02138

The

Smithsonian is

Asl.rophysical a member of Center

Observatory the for Astrophysics

Final External Tank Gamma

Report

. Telescope Study

Ray Imaging

Smithsonian

David G. Koch Aettophysical Observatory 60 Garden Street Cambridge, MA 02138

Introduction
This is the final report for a contract to study Gamma Ray Imaging Telescope System (GRITS). the use of an .External Tank (ET) for a

The purpw of this Gamma-Ray Imaging Telescope System is to do pointed studies with much improved seqsitivity in high energy gamma-ray astrophysics as a continuation of NASAs program following the survey to be done by the Gamma Ray Observatory (GRO). This final report is not intended to document fully all that has been learned to date concerning this concept, since work prior to this study has been drawn upon and work subsequent to this study will be continuing. Rather, the intent of this report is to formally transmit the contributions of Smithsonian Astrophysiscal Observatory (SAO) to Martin Marietta (MMA). This material has been used in the oral presentations that have been made during the study and is to be used in preparing of the final report to Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Well coordinated, cooperative parallel work was carried out simultaneously at SAO, MMA and MSFC. Much of the background material upon which this study was based came from a previous SAO final report,A Large-Area Gamma-Ray Imaging Telescope System under NASA contract NASW-3743 in 1983. The form of this report is to present both the charts used for formal presentations and, on the facing pages, an explanation of the topics outlined on the charts.

Processes

For Production

of High

Energy

+pRays

Gamma rays are produced by a number of high energy processes. These include high energy particle interactions that lead to the production of x0 -mesons which eventually decay into gamma rays. Matter-antimatter annihilation also produces gamma rays. When electrons and positrons annihilate they produce gamma rays with a characteristicenergy of 0.51 MeV. When protons and anti-protons annihilate they produce pions, including x s. The X spectrum has a characteristic slmpe with a pea.k at 68 MeV. In a process which is the inverse of the normal Compton process, energetic electrons collide with low energy photons, such ss optical or UV photons near an intense source of radiation, and boost the photon energy up into the gamma-ray regime. Another process involving energetic electrons takes place when the electrons scatter off of nuclei due to the Coulomb force. The resulting acceleration of the charged particle as its trajectory is changed causes the electron I,O radiate gamma rays. This is called electron Bremsstrahlung, i.e., braking radiation. A final process called magneto-Bremsstrahlung also referred to as synchrotron radiation, results from deliecting the path of the energetic electrons with a magnetic field. Again it is the acceleration of the charge as its trajectory is changed that causes the electron to radiate. Although gamma rays a.re produced in the spontaneous decay of nuclei, resulting in gamma rays of very distinct energy, t.his gamma-ray line emission is typically of only a few MeV energy.

,I

Processes
l

For

Production

of High

Energy

y-Rays

High Energy nuclear interactions Interactions that-lead to ?r decay Matter-antimatter annihilation p+p-M++vi-+n e- + e+ 3 27 energy to low energy photons

0 Inverse Compton effect Energetbelwtrons impart

l

Electron Bremsstrahlung Energetic electrons scatter off of nuclei and radiate Synchrotron Energetic radiation electrons in a strong magnetic

y-rays

field radiate

y-rays

Nuclear transitions Energies up to a few MeV

Astrophysical

Sources

The gamma-ray emission that has been measured to date can be classified as either diffuse emission or emission from discrete sources. The diffuse emission can be divided into the extended emission coming from the galactic plane and a diffuse extra-galactic component. The former results from the nuclear collisions of cosmic rays, primarily protons, with interstellar dust and gas and from electron Bremsstrahlung of cosmic-ray electrons with the same interstellar matter. The inverse Compton process and synchrotron mechanism are far less significant in the interstellar regions. The gamma-ray flux from a particular portion of the galactic plane is a measure of the cosmic-ray and matter depsity in that part of the Galaxy. Since the matter density can be fairly well determined from infrared and CO measurements, the in-situ cosmic-ray density can be derived for remote portions of the Galaxy. The extra-galactic component is extremely difficult to measure because it is a very low flux. It presumably has little or no spatial structure, although it may result in part from many faint sources. Any instrument background can make it difficult to establish the absolute flux level. The discrete sources can be grouped into quite a few categories. These include truly compact objects, such as, neutron stars, pulsars (which are neutron stars producing detectable periodic radiation), black holes and and the galactic center (whose true nature is not yet understood). Another pseudc+discrete source but not compact are dense molecular clouds. Again, cosmic rays colliding with a locally high concentration of matter will result in a high production rate of gamma rays. Gamma-ray bursts at an energy of a few MeV were first detected with the Vela satellites and have since been detected by many other spacecraft at both lower (x-ray) and higher (tens of MeV) energies. Since there first detection in early 10709, the nature of the sources of these bursts remains a mystery. They may be some old familiar source manifesting itself in a newly detected way , such as comets falling onto neutron stars, or may be an entirely new class of object. In either case, the higher energy regime has not as yet been explored. Of the two dozen point like sources detected to date, only four have been associated with previously known objects, the Crab and Vela pulsars, the quasar 3C273 and the dense cloud in p Oph. Only the two pulsars are hard clad identifications based on the pulsed signature of the gamma-ray emission. The other two are based on positional coincidence with very likely candidates. The remaining objects have not been identified due to the currently large positional uncertainty. On a much grander scale extra-galactic sources of gamma rays have been and should continue to be found. The one identified discrete source is the quasar 3C273. Although it is one of the nearest quasars, others should be detected as the sensitivity of the observations is improved. Other active galactic nuclei (AGN) such as BL-Lac type objects and Seyfert galaxies may also prove to be soqrces of gamma rays. Closer to home, galaxies in our local group should be detectable with just one order of magnitude improvement in detection sensitivity. In particular the Large and Small Clouds of Magellan and the Andromeda Nebula (M31) should be producing gamma rays just as they are produced by the Milky Way given similar densities of gas and dust and fluxes of cosmic rays. One can anticipate mapping the gamma-ray intensity in these objects, since these local galaxies are large (8 , 2.5 and 1.7 respectively), even with respect to the resolution of gamma-ray instruments.

Astrophysical
-

Sources
Emission gas and dust gas and dust

Diffuse Galactic a Cosmic ray nuclei collisions

l

with interstellar

Electron

Bremsstrahlung

with interstellar

Discrete Sources
l

Compact objects Pulsars, neutron Dense molecular Bursters Unidentified

stars, black holes, the galactic

center

clouds

gamma-ray

sources

--

Extra-galactic AGN: Quasars, BLLac, Seyferts Local group of galaxies: LMC, SMC, M31

Evolution

of Gamma-Ray

Astronomy

The birth of gamma-ray astronomy can be traced to predictions made in 1958 in a paper by Prof. Philip Morrison. This lead to a flurry of optimistic attempts to detect gamma rays. Unlike cosmic x-ray sources which were discovered serendipitously and found to be much brighter than one would have expected based on previous knowledge of normal stars, it is now known that the flux from gamma-ray sources is much fainter than earlier predictions suggett5ed. In fact tp flux from the strongest source above 100 MeV, the Vela pulsar with a llux of 10 photons/cm set, is more than one million times less than the flux from the strongest x-ray source in the 2-10 keV regime, Sco X-l, which has a flux that varies from 20 to 40 photons/cm2sec. For purposes of the following discussion, the range in energy will be restricted to 100 MeV to At the lower energies protecting against non-primary 10 GeV. The reason for this is multiple. gamma-ray background is more difficult, such as from radioactive decay products within the instrument or deca.y of secondary products from the interaction of cosmic rays, such as from muon decay. At the lower energies, the gamma rays interact primarily by the Compton interaction. Since it is impractical to measure the direction of recoil of the nucleus involved, there is a large uncertainty in the incident direction of any one photon. In fact one is left with an annulus of uncertainty. At energies in excess of 100 MeV, photons interact exclusively by pair production, resulting in a relatively smaller uncertainty in the incident direction. This uncertain depends approximately inversely as the energy. Contrary to what one might at first expect, even with fewer events detectable at the higher energies, the centroid of uncertainty improves with increasing energy. This is because not only does the extended emission from the galactic plane decrease at the higher energies, but in addition, the solid angle containing the source events is reduced by including only the higher energy events. In this way less of the extended background emission needs to be included, increasing the signal to noise for the source. At the lower energies, on the order of an MeV, much of the interest is not only in determining the incident direction, but also in precisely measuring the energy of the gamma. rays, since there exist important emission line features at these energies. At the higher energies, there are no nuclear line emissions and one need only to measure the broad spectral shape. For example, it is important to determine whether the emission is due to 7~ decay or a power law due to Bremsstrahlung and to determine if there is a cutoff or break in the spectrum. Beyond 100 GeV ground based observations are possible. These measurements are beginning to produce results with perhaps as many as a dozen sources detected, many with time varying signatures. The early attempts to detect gamma-rays with high altitude balloon experiments were not only frustrated with finding very low upper limits, but also by a relatively high background of secondary gamma ra.ys produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. The first truly cosmic gamma rays were detected with an instrument on OSO-3. This instrument made of scintillators and solid Cherenkov counters had very limited angular resolution, but was able to distinguish a galactic plane component with an enhancement towards the galactic center. Two space probes of nearly the same characteristics, SAS-2 and Cos-B, were subsequently flown and are the basis for our knowledge of the gamma-ray sky at energies greater than 100 MeV. A more sensitive and diverse spacecraft, the Gamma Ray Observatory (GRO), is currently under development. Throughout the evolution of this field of astrophysics, the capability and size of the detectors flown have more or less followed the evolution of the launch vehicles for space probes. In each era, although the detectors were not at the true limit of the launch capability, an order of magnitude increase in size was not. possible at the time. In addition, it is unreasonable to expect all of the available resources to be committed to creating the largest possible gamma-ray detector. For example, SAS-2 was launched on a Scout rocket at the same time that the Saturn V was launching men to the moon. Thus, it would be unreasonable to expect to see a major improvement over GRO until sometime well after a nmjor enhancement in launch capability becomes available, if one followed the conventional approach to the evolution of events.

Evolution
-

of Gamma-Ray

Astronomy

( 100 MeV < E < 10 GeV )

-

Device
-

Launch exper* 1960s Mar 1967 Nov 1972 Aug 1975 1990 mid-1990s

Duration 10s hours 16 months 7 months 81 months 2-4 years 5 years

Area,cm2 < 1,000 46 640 576 6,500 250,000

Purpose Pioneering Background Survey Galactic survey All sky survey Pointed studies

Balloon oso-3 SAS-2* Cos-B* GRO* GRITS

* Spark chambers with large field of view.

Results

Up

Through

Cos-B

As mentioned earlier, the initial measurements of cosmic gamma rays were made with an instrument on OSO-3. These measurements indicated an extended galactic component with an enhancement towards the galactic center. An additional diffuse extra-galactic component was also measured. The results from the two small spark chamber detectors, SAS-2 and Cos-B, provided a catalog of two dozen sources, with only four of the sources being identified with previously known objects. Since the positional uncertainty for these objects is on the order of a few degrees, it is virtually impossible to associate them with the many candidate x-ray, optical or radio sources that are within the error boxes, unless there were some distinguishing feature. This was clearly the cases for the identification with the Crab and Vela pulsars. Even the second brightest gamma-ray source in the sky at galactic coordinates 195+5 cannot be unequivocally associated with a known object, although one soft x-ray source does appear in its error box. The major draw back to improving this situation is that the very low flux of gamma rays requires a very large detector for building up substantial statistics to permit improvement in locating the centroid of the source. Inherent improvement in the angular resolution of the detection technique is also of great advantage. The success of Cos-B was a result of being able to operate the instrument for almost seven years. The Energetic Gamma-Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) on GRO is designed to provide an increase in area over SAS-2 by a factor of ten as well as provide improved angular resolution. The main goal of the GRO mission is to perform an all sky survey and detect many more sources. Having four different instruments, it will be able to make measurements from of hard x-rays of tens of keV up to energies in excess of tens of GeV.

Astronomy

and

Astrophysics

for

the

1980's

The Astronomy Survey Committee of the National Academy of Sciences often referred to as the Field Committee, on page 165 of their report Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 1980% has identified the direction that needs to be taken for the future. Subsequent to GRO, an advanced high-energy high sensitivity, and high angular resolution will selected sources and regions of special knterest. tistical accuracy in the counting of gamma-ray spectral features of the sources and to analyze telescope need not be wide, and an appropriate 1 to 2 arcmin. gamma-ray telescope of very large area, be needed for long-term observations of This will be necessary to achieve the staphotons required to resolve spatial and their variations. The field of view of the goal for angular resolution is the order of

Results
l

Up Through
with unresolved component

Cos-B

Galactic

Component

structure

Small diffuse extra-galactic Twenty-five discrete sources

(Only four have been identified.)

l

Low flux requires very large area detectors

History

of GRITS

The goals identified by the Astronomy Survey Committee, can be achieved with a detector that has been developed and proven. The original detection concept that is utilized in the Gamma-Ray Imaging Telescope System (GRITS) was proposed by Prof. Kenneth Greisen of Cornell University in 19G6. The basic technique utilizes an imaging gas Cherenkov counter and plastic scintillators. A prototype of the instrument was built having 4.5 m2 sensitive area with seven five-inch phototubes at the focus. The gondola itself was 20 feet long and 10 feet iri diameter. Six balloon flights of this instrument were carried out in the early 1970s. The results from this flights series not only proved the concept, but also made the first detection of a discrete cosmic gammaray source of greater than 100 MeV, the Crab pulsar. From the additional flights in the series, it was determined that t,he intensity of the pulsar was varying. This was subsequently seen in the data from the Cos-B detector. The concept has remained dormant for two reasons. The power of the instrument is in conducting pointed studies over restricted regions of the sky, rather than in attempting to conduct a large scale survey. Thus, until GRO has begun to produce a catalog of many objects the need for such an instrument has not existed. Secondly, the means for effecting the instrument on a sufficiently large scale did not exist prior to the implementation of the Shuttle and the Space Station. It was only when it became apparent that the External Tank (ET) could be available onorbit and that significant on-orbit assembly could be carried out from the Space Station, that the current concept was proposed to the Space Station Task Force in 1982 and funded as an innovative use of the Space Station. The present study, and is being conducted Michoud Aerospace and instrument development which is funded by NASA Headquarters Office of Space Flight, Code M, concurrently by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Martin Marietta the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, builds on both the previous and ET application (ETA or Q) studies.

History
l

of GRITS

Detection Prototype Six balloon Concept

technique built

conceived by Prof. Ken Greisen, 1966 Univ. in late 1960s

at Cornell

flights

in early 1970s of Crab pulsar >lOO MeV, 1973

proven by first detection 1982

ET concept proposed, Space Station Code M RTOP

Task Force funded detailing study at MSFC-Martin

of idea, 1983 1986

Marietta-SAO,

Detection

Technique

A schematic of the instrument is shown on the following page. The basic concept of how the gamma rays are detected is the following: The incident high energy gamma ray penetrates the thin wall of the pressure vessel and within the trigger module sandwich, the gamma ray converts with a 20% probability into an energetic electron-positron pair. Directly underneath the converter material a plastic scintillator detects the passage of these two charged particles by producing a pulse of light which is detected with photomultiplier tubes. The relativistic charged pair then generate UV-visible light as they travel through the gas inside the ET. This light production, known as the Cherenkov process, results from the charged pair traveling through a dielectric media with a velocity greater than the velocity of light in the media. The index of refraction of the gas determines the threshold energy for the process, the light production rate and the emission angle of the light. The light is radiated at a fixed angle with respect to the direction of travel of the charged particle. The light from the charged pair is imaged by a mirror, producing two distinct rings of light at the focus of the mirror. The light arrives 110 nanoseconds after the pair creation took place in the converter. The charged pair on the other hand continues on through the mirror and passes through a time-of-tlight (TOF) scintillator where they register a signal 79 nanoseconds after the pair was created. To reject incident charged particles, another plastic scintillator is placed directly above the converter and used to veto incident charged particles which would otherwise produce a trigger pulse. The basic electronic signature for a genuine gamma-ray event is a pulse in the trigger scintillator with no pulse seen in the veto scintillator within 5 nanoseconds, a second pulse detected in the time of flight scintillator 79 nanoseconds later and finally, a pulse of light in the focal plane 110 nanoseconds after the pulse was detected in the trigger. In addition, the light seen in the trigger scintillator and at the focus must correspond to that produced by two particles and upon analysis of the data from the event the image recorded must correspond to two rings of light of the appropriate amplitude and diameter.

Detection
0 Convert
l

Technique
pair

gamma ray into an electron-positron with an adjacent

Detect the conversion Relativistic

plastic scintillator

charged pair generates visible light in gas optics pair

Image and detect two cones of light using conventional Additional Charged scintillator particle behind mirror detects exiting

veto scintillator

in front of converter timedelayed

Event trigger coincidence

based on high speed threefold

ET - GRIT

Time of Flight Scintillator

.. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . :. .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~..~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..__ .~.~.~.~..~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~..~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. ~.~.~.~...~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.................~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*............ ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~_~.~.~.~.~.~.~,~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~...~............. ...~.~...~...~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~~~.....~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~...~,... ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~_~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~ .~.~...~.....~.~.~.~.~.~~~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~........ ~.~.~.~.~...~.~.~.~.~.~.~,~.~.~.~,~.~.~.........~...~.~............,... ...~.~....~...~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.....~.~.~.~.~.~.~..........~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~..~.~.~...~.~.~.~,~.~.~.~.......... .~.~.~.~......~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.......... . . . . . . . . . . ..*................. ...... ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~..~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*..... ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~ ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~ ......~...~..~..... ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~..~

Mirror

MICHOUD

AEROSPACE

Instrument
-

Characteristics

The basic instrument characteristics are tabulated here. The active detection area is 250,000 cm2. Although the cross sectional area of the ET is 555,154 cm2, not all of this can be used. The major support ring at the bottom of the tank (the 2058 rin ) extends 39.4 inches in from the side !I of the tank leaving an unobscured aperture of 322,494 cm . Allowing for collection of the light from the edges of the scintillators as well as for a central inactive area behind the focal plane, reduces the active area to the 25 m2. A conversion efficiency of 20% has been chosen. It is at about the cross over value where the increase in multiple scattering of events is no longer out weighed by the improvement in counting statistics. The field of view is 5 unvignetted, that is, the sensitive area is constant within the field of This is possible by having the mirror and time-of-flight scintillator subtend the entire 27.5 foot diameter of the ET so that even events that are 2.5 off-axis near the inner edge of the 2058 ring are still intercepted by the mirror and TOF.
view.

The inherent angular resolution of GRITS is about the same as EGRET, the limitations being the same physical processestaking place in both instruments. Thus the ability to locate the centroid of events from a point source depends on the energy of the gamma-rays detected (this defines the width of the Gausssian distribution) and the statistics. The improvement over EGRET is simply the ability to accumulate the statistical significance much more quickly. The energy threshold is determined by the index of refraction of the Cherenkov gas and the threshold for detection of the light. The threshold for the Cherenkov process is determined by the Lorentz factor, TT, which has been selected equal to 83. For a particle to produce 280% of the maximum light , 72 2.24~~. Assuming the energy is equally divided between the electron and positron, the threshold for detection of gamma-rays will be 182 MeV. The time resolution for each event is 5 nanoseconds, the width of the trigger pulse from the scintillators and focal plane phototubes. Only 10 nanoseconds of deadtime is necessary for rejecting each penetrating charged particle incident on the converter and and about 2 microseconds of deadtime per gamma-ray event is necessary for capturing the bulk of the light in the NaI converter. The major loss of exposure time will be due to passage through the South Atlantic Anomaly, SAA, and during attitude maneuvering. This is to be kept to 12570 loss. The spectral resolution of the instrument is obtained by measuring the separation angle between the electron and positron in each event. Pulse height analysis of the light produced in the NaI scintillator used for a converter will determine the amount of scattering that each event should encounter. It is expected that this technique should provide energy resolution to within a factor of two. As discussed under the the detection technique and its virtues, the requirements of the Cherenkov processes,the three-fold time delayed coincidence and the close proximity of the veto to the converter and trigger make the detection technique essential immune to all non-gamma-ray events. It is difficult to state an absolute sensitivity for an instrument, since most of the conditions effecting the sensitivity are not fixed, such as, the observing time, the background in the region of the source being viewed, the spectrum and energy interval being considered. However, it is possible to make a,relative comparison to the EGRET instrument for the same conditions described by Thompson . Applying the conditions described in Thompsons Table 1 but using a source only 5% as bright as the Crab and observing for only 5 days will result in a S/N of 10 with GRITS and a centroid location for the source of 2.7 arcmin for gamma-rays from 500<E<2000 MeV. Scaling the event rate quoted, for EGRET to achieve the same S/N and centroid would require 243 days of observing. Considering sources either at high latitudes or closer to the galactic center where the backgrounds are different and considering other energy intervals will produce similar results. The major gain over EGRET is achieved from the increased area-efficiency-duty cycle of GRITS.
*Thompson, David J.,Source Location Capability scopes, Nucl. In&. Melh. A251 (lQ86)390-401 01 Present And Future High Energy Gamma Ray Tele-

Instrument
l ,4rea 0 Conversion
l

Characteristics
250,000 cm2

efficiency

20%

Field of view Point source centroid

5 unvignetted 4 arcmin at 250 MeV with S/N of 20 1 arcmin at 1 GeV with S/N of 20 ~=83 for Cherenkov process 182 MeV for gamma ray detection 5 nanoseconds 10 nanoseconds/charged particle 2 microseconds/gamma-ray event <25% due to SAA and manuevering

Threshold

a Time resolution
l

Deadtime

a Spectral
l

resolution

Factor of two for each event Immune to all non-gamma-ray events

Background

0 Sensitivity

For a source at 5% of Crab, integrating for 5 days, over 500<E<2000 MeV results in: S/N=10 and centroid to 2.7 arcmin. ( EGRET would need 243 days )

Virtues

of Detection

Technique

The combination of the constraints imposed by the Cherenkov process and the three-fold time-delayed coincidence makes the detection technique inherently immune to all non-gamma-ray events without any loss in the ability to detect real gamma-ray events. Thus, few if any nongamma-ray events are recorded and very little analysis is required of the individual events. One of the very nice features of this detection technique is its simplicity of design. In particular only scintillators and phototubes are needed for the detection process. Thus it is a straight for ward exercise to scale the instrument up from the balloon experiment with 4.5 m2 sensitive area to an ET with 25 m2 of sensitive area. The main elements; a pressure vessel, scintillators and the mirror are easily extendible to the larger diameter without increase in complexity. The focal plane configuration is essentially independent of the telescope diameter. Unlike a spark chamber, which has ever increasing dead time with increasing size, since all the wires need to be scanned on each trigger, this instrument is virtually deadtimeless. In addition, the threshold for the Cherenkov process makes the instrument immune to electrons from decayed muons which emerge on the averThus instead of requiring a veto signal age 2.2 microseconds after a muon stops in the converter. of many microseconds, a ten nanosecond veto si nal is sufficient for rejecting c arged particles. pi s. Specifically, taking the cosmic ray flux to be l/cm set, a collecting area of 2.5x10 cm2 and a veto of 10 nanoseconds results in a fractional loss of 0.0025 due to energetic charged particles. The pair production process imposes an inherent limit on the determination of the direction of the incident gamma ray. For example, at 500 MeV the two-dimensional rms angle of uncertainty of each particle is 0.4 degrees and depends roughly inversely with energy. Multiple Coulomb scattering of the electron-positron pair before their trajectory can be determined increases this angular uncertainty. In GRITS, the total uncertainty per gamma-ray event is about 50% greater than the inherent lower limit. Although this uncertainty is large for each individual event, many events are accumulated to establish sufficient statistical significance before a source detection can be claimed. The events associated with the source form a Gaussian distribution about the source position, and the centroid of the Gaussian can be determined to approximately the width of the Gausssian divided by the signal to noise of the measurement. At 500 MeV, the individual event uncertainty is about 40 arcmin and a S/N of 20 would result in a point source location of 2 arcmin. Using events of even higher energy will result in even a smaller positional uncertainty. The energy of each event is also of great interest. Not only is one interested from an astrophysics standpoint in obtaining the energy spectrum of the source under study, but the energy of each event needs to be determined for partitioning the events for centroid determination. The energy of each event is obtained primarily from the separation of the two rings of Cherenkov light. This separation is caused by a combination of the pair emission angle and the multiple Coulomb scattering of the charged particles in the remainder of the converter material traversed, the trigger scintillator and the gas in the ET. The only variable in this is the thickness of the converter material traversed. This can be measured by using scintillator as an active converter rather than a inert lead or tungsten plate. The light output of the scintillator is proportional to the path length traversed by the charged pair emerging from the converter. The uncertainty of the energy measurement for each event will be about a factor of two. This should be adequate for determining the spectral shape of a source, such as , the slope of a power law spectrum and any break in the spectrum due to absorption or the dominance of some other higher energy process.

Virtues
0 Unequivocal
l

of Detection
identification

Technique

positive of design

of gamma ray

Simplicity Extendible Immunity Negligible Angular Energy

to large area without

increasing

complexity

to non-gamma-ray-background deadtime resolution resolution within sufficient two of theoretical to determine limit

spectral shape

Virtues

of Using

External

Tank

A major element of this detection technique is the Cherenkov radiation process, which depends of having a pressurized volume. Therefore, there is a need for a large, clean, rigid, insulated, light-tight, gas-tight, thin-walled pressure vessel. The ET is ideal for this purpose. If the ET did not exist, than one would have to design a structure with essentially the same properties of the ET in order to carry out this experiment. In addition to the ET already existing, as part of its function as a fuel tank for propelling the Shuttle into orbit, it is already taken to 99% of orbital velocity. When it is taken into orbit, it provides an additional bonus to the Shuttle payload capability. The bonus comes from using the main engines to carry the Shuttle all the way to orbit; the OMS engines which are less efficient are not needed for the OMS-1 burn; and the maneuvering to safely dispose of the tank is not necessary . As mentioned earlier, conventional thinking would limit one to an instrument size that is constrained by the Shuttle payload envelope. However, making use of the ET and assembly capability in the Space Station era permit deployment of a much larger telescope. In fact the National Commission on Space report Pioneering The Space Frontier, stated on page 84: ...we feel that 80 great a re8ource [a8 the ET] cannot be ignored, and propoee that a new look be taken. we cannot set limit8 now on what u8e8 could be made of shuttle tank8 in orbit; ingenuity and the profit motive might produce useful ideas. In this case the profit being sought is the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men. This approach of assembling the telescope on-orbit not only utilizes an existing resource, but also allows for a radically different approach to the design of the instrument. Previously, instruments had to be fully assembled and functioning as an integral unit at the time of launch. Considerable expense has been necessary to ruggedize instruments so that they would survive the first This dictated considerable integral two minutes of life, namely, the launch environment. strengthening of the structure to support the instrument components adding to the cost and weight. However, on-orbit assembly will allow this program to circumvent this requirement, since the separate components can be safely packaged to withstand the initial harsh environment and then assembled with minimal structural support in the zero-G environment. Substantial cost savings in instrument development can be realized from this new approach to instrument construction.

Virtues
l

of Using

External

Tank

Detection technique requires large, clean, rigid, insulated, light-tight, gas-tight, thin-walled, pressure vessel Sixty-five-thousand without incurring pound spacecraft design, fabrication, delivered on-orbit qualification or launch cost of a large telescope

Unconventional approach for deployment within conventional capability

Integral strengthing of telescope for launch as an assembled unit would be prohibitive

Objectives

as a Follow-on

to GRO

In furthering the objectives of high energy gamma-ray astrophysics, the GRO mission will add immensely to the collection of knowledge in this discipline. However, as has almost always been the case, new enigmas will surface in the search for answers to old mysteries. Data from GRO should result in detection of many more sources than have already been cataloged. These new sources, along with the 25 or so already known sources will require in depth follow-on observations of greater detail than can possibly be achieved with the GRO instruments. Thus, the objectives of GRITS are to carry out these follow-on observations. To date only two sources have been identified based on their time varying character, namely, the Crab and Vela pulsars. The statistics for measurement of time varying features depend on the square root of the product of the collecting area times the integration time. An increase by a factor of ten or more in the effective area will result in an increase in the temporal resolution by a comparable factor. Features an order of magnitude shorter in time can then be observed. The xray binary Cyg X-3 was detected at ultra high energies based on its time varying character. Most of the sources detected by GRO will be at or near the limiting sensitive of the surveys undertaken. For the stronger sources detected, sufficient statistics should be accumulated to reduce the positional uncertainty to a fraction of a degree. For the fainter more abundant sources the positional uncertainty will be about the size of the Gaussian distribution of events about the source position. Even at 1 GeV, the rms emission angle radius by itself is about rh and at 250 MeV it is about ?4 a . These error radii are still too large to permit identification with previously known sources, particularly in the galactic plane. Therefore, a major objective of GRITS will be to reduce the positional uncertainty of the fainter sources. In addition, until improved angular resolution and counting statistics can be achieved, it will be impossible to determine if the extended emission along the galactic plane is due to just diffuse emission from the interaction of cosmic rays with gas and dust or also due to many faint unresolved point sources. For extended regions of emission, upon angular resolution. However, the af GRITS can make possible the use of technique) to provide maps of enhanced the technique of centroiding can not be used for improving improved statistics achieved with the larger collecting area the maximum entropy method (a non-linear deconvolution spatial resolution in regions of extended emission.

The nature of gamma-ray bursts remains a mystery. The Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) on GRO is design specifically to detect this phenomena. Some of the bursts have apparently come from the same location on the sky. The energies measured range from the x-ray up to tens of MeV. Thus there is the potential for bursts of even higher energy. The most likely candidates for repeating will be viewed with a hope of seeing higher energy bursts. GRITS is particularly well suited for measuring this kind of phenomena, since the detection processes used are on the order of a few nanoseconds. Thus extremely high peak fluxes could be measured without jamming the instrument. As mention earlier the galaxies LMC, SMC and M31 in our local group should be detectable as extended discrete high latitude sources of high energy gamma rays assuming the same high energy processes are taking place in these galaxies. Since they are extended over a few degrees, it should be possible to see galactic structure within them. Although, even with the sensitivity of GRITS a Crab like source would not be detectable (it would be about 600 times fainter), if high energy bursters exist, their pesk flux may be seen. The most intense gamma-ray burst recorded, that on March 5, 1979, appears to have come from a known supernova remnant in LMC. Finally, as always seems improving sensitivity, spatial, made. Although this is may exciting when new discoveries on with GRITS. to be the case, whenever the observational envelope is enlarged by spectral or temporal resolution, new serendipitous discoveries are not be justification in itself for pursuing an endeavor, it is always are made. This surely is looked forward to with GRO, and further

Objectives
l

as a Follow-on
of discrete sources: resolution

to GRO

Pointed

observations temporal unknown

Improved Identify Improved

l

depends on l/Area

sources: uncertainty, 0, depends on l/area*time

positional

Resolve confused regions: Primarily within &I45 of galactic center

Look for high energy galactic bursters with high peak flux Map nearby galaxies, LMC, SMC, M31:

Also look for bursters and other variability

l

Serendipitous

discoveries

from enlarging

observational

envelope

Subsystem

Requirements

The scientific instrument requires numerous subsystems for support to perform the on-orbit operations. These are listed here. The primary element of this experiment is the Cherenkov process which requires the pressurized environment made possible by use of the ET. The criterion is to provide an index of refraction of n--1.0000726, which is met by specifying the density of the selected gas. Helium is the only gas that is unacceptable, since it can permeate the phototube glass envelope. The requisite gas pressure is well within the ET operating pressure of 40 pai. Since this instrument is intended to carry out pointed studies, the attitude of the ET must be held inertially to l-2 degrees, so as to maintain the region of interest within the fov. An attitude knowledge of 1 arcmin is required to achieve the final point source location. In order to carry out a comprehensive observing program, the attitude control system, ACS, must permit pointing to any portion of the sky at any time, within the constraints of momentum management. This is necessary to permit measurement of secular changes anticipated in many of the sources. The efficiency of the ACS including the time lost due to the SAA should be at least 75% with a goal of 90%. The power necessary to support the instrument is currently estimated to be on the order of 1-2 kilowatts. A substantial portion of this is dissipated in the high voltage for the phototubes. In addition, the nanosecond electronics necessary also require substantially more current to operate than what one is normally accustomed to. The data storage is baaed on the anticipated event rate. Combining the highest extended emission region, with the brightest point source, Vela, produces an event rate of M,OOO/day. The PHA data along with time tags, attitude and subcommutated housekeeping will add up to about 512 bytes/event. Thus the total data storage needed will be on the order of 8 megabytes/day. This can easily be accommodated with either memory or tape storage. The data transmission rate will be required to dump this amount of data in one pass, as well as accommodate a real time rate of 20 kbps for diagnostic purposes. The command rate at this time is TBD and will be determined primarily be the periodic uplink of target lists and occasional software changes. The altitude for this mission is not constrained by the scientific objectives. Rather it is determined by various mission operation considerations which are to some extent orthogonal. A low altitude is desirable for minimizing the effects of the SAA and debris impact. A high altitude is desirable to obtain orbital lifetime particularly during an era of unfavorable solar activity. Finally, Space Station accessfor repair purposes will probably be the driving requirement. An effective mission life of five years of observing will permit substantially achieving the mission goals as well as being the typical life expectancy of spacecraft these days.

Subsystem
0 Gas system
TYP

Requirements
Index of refraction
H2 7.6 N2 3.56 O2 4.01

n=l.O000726
co2 2.60 psia

Pressure
l

Pointing:

Deadband Knowledge Efficiency Coverage Limit

l-2 degrees

1 arcminute 75% minimum >SO% goal all sky No sun or moon constraint 1-2 kilowatts 8 megabytes/day 20 kbps for diagnostic TBD, primarily purposes lists

0 Power for instrument

l

Data storage Data transmission Command Altitude rate

for target

Depends on: orbit life, SAA avoidance, Space Station access and debris impact 5 years usable

Lifetime