prompt_front: Answer the question based on the given passages. Only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: When was the plaintiff in the 1892 Barbed Wire Patent Case born?

The following are given passages.
Context 1: Passage 1:
Cheval de frise
The cheval de frise (plural: chevaux de frise [ʃə vo də fʁiz], "Frisian horses") was a defensive obstacle, existing in a number of forms, principally as a static anti-cavalry obstacle but also quickly movable to close breaches   The term was also applied to underwater constructions used to prevent the passage of ships or other vessels on rivers   In the anti-cavalry role the cheval de frise typically comprised a portable frame (sometimes just a simple log) with many projecting spikes   Wire obstacles ultimately made this type of device obsolete  
The invention of the cheval de frise is attributed to ancient China  The concept of using a defensive obstacle made of wooden or metal stakes predates its use in Europe  Historical records suggest that similar types of defensive barriers, known as "teng pai" or "mó pai", were used in China as early as the 4th century BC  These early versions of the cheval de frise were employed to protect cities, forts, and other strategic locations from enemy attacks 
The use of chevaux de frise spread to Europe during the Middle Ages and became a common feature of medieval fortifications  They were used extensively in castle defenses and military campaigns, particularly during the Renaissance and early modern periods  However, the original concept and early usage of the cheval de frise can be traced back to ancient China 
During the American Civil War the Confederates used them more than the Union forces  During World War I, armies used chevaux de frise to temporarily plug gaps in barbed wire  Barbed wire chevaux de frise were used in jungle fighting on the South Pacific islands during World War II 
The term is also applied to defensive works on buildings  This includes a series of closely set upright stones found outside the ramparts of Iron Age hillforts in northern Europe, or iron spikes outside homes in Charleston, South Carolina 

Etymology
In French, cheval de frise means "Frisian horse"  The Frisians fought predominantly using cavalry; they were known for being formidable horsemen, and Frisian horses were renowned for their strength and agility  Therefore, for defense they relied heavily on anti-cavalry obstacles  The Dutch also adopted the use of these defensive devices when at war with Spain  The term cheval de frise came to be used for any spiked obstacle, such as broken glass embedded in mortar at the top of a wall 
The cheval de frise was adopted in New York and Pennsylvania during the American Revolutionary War as a defensive measure installed on rivers to prevent upriver movement by enemy ships  During the Peninsular War, at the siege of Badajoz in 1812, a cheval de frise was successfully deployed to fill a breach in the town wall, allowing the French to inflict heavy casualties on the British storm troops 

American Revolutionary War
During the American Revolutionary War both Thaddeus Kosciuszko and Robert Erskine designed an anti-ship version of the cheval-de-frise to prevent British warships from proceeding up the Delaware River and Hudson River, respectively  A cheval de frise by Erskine's design was placed between Fort Washington at northern Manhattan and Fort Lee in New Jersey in 1776  The following year construction began on one to the north of West Point at Pollepel Island, but it was overshadowed by the completion of the Great Chain across the Hudson in 1778, which was used through 1782 

Similar devices planned by Ben Franklin and designed by Robert Smith were used in the Delaware River near Philadelphia, between Fort Mifflin and Fort Mercer  Two other lines of chevaux-de-frise were also placed across the Delaware River at Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania and Fort Billingsport, New Jersey as a first line of defense for Philadelphia against the British naval forces A cheval de frise was retrieved from the Delaware River in Philadelphia on November 13, 2007, in excellent condition, after more than two centuries in the river  In November 2012, a 29-foot (9 m) spike from a cheval-de-frise was recovered from Delaware off Bristol Township; it was also believed to be from the Revolutionary era installation at Philadelphia and freed up by Hurricane Sandy earlier that fall 

Legacy
A small promontory on the north-east Essex coast in the United Kingdom (UK), between Holland Haven and Frinton-on-Sea, was named Chevaux de Frise Point 

See also
Czech hedgehog
Passage 2:
Jacob Haish
Jacob Haish (March 9, 1826 – February 19, 1926) was one of the first inventors of barbed wire  His type of barbed wire was in direct competition with the other barbed wire manufacturers in DeKalb, Illinois  He was a known carpenter and architect in DeKalb County and designed several prominent DeKalb homes 

Early life
Haish was born in Baden, Germany on March 9, 1826, and immigrated with his family to the United States in 1835  He came to Illinois in 1845, married Sophie Ann Brown in 1847, and moved to DeKalb in 1853, where he was a carpenter  He cultivated osage orange hedges whose thorns made them effective as cattle fencing 

The birth of barbed wire
In late 1872, Henry Rose developed a wire fence with an attached wooden strip containing projecting wire points to dissuade encroaching livestock  He patented his fence in May 1873 and exhibited it at the DeKalb County Fair that summer  This prompted Haish and other DeKalb residents Isaac Ellwood and Joseph Glidden to work on improving the concept   Haish had patented three styles of barbed fencing by June 1874  When Haish's patent for an "S-barb" design was granted in August 1875, he launched a drawn out legal battle to stymie his rivals  It failed at the US Supreme Court in 1895 

Haish gifts a library
In 1893, the city council of DeKalb, Illinois, decreed the establishment of a public library   The impetus for this ordinance was requests from the Ladies of the Library Association, a group that had conducted a reading room for several years  The library moved twice before the Haish gift came along; it was first located on the second floor of the city hall and then, in 1923, moved to the second floor of the DeKalb Daily Chronicle building on Lincoln Highway 
Jacob Haish died at his home in DeKalb on February 19, 1926  He had bequested a $150,000 gift for a library building in his will  The result was the Haish Memorial Library in downtown DeKalb 

See also
George H  Gurler House
Joseph F  Glidden House
Passage 3:
Concertina wire
Concertina wire or Dannert wire is a type of barbed wire or razor wire that is formed in large coils which can be expanded like a concertina  In conjunction with plain barbed wire (and/or razor wire/tape) and steel pickets, it is most often used to form military-style wire obstacles  It is also used in non-military settings, such as when used in prison barriers, detention camps, riot control, or at international borders 
During World War I, soldiers manufactured concertina wire themselves, using ordinary barbed wire  Today, it is factory made 

Origins
In World War I, barbed wire obstacles were made by stretching lengths of barbed wire between stakes of wood or iron  At its simplest, such a barrier would resemble a fence as might be used for agricultural purposes  The double apron fence comprised a line of pickets with wires running diagonally down to points on the ground either side of the fence  Horizontal wires were attached to these diagonals More elaborate and formidable obstructions could be formed with multiple lines of stakes connected with wire running from side-to-side, back-to-front, and diagonally in many directions  Effective as these obstacles were, their construction took considerable time 
Barbed wire obstacles were vulnerable to being pushed about by artillery shells; in World War I, this frequently resulted in a mass of randomly entangled wires that could be even more daunting than a carefully constructed obstacle  Learning this lesson, World War I soldiers would deploy barbed wire in so-called concertinas that were relatively loose  Barbed wire concertinas could be prepared in the trenches and then deployed in no-man's-land relatively quickly under cover of darkness 

There was what might be called a concertina craze on: innumerable coils of barbed wire were converted into concertinas by the simple process of winding them round and round seven upright stakes in the ground; every new lap of wire was fastened to the one below it at every other stake by a twist of plain wire; the result, when you came to the end of a coil and lifted the whole up off the stakes was heavy ring of barbed wire that concertina'd out into ten-yard lengths  
Concertina wire packs flat for ease of transport and can then be deployed as an obstacle much more quickly than ordinary barbed wire, since the flattened coil of wire can easily be stretched out, forming an instant obstacle that will at least slow enemy passage  Several such coils with a few stakes to secure them in place are just as effective as an ordinary barbed wire fence, which must be built by driving stakes and running multiple wires between them 
A platoon of soldiers can deploy a single concertina fence at a rate of about a kilometer (5⁄8 mile) per hour  Such an obstacle is not very effective by itself (although it will still hinder an enemy advance under the guns of the defenders), and concertinas are normally built up into more elaborate patterns as time permits 
Today, concertina wire is factory made and is available in forms that can be deployed very rapidly from the back of a vehicle or trailer 

Dannert wire
Oil-tempered barbed wire was developed during World War I; it was much harder to cut than ordinary barbed wire  During the 1930s, German Horst Dannert developed concertina wire of this high-grade steel wire  The result was entirely self-supporting; it did not require any vertical posts  An individual Dannert wire concertina could be compressed into a compact coil that could be carried by one man and then stretched out along its axis to make a barrier 50 feet (15 m) long and each coil could be held in place with just three staples hammered into the ground Dannert wire was imported into Britain from Germany before World War II  During the invasion crisis of 1940–1941, the demand for Dannert wire was so great that some was produced with low manganese steel wire which was easier to cut  This material was known as "Yellow Dannert" after the identifying yellow paint on the concertina handles  To compensate for the reduced effectiveness of Yellow Dannert, an extra supply of pickets were issued in lieu of screw pickets 

Triple concertina wire
A barrier known as a triple concertina wire fence consists of two parallel concertinas joined by twists of wire and topped by a third concertina similarly attached  The result is an extremely effective barrier with many of the desirable properties of a random entanglement  A triple concertina fence could be deployed very quickly: it is possible for a party of five men to deploy 50 yards (46 m) of triple concertina fence in just 15 minutes  Optionally, triple concertina fence could be strengthened with uprights, but this increases the construction time significantly 

"Constantine" wire
Concertina wire is sometimes mistakenly called "constantine" wire   Constantine probably came from a corruption/misunderstanding of concertina and led to confusion with the Roman Emperor Constantine  This, in turn, has led to some people trying to differentiate between concertina wire and constantine wire by assigning the term constantine wire to what is commonly known as razor wire  In contrast to the helical construction of concertina wire, razor wire, or less commonly, constantine wire, consists of a single wire with teeth that project periodically along its length 

See also
Barbed tape
Slinky
Passage 4:
Wire obstacle
In the military science of fortification, wire obstacles are defensive obstacles made from barbed wire, barbed tape or concertina wire  They are designed to disrupt, delay and generally slow down an attacking enemy  During the time that the attackers are slowed by the wire obstacle (or possibly deliberately channelled into killing zones, or both) they are easy to target with machine gun and artillery fire  Depending on the requirements and available resources, wire obstacles may range from a simple barbed wire fence in front of a defensive position, to elaborate patterns of fences, concertinas, "dragon's teeth" (which serve a similar purpose as wire obstacles, but for combat vehicles instead) and minefields (both anti-personnel and anti-armor) hundreds of metres thick 
One example is "low wire entanglement", which consists of irregularly placed stakes that have been driven into the ground with only some 15 cm (six inches) showing  The barbed wire is then wrapped and tightened on to these  An enemy combatant running through the barrier, which is difficult to see, is apt to trip and get caught 

History
Wire obstacles were used by Union Army general Ambrose Burnside during the Battle of Fort Sanders in the Knoxville campaign of the American Civil War, when telegraph wire was strung between tree stumps 30 to 80 yards in front of one part of the Union line  The Royal Danish Army also used wire fences in front of its Danevirke fortifications during the Second Schleswig War  They first saw significant military use by British forces during the Second Boer War, and reached the pinnacle of visibility during World War I where they indirectly, together with machine guns, were responsible for many (although not the majority of) casualties in the trench warfare that dominated that conflict  Wire obstacles served to magnify the substantial advantage that the repeating rifle and rapid-firing artillery, along with machine guns, had given to the defending side in the new era of warfare 
World War I entanglements could in some places be tens of metres thick and several metres deep, with the entire space filled with a random, tangled mass of barbed wire  Entanglements were often not created deliberately, but by pushing together the mess of wire formed when conventional barbed wire fences had been damaged by artillery shells  Whenever there was time and opportunity to plan and emplace wire obstacles during World War I, it was standard practice to deploy designs that would channel and concentrate attacking troops, through avenues of approach, herding them like cattle into designated killing zones i e  fixing multiple screw pickets of wire running diagonally, away from the protected zone  This meant that a belt-fed machine-gun such as the Maschinengewehr 08 sited along that diagonal line had easy targets to enfilade when attacking troops were blocked from advancing by the wire and then massed together in a line 
Another method was to deliberately leave attractive-looking gaps in wire obstacles to give the appearance of a weak link in the defences  Such gaps were designed to act like a funnel, luring attacking troops through the opening and straight into the concentrated direct and enfilade fire of different machine gun emplacements  Because multiple water-cooled machine-guns such as the Vickers gun were used, continuous fire could be sustained for hours at a time if required  Methods for soldiers to face this threat were a small wheeled steel plate that was slowly pushed forward in front of the soldier to shield them from bullet fire as they crawled, shielded machine gun carts, the MacAdam Shield Shovel or systems like the mobile personnel shield among others  When the obstacle was reached, access holes in the shield allowed the attacking soldier to cut away at the wire obstacle with pliers from behind the protection of the armored shield Stormtrooper platoons included ballistic shields in their equipment list, as infiltration was one of their specialities  Relatively elaborate obstacles were also used in some phases of the Korean War, and continue to be used on the Korean Demilitarized Zone, and a few other borders  However the more fluid nature of modern war means that most obstacles used today are relatively simple, temporary barriers  Tanks and light armored vehicles can generally flatten unmined wire obstacles, although the wire can become entangled in the tracks and immobilize the vehicle  This can also occur to wheeled vehicles once the wire becomes wrapped around the axle   Wire obstacles can also be breached by intense artillery shelling or Bangalore torpedoes 

Enhanced effectiveness
The effectiveness of any wire obstacle is greatly increased by planting anti-tank and blast antipersonnel mines in and around it  Additionally, connecting bounding anti-personnel mines (e g  the PROM-1) to the obstacle with tripwires has the effect of booby-trapping the obstacle itself, hindering attempts to clear it  Dummy tripwires can be added to cause further confusion  If anti-personnel mines are unavailable, it is very easy to connect hand-grenades to the wire using trip-wires  If the use of lethal explosive devices is deemed to be unsuitable, it is easy to emplace tripflares in and around the wire obstacle in order to make night-time infiltration harder 

Gallery
Passage 5:
The Barbed Wire Patent
The Barbed Wire Patent Case, 143 U S  275 was a significant patent dispute in 1892 between plaintiff Joseph Glidden and the USPTO regarding the right of barbed wire   Lucian Smith was the original inventor in 1867 and held patent rights for it, while Glidden made changes to the production of barbed wire, holding the barbs in place, in 1874 that he believed were novel enough to merit a new invention and thus new patent 

Background
Lucien B  Smith had first invented a basic form of barbed wire in 1867 and received the patent for it   Therefore, at the time he had exclusive rights to produce and sell his product   In 1874, after Glidden made his changes, he was issued a statement denying him a new patent on the grounds that his invention simply was not a novelty   His patent claim was for:

"a twisted fence wire having the transverse spur wire, D, bent at its middle portion about one of the wire strands, a, of said fence wire, and clamped in position and place by the other wire strand, z, twisted upon its fellow, substantially as specified "The Patenting and Trademark office denied his application believing that the process was already widely known common knowledge and not novel enough to be distinguished from earlier patents After Glidden's patent application had been denied, he appealed to the decision and eventually the case went before the Supreme Court 

Case
In the eyes of the court, the question of most importance was whether the invention of Glidden was sufficient in novelty   To answer this they considered for some length the process for producing barbed wire prior to this invention and compared it to Glidden's design  Glidden claimed that his process of adding an extra wire to stabilize the barbs without any other means made them sufficiently stronger and more efficient  However, he apparently did not make this clear until his initial patent application was denied and he had applied for reissue  Therefore, the court ignored this feature at first  Glidden stated:

"I do not claim to have originated the devices known as 'spurs' or 'prongs' on the wires, they having been used before, but confine myself to the means for holding the spurs at proper intervals on the wires and to the means for attaining a uniform tension of the wires, as claimed "The court remarked that a new device phasing out an older version does not necessarily merit the awarding of a new patent, but it may merit consideration  The court took into account that Glidden's invention had widely replaced older versions and was now commonly in use The defense attempted to show that others had made the same design independently before Glidden, but the plaintiff was able to assert that indeed the other productions, which were of virtually similar design, were not made until after he issued his patent  The court agreed that there had been plenty of other attempts to create a similar design and product as Glidden, but none had been successful nor had they been successfully patented 

Decision
The circuit court finally decided to reverse the decision of the lower court and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Joseph Glidden   The majority of the court was convinced that Glidden's invention proved to have enough novelty and technological change to merit the patent and thus exclusive rights to produce and sell the improved barbed wire without the need for licensing   Much of this decision came from the court's inclination to grant a patent to the final step in turning an invention into a useful or more useful product 

Dissent
Justice Field was the sole dissenting opinion  He disagreed with the decision on the grounds that he believed there was no true novelty to Glidden's decision and thus lacked sufficient reasoning to receive a patent 

Significance
This case largely established precedent for future patent law, specifically in questions of first-to-file, or scope of novelty   The first-to-file aspect was largely supported in that whichever party can prove they filed an invention first will have a greater claim over other manufacturers and better their chances of receiving a patent   Secondly, the scope of novelty was determined to not be some significant change, but simply enough to make a noticeable positive difference   Also success of a minor innovation is for grounds for patenting in light of the numerous failed or discontinued minor innovations pursued Glidden held sole rights to sell the product and thus established the Barb Fence Company, in Dekalb, Illinois   The invention made him extremely wealthy and by the time of his death he was one of the richest men in the United States 
Passage 6:
Joseph F  Glidden House
The Joseph F  Glidden House is located in the United States in the DeKalb County, Illinois city of DeKalb  It was the home to the famed inventor of barbed wire Joseph Glidden  The barn, still located on the property near several commercial buildings, is said to be where Glidden perfected his improved version of barbed wire which would eventually transform him into a successful entrepreneur  The Glidden House was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1973  The home was designed by another barbed wire patent holder in DeKalb, Jacob Haish 
The property contains the house and two outbuildings; the barn and the remains of an old windmill foundation  Constructed in 1861, the Glidden House adheres mostly to a French Colonial style of architecture  The raised basement and full-length porch are two of the architectural elements found on the Glidden House that are consistently found in French Colonial homes  The barn, a building of high historical significance, was not included as part of the National Register listing for the property until 2002, nearly 30 years after the original nomination was approved 

House
The land that the Glidden House stands on is what remains of Joseph Glidden's once large DeKalb County farm  His holdings stretched along Lincoln Highway, both the north and south sides, from the Kishwaukee River in the east to present-day Annie Glidden Road on the west  The Glidden Farm went as far north as today's Lucinda Avenue  The farm's south border, near where Glidden would grant the Galena and Chicago Union Railroad right-of-way through DeKalb in the early 1890s was near present-day Taylor Street The two-story Joseph F  Glidden House is constructed from locally fired brick, which is relatively soft  The softness of the brick has caused it to weather in a non-uniform fashion  The brick is said to have been fired at a small brickyard which once existed on the Kishwaukee River in DeKalb, near the present-day Lincoln Highway bridge  The home stands on a stone foundation and was designed by local carpenter and eventual barbed wire competitor to Glidden, Jacob Haish  Construction was completed in 1861 and the home is a prominent example of Illinois French Colonial architecture 

History
The land where the Glidden House stands once held a log structure, which Glidden lived in when he first came to DeKalb at the beckoning of his cousin Russell Huntley  The house was built in 1861 for barbed wire entrepreneur Joseph Farwell Glidden  As his personal residence, the house, and its accompanying barn, were closely associated with his invention, really just an improvement, of barbed wire  Glidden's improvement upon a wire board fence developed by Henry Rose was of vast importance in the settlement of the United States west of the Mississippi  It was after Glidden saw Rose exhibit his wire at a fair in 1873 that he was struck with the idea of attaching barbs to wire strand fencing  Glidden is said to have experimented with some of his ideas in the basement kitchen of the Glidden House  He noticed that whenever he tried to attach barbs directly to strands of wire they slid along the length of the wire; Glidden realized he needed a way to crimp the barbs  He began tinkering around the home's kitchen  Glidden fit two hair pins to the shaft of a coffee mill, one centered and the other off-center  He found that by placing the wire between the pins and turning the crank a uniform barb resulted  How to crimp the barbs to the wire was solved, in the barn, by tying one end of the wire and another length of wire to a poplar tree on the grounds of the Glidden House and the other ends of the wires to a grindstone  The grindstone was used to twist the wires together and prevent the barbs from slipping Day-to-day life at the Glidden House was mostly carried out in the home's basement which contained a full kitchen, dining room, and living room  The upper floors were used for guests and for sleeping quarters  In 1877 Glidden's daughter, Elva, married William H  Bush in the homestead As of 2006 extensive restoration work had been completed on the home  The front porch was repaired and restored and inside, the hardwood floors have been replaced and refinished  In addition, the front parlors have been repainted and restored 

Architecture
The home was mostly designed in a French Colonial style, though it contains some elements of Greek Revival architecture  French Colonial architecture was more popular in the American South than it ever was in the northern tier of states 

Exterior
The two-story brick structure is supported by a fieldstone foundation and still features its original front porch  The porch spans the length of the building's front (south) facade, at a height of about 6 ft (2 m)  The porch is supported by four wooden pillars, which rest on stone bases  The stairs leading to the front porch are supported by two similar wooden posts, which, like the house, are set into fieldstone bases  The first step on the stairs was originally a limestone block embedded in the ground  The porch roof is supported by six wooden, bracketed pillars  The pillars are simple, with the brackets coming from the boxed capitals  At the rear of the porch wooden pilasters set at each end help to support the roof  Differentiating the home from the traditional French Colonial design is the porch roof, which is separate from the main roof The house stands mostly as it did in 1861 save a few alterations  The front porch was screened in at the time the building was added to the National Register of Historic Places, the screens have since been removed  At the rear of the house a small porch was enclosed  In 1909 or 1910 there were major subtractions and replacements  Removed were a cast-iron widow's walk along the roof ridge and a large gable dormer, decorated in the same manner as the cornice decorating the roof trim  The present dormer replaced the larger one and is more of a low-shed type 
The roof itself is a low gable and dominated by single stack, straddle ridge chimneys at its east and west ends  The boxed roof trim is a decorated cornice  The low-shed dormer is covered with green asphalt  The old widow's walk, which a neighbor dubbed Glidden's "obscuratory", was balustraded and set just above the dormer 

Interior
The interior of the building is also similar to how it appeared when the house was constructed  However, a few changes have been made  In 1910 the two marble fireplaces were replaced by brick  The flooring has been replaced as needed  The home's basement, once the main living area, has since been converted several times for other uses On the first floor of the home the rooms remain much the same as they were when Glidden lived in the house  An original multi-paneled wooden door remains at the entry from the porch to the central hall  The door, however, was altered, having glass panels installed to admit more light  The staircase is also original and its newel posts resemble those found in the Isaac and Harriet Ellwood House, another Haish designed home, and the Gurler House, whose architect is unknown though it was quite possibly Haish, both in DeKalb On the house's east side are three rooms, whose original presence is open to debate  The three rooms are interconnected, another common French colonial element  The room adjacent the porch was used as the Glidden's dining room and is where the large brick fireplace, which replaced the marble one in 1909, is located  The 1909 fireplace is of the American Craftsman style  At the end of the hall, near the kitchen, there is a full bathroom 
The western part of the first floor is dominated by a large formal living room  The room has two entrances, one at the front of the hall, near the front door and the other at the back end of the hall  This was the room in which Elva Glidden married in the late 19th century  After 1941 the rear part of the living room, or "west" room, was walled off and a second kitchen added  When Jessie Glidden, the last Glidden to occupy the old homestead, moved in 1998, the west room was restored to its original size and the second kitchen removed The basement, and for part of the home's history, the main living area, is accessed via a staircase at the back of the first-floor hall  The steep stairs still show years of wear  One of the rooms off the main basement is the kitchen where Glidden is said to have experimented with the coffee grinder and his wife's hair pins, eventually leading to his brand of barbed wire The second-floor served as the main sleeping quarters  It consists of a few simple bedrooms, all historically without closets  The upstairs hall contains a door which once accessed a staircase to the widow's walk, what remains of the space has been used as a closet for over a century 

Outbuildings
The property has two remaining outbuildings  The barn is where Glidden invented his famous improvement on barbed wire  Dubbed "The Winner," his barbed wire became the most popular version of the invention  Barbed wire is considered to be one of the most important factors in American progress and settlement The other outbuilding on the property along historic Lincoln Highway are the remnants of a once dominating windmill  Though only the foundation remains, it gives a glimpse of how impressive the structure must have once been 

Barn
The Glidden Barn, located to the rear and east of the home, was thought to have been added to the National Register of Historic Places when the original nomination for the house was approved in 1973  However, in the late 1990s, the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency revealed that the nomination included only the house  The Glidden Historical Center initiated the process of adding the barn to the Register  Those moves were approved by the Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Council in 2002 and the barn officially became part of the National Register 
The barn was built sometime around 1871, possibly even before, and is constructed of the same soft brick that makes up the exterior of the home  Tradition in the Glidden family holds that the barn, like the house itself, was designed and built by prominent local carpenter Jacob Haish  The famous barn, one of DeKalb County's oldest remaining, stands a full two-stories high, measuring around 50 feet (15 m) tall, with a width of 30 feet (9 m) 
In February 2007 the Glidden Homestead and Historical Center kicked off a fundraising drive  The drive is aimed at raising US$2 million to expand the Joseph F  Glidden House site to include museum space and a media center  Some of the funds will be used to help restore the barn and expand historical center museum space into the building 

Architecture
The Glidden barn is of pole and beam construction  The second-floor interior is dominated by two large transverse wooden beams  It is of the three-bay, English tradition, the west bay containing a space for a stairwell leading to a hayloft and seven stalls  It is constructed of red brick and stands on a foundation of limestone  Glidden's barn took full advantage of the term vernacular; the brick was locally manufactured and the limestone locally quarried 
The east bay of the barn contains an animal stall in its northeast corner and a fully enclosed office in its opposite corner  The second-floor hayloft is supported by the two massive transverse beams  The full-sized loft is accessible via an enclosed staircase against the south wall  The building's exterior roof is fully supported by the brick walls  The result is a loft which is an entirely open space save for some pole and beam construction supporting the laminated beams, which act as tie rods at the base of the roof  The barn roof is a common gable roof pitched at a 45 degree angle, it was originally covered with wooden shingles, those have been replaced over the years with asphalt The barn features extensive windows, somewhat unusual outside of dairy barns, with a total of 14 eight-paned, double-hung windows dispersed over three sides of the rectangular structure, north, south and east  On the west side, facing the house, are seven smaller single-pane windows  The double-hung windows are topped with segmented arches constructed from a double row of bricks; the north and south main entrances are also topped with segmented brick arches, each of three rows of bricks 

Windmill building
Only the foundation remains of the property's windmill  What is left, ten rows of stone above the ground, is completely invisible when the home is viewed by passers-by on Lincoln Highway  The windmill started to fall into disrepair around the 1930s or 40s  The original, specific use of the windmill is unknown 

See also
Isaac Ellwood
List of Registered Historic Places in Illinois
Passage 7:
Devils Rope Barbed Wire Museum
The Devils Rope Barbed Wire Museum is a museum located in McLean, Texas, United States  The museum was officially opened in 1991 and  focuses on barbed wire and its history  The museum is thought to have the largest collection of published material concerning barbed wire The Devil's Rope Museum is housed in a converted brassiere factory and is dedicated to the history of barbed wire, fencing tools, and ranching heritage  Features exhibits and collections from private wire collectors from across the U S, a reference library with extensive patent information for researchers and educators, a Dust Bowl exhibit, salesman samples, warfare wire, and a collection of road lore with artifacts dedicated to the Texas portion of Historic Route 66 
Passage 8:
Kansas Barbed Wire Museum
The Kansas Barbed Wire Museum is a barbed wire museum located in La Crosse, Kansas, United States, known as the “Barbed Wire Capital of the World ” The museum focuses on barbed wire and its history, displaying over 2,000 different forms of the wire and its history  Barbed wire played a significant role in the history of the settlement of the United States and forever changed the face of the prairie 
The museum was established in 1970 in a small storefront on Main Street in downtown La Crosse, Kansas  By 1990, the collections had grown so much that a new building was constructed adjacent to the Post Rock Museum and Rush County Historical Museum in Grass Park at the south edge of the community  In 2004, an addition was constructed on the building to house the headquarters of the Antique Barbed Wire Society and the Larry Greer Research Center  The Antique Barbed Wire Society is an international organization “committed to collecting, preserving, exhibiting, and interpreting the historical heritage of barb wire and barbed wire related items ” The Larry Greer Research Center houses collections of publications related to the history of barbed wire and a complete collection of patents related to barbed wire and related items  The Kansas Barbed Wire Museum is located at 120 W  1st Street, La Crosse, KS 67548 
Passage 9:
Joseph Glidden
Joseph Farwell Glidden (January 18, 1813 – October 9, 1906) was an American businessman and farmer  He was the inventor of the modern barbed wire  In 1898, he donated land for the Northern Illinois State Normal School in DeKalb, Illinois, which was renamed as Northern Illinois University in 1957 

Early life
Glidden was born in Charlestown, New Hampshire, of English descent  His family later moved to Clarendon, New York  Glidden was a teacher there for about 8 years, during which years he married Clarissa Foster in 1837  In 1843, he moved to Illinois with his wife and children, first to Ogle County and then to DeKalb where they had purchased a farm  His wife died in 1846, in childbirth of their daughter in Ogle County, Illinois  Their three children, including the infant daughter Clara (Clarissa) died in an epidemic in 1847  Their two sons died after the move  Glidden married Lucinda Warne in 1851, with whom he had one daughter, Elva Frances 

Invention and patent for barbed wire
Glidden began work on ways to make a useful barbed wire to fence cattle in 1873  He made his best design of barbed wire by using a coffee mill to create the barbs  Glidden placed the barbs along a wire and then twisted another wire around it to keep the barbs in place, in a design that he called “The Winner”, being his best design  He received the patent for that barbed wire design on November 24, 1874, when he was 61 years old  He and local hardware dealer Isaac L  Ellwood began manufacturing and selling the barbed wire with his patent, as the Barb Fence Company in DeKalb, Illinois  In 1876, Glidden exited the manufacturing aspect, though retaining royalties, by selling his half of the manufacturing business to Washburn and Moen, who had a wire manufacturing plant in Worcester, Massachusetts and from whom Glidden and Ellwood had been purchasing steel wire   Ellwood stayed in DeKalb and renamed the company I  L  Ellwood & Company of DeKalb  That company evolved into American Steel and Wire, and eventually was bought by U  S  Steel Manufacturing Company 
Glidden was embroiled in a legal battle initiated by fellow DeKalb resident Jacob Haish over whether the design for holding the barbs in place with an extra strand of wire was novel, an improved design  An earlier patent for barbed wire had been issued to a man in Ohio, among other patents related to barbed wire  Glidden eventually won at the US Supreme Court in an 1892 case, his patent protection expired the same year  The legal fees were estimated to have cost Glidden $100,000 
This invention made him extremely rich  It was estimated that Glidden earned $1,000,000 in royalties until his patent expired in 1892  Companies manufacturing the barbed wire under his license ranged from New York state to Kansas by 1884  By the time of his death in 1906, he was one of the richest men in America  The Dun & Bradstreet Collection, 1840–1895, MSS 791, LXIII, 130, Baker Library, Harvard, recorded his assets at one million dollars  This included the Glidden House Hotel; the DeKalb Chronicle; 3,000 acres (12 km2) of farmland in Illinois; 35,000 acres (1,360 km2) in Texas; and the Glidden Felt Pad Industry 

Local political activity and other businesses
From 1852 to 1854, he served as sheriff of DeKalb County  In 1851, 1861, 1862, 1869, 1870, 1871, 1872, and 1876 he served on the county's board of supervisors  In 1867, he served on the executive committee of DeKalb County Agriculture and Mechanical Society's Seventh Annual Fall Fair, held September 25–28  In 1876, he was the Democratic nominee for Illinois State Senator  From 1861 to 1874, he served as a member of the board of school directors, and for 20 years paid the largest school tax of any citizen of the county  He was also one of the largest contributors to the erection of one of the churches  He was also vice-president of the DeKalb National Bank, director of the North Western Railroad, and owner of the DeKalb Rolling Mill 

Demonstration of use in Texas changes ranching
To demonstrate the effectiveness of barbed wire, Glidden and his sales agent for the State of Texas, Marques Fortner, in 1881 developed the "Frying Pan Ranch" in Bushland in Potter County near Amarillo, Texas  The wire was brought in by wagon from the railhead at Dodge City, Kansas, and the timbers were cut from Palo Duro Canyon and along the Canadian River Valley  A herd of 12,000 head of cattle was branded with the "Panhandle Brand", which the cowboys called " frying pan"  The ranch proved the success of the wire and changed ranching Henry B  Sanborn, a sales representative for Glidden's company, owned a ranch in Grayson County north of Dallas and wished to advertise barbed wire there  In 1881, Sanborn purchased ninety-five sections of land in southwestern Potter County from near the Canadian River extending into Randall County south of Amarillo  Included in the purchase was Tecovas Spring, once a watering site and a trading post for Indians and Comancheros  John Summerfield, a surveyor from Sherman, Texas, reported a constant flow of freshwater from the spring  Sanborn chose this site for his ranch headquarters and enclosed 120 miles of land in barbed wire for $39,000 ($1 18 million in 2022 dollars)  Warren W  Wetzel, also of Sherman, used cedar posts brought from both the Palo Duro Canyon and the breaks of the Sierrita de la Cruz in the northwestern portion of the ranch to hold up the wire Besides ranchers, railroads were large purchasers of barbed wire, so that cattle did not stray onto their tracks  The Frying Pan Ranch soon had 15,000 head of cattle, and 125,000 more acres were added  Later the ranch was divided  In 1898, Glidden deeded Frying Pan Ranch to his son-in-law William Henry Bush  Between 1908 and 1920, William Henry Bush and his second wife Ruth Bush built a larger ranch house near Tecovas Spring, which later became the residence of Stanley Marsh 3 and his wife, Wendy  Gwendolyn “Wendy” Bush O’Brien was the daughter of Emeline Bush and her husband Frank O’Brien; Emeline was a daughter of William Henry and Ruth Bush  Stanley Marsh called the estate “Toad Hall ”

Land for the Northern Illinois State Normal School
Glidden, a former teacher, gave 63 acres (255,000 m2) of his homestead as a site for the Northern Illinois State Normal School  The school opened on September 12, 1898, with 139 students and 16 members of the faculty  The school's name was changed to Northern Illinois University in 1957 
The town of Glidden, Iowa, is named in his honor 

Personal life
He and his wife Lucinda had one daughter, Elva Frances, in 1851  She married William Henry Bush in DeKalb on February 1, 1877  His wife Lucinda died on October 28, 1895 Elva died in 1906 not long before her father died, and is buried in the Glidden family plot in a cemetery in DeKalb 
In 1898, Glidden deeded his Frying Pan ranch in Texas to his son-in-law, W  H  Bush  Bush married again in 1908, after being widowed, to Ruth Russell Gentry  He is buried in Graceland Cemetery in Chicago 

In popular culture
The "barbed wire salesman" in Back to the Future Part III is either based on Joseph F  Glidden or John Warne Gates who was a pioneer promoter of barbed wire  He is played by Richard Dysart 

See also
Joseph F  Glidden House
The Barbed Wire Patent

Patents
U S  Patent 157,124 – Wire fences
Passage 10:
Hanging on the Old Barbed Wire
"Hanging on the Old Barbed Wire" (Roud 9618) is a British war song of World War I   The song sarcastically recounts the location of various army members, not to be found in the combat zone, and concludes by describing the location of the old battalion: "hanging on the old barbed wire"  A barbed wire fence separated the front-line trench from no man's land, and men brave or unfortunate enough to go over the top of the dug-out were often quickly shot and their bodies caught in the barbed wire  This troop song was not popular with officers, who thought it bad for morale, though attempts to suppress it were unsuccessful 

Lyrics
There are several different versions of this song, though all share the final two lines  One version:

A variant last line is "if you want to find the privates" Another variation fourth verse sees C O replaced with colonel, put at the start and, "He's On another 7 days leave" 

Covers
The song was included on the 1988 album English Rebel Songs 1381–1914 by the English anarchist punk band Chumbawamba, as well as on their 2003 re-recording of the same album (English Rebel Songs 1381–1984) 
A shortened version of the song was also included on the 2018 album The Blind Leading the Blind by the Ukrainian metal band 1914 as an interlude  The band's songs are all related to WWI events 
The song was covered by death industrial band Maruta Kommand on their 2000 album "Holocaust Rites" 
The song is part of the "Great War Trilogy" (The Valley of the Shadow / The Old Barbed Wire / Long, Long Trail) sung by John Roberts and Tony Barrand in their album,   A Present from the Gentlemen: A Pandora's Box of English Folk Songs (Golden Hind Music, GHM-101, 1992) 
Context 2: Passage 1:
PLOS ONE
PLOS One (stylized PLOS ONE, and formerly PLoS ONE) is a peer-reviewed open access mega journal published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS) since 2006  The journal covers primary research from any discipline within science and medicine  The Public Library of Science began in 2000 with an online petition initiative by Nobel Prize winner Harold Varmus, formerly director of the National Institutes of Health and at that time director of Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; Patrick O  Brown, a biochemist at Stanford University; and Michael Eisen, a computational biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 
Submissions are subject to an article processing charge, and according to the journal, papers are not to be excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field  All submissions go through a pre-publication review by a member of the board of academic editors, who can elect to seek an opinion from an external reviewer  In January 2010, the journal was included in the Journal Citation Reports and received its first impact factor of 4 411  According to Journal Citation Reports, PLOS ONE's 2022 impact factor is 3 7  PLOS One papers are published under Creative Commons licenses 

History
Development
The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation awarded PLOS a $9 million grant in December 2002 and $1 million grant in May 2006 for its financial sustainability and launch of new free-access biomedical journals  Later, PLOS One was launched in December 2006 as a beta version named PLOS One  It launched with commenting and note-making functionality, and added the ability to rate articles in July 2007  In September 2007, the ability to leave "trackbacks" on articles was added  In August 2008, the journal moved from a weekly to a daily publication schedule, publishing articles as soon as they became ready  PLOS One came out of "beta" in October 2008 
In September 2009, as part of its article-level metrics program, PLOS One made its full online usage data, including HTML page views and PDF or XML download statistics, publicly available for every published article  In mid-2012, as part of a rebranding of PLoS as PLOS, the journal changed its name to PLOS One 

Output and turnaround
The number of papers published by PLOS One grew rapidly from inception to 2013 and has since declined somewhat   By 2010, it was estimated   to have become the largest journal in the world, and in 2011, 1 in 60 articles indexed by PubMed were published by PLOS One  By September 2017, PLOS One confirmed they had published over 200,000 articles  By November 2017, the journal Scientific Reports overtook PLOS One in terms of output At PLOS One, the median review time has grown from 37 days to 125 days over the first ten years of operation, according to Himmelstein's analysis, done for Nature  The median between acceptance and posting a paper on the site has decreased from 35 to 15 days over the same period  Both numbers for 2016 roughly correspond to the industry-wide averages for biology-related journals  The average acceptance rates for submission across 2020 and 2021 range from 47 9 to 49 9% [1]

Management
The founding managing editor was Chris Surridge  He was succeeded by Peter Binfield in March 2008, who was publisher until May 2012  Damian Pattinson then held the chief editorial position until December 2015  Joerg Heber was as editor-in-chief from November 2016 before Emily Chenette took over in that position in March 2021 

Publication concept
PLOS One is built on several conceptually different ideas compared to traditional peer-reviewed scientific publishing in that it does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection  The idea is that, instead, PLOS One only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment 
Each submission will be assessed by a member of the PLOS ONE Editorial Board before publication  This pre-publication peer review will concentrate on technical rather than subjective concerns and may involve discussion with other members of the Editorial Board and/or the solicitation of formal reports from independent referees  If published, papers will be made available for community-based open peer review involving online annotation, discussion, and rating 
According to Nature, the journal's aim is to "challenge academia's obsession with journal status and impact factors"  Being an online-only publication allows PLOS One to publish more papers than a print journal  In an effort to facilitate publication of research on topics outside, or between, traditional science categories, it does not restrict itself to a specific scientific area Papers published in PLOS One can be of any length, contain full color throughout, and contain supplementary materials such as multimedia files  Reuse of articles is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License  In the first four years following launch, it made use of over 40,000 external peer reviewers  The journal uses an international board of academic editors with over 6,000 academics handling submissions and publishes approximately 50 % of all submissions, after review by, on average, 2 9 experts  Registered readers can leave comments on articles on the website 

Business model
As with all journals of the Public Library of Science, open access to PLOS One is financed by an article processing charge, typically paid by the author's institution or by the author  This model allows PLOS journals to make all articles available to the public for free immediately upon publication   As of April 2021, PLOS One charges a publication fee of $1,745 to publish an article  Depending on circumstances, it may waive or reduce the fee for authors who do not have sufficient funds PLoS had been operating at a loss until 2009 but covered its operational costs for the first time in 2010, largely due to the growth of PLOS One   The success of PLOS One has inspired a series of other open access journals, including some other mega journals having broad scope, low selectivity, and a pay-to-publish model using Creative Commons licenses 

Reception
In September 2009, PLOS One received the Publishing Innovation Award of the Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers  The award is given in recognition of a "truly innovative approach to any aspect of publication as adjudged from originality and innovative qualities, together with utility, benefit to the community and long-term prospects"  In January 2010, it was announced that the journal would be included in the Journal Citation Reports, and the journal received an impact factor of 4 411 in 2010  According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2022 impact factor of 3 7 

Abstracting and indexing
The articles are indexed in:

Response to controversial publications
Alleged sexism in one peer review instance
On April 29, 2015, Fiona Ingleby and Megan Head, postdoctoral fellows at the University of Sussex and Australian National University respectively, posted a rejection letter, which they said was sent to them by a peer reviewer for a journal they did not wish to name  The rejection letter concerned Ingleby and Head's paper about differences in PhD-to-postdoc transition between male and female scientists  The reviewer argued that the authors should "find one or two male biologists to work with" to ensure the manuscript doesn't drift into "ideologically biased assumptions", comments which the authors found to be "unprofessional and inappropriate" and veering into sexism  Shortly afterward, the journal was reported to be PLOS One  By May 1, PLOS had announced that it was severing ties with the reviewer responsible for the comments and asking the editor who relayed them to step down  PLOS One also issued an apology statement following the incident 

CreatorGate
On March 3, 2016, the editors of PLOS One initiated a reevaluation of an article about the functioning of the human hand due to outrage among the journal's readership over a reference to "Creator" inside the paper  The authors, who received grants from the Chinese National Basic Research Program and National Natural Science Foundation of China for this work, responded by saying "Creator" is a poorly-translated idiom (造化(者), literally "(that which) creates or transforms") which means "nature" in the Chinese language  Despite the authors' protests, the article was retracted  
A less sympathetic explanation for the use of "Creator" was suggested to The Chronicle of Higher Education by Chinese-language experts who noted that the academic editor listed on the paper, Renzhi Han, previously worked at the Chinese Evangelical Church in Iowa City Sarah Kaplan of The Washington Post presented a detailed analysis of the problem, which she named #CreatorGate, and concluded that the journal's hasty retraction may have been an even bigger offense than the publication of the paper in the first place  To contrast PLOS One's handling of the problem, she used a 12-year history of retraction of the fraudulent paper on vaccine and autism by The Lancet and the lack of a retraction of a debunked study on "arsenic life" by Science  Others added the history of the article in Nature on "water memory" that was not retracted either Jonathan Eisen, chair of the advisory board of a sister journal PLOS Biology and an advocate for open-access, commended PLOS One for their prompt response on social media, which in his words "most journals pretend doesn't even exist"  David Knutson issued a statement about the paper processing at PLOS One, which praised the importance of post-publication peer review and described their intention to offer open signed reviews in order to ensure accountability of the process  From March 2 to 9, the research article received a total of 67 post-publication reader comments and 129 responses on PLOS One site  Signe Dean of SBS put #CreatorGate in perspective: it is not the most scandalous retraction in science, yet it shows how a social media outrage storm does expedite a retraction 

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy

On August 27, 2018, the editors of PLOS One initiated a reevaluation of an article they published two weeks earlier submitted by Brown University School of Public Health assistant professor Lisa Littman  The study described a phenomenon of social contagion, or "cluster outbreaks" in gender dysphoria among young people, which Littman called "rapid-onset gender dysphoria"  Data was obtained from a survey placed on three websites for concerned parents of children with gender dysphoria, asking for responses from parents whose children had experienced "sudden or rapid development of gender dysphoria beginning between the ages of 10 and 21"  The study was criticized by transgender activists like Julia Serano and medical professionals like developmental and clinical psychologist Diane Ehrensaft, as being politicized and having self-selected samples, as well as lacking clinical data or responses from the adolescents themselves On March 19, 2019, PLOS One completed its review  PLOS One psychology academic editor Angelo Brandelli Costa acted as a reviwer criticizing the methods and conclusion of the study in a formal comment, saying, "The level of evidence produced by the Dr  Littman's study cannot generate a new diagnostic criterion relative to the time of presentation of the demands of medical and social gender affirmation " In a separate letter apologizing for the failure of peer review to address the issues with the article, PLOS One Editor-in-chief Joerg Heber said, "we have reached the conclusion that the study and resultant data reported in the article represent a valid contribution to the scientific literature  However, we have also determined that the study, including its goals, methodology, and conclusions, were not adequately framed in the published version, and that these needed to be corrected "The paper was republished with updated Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, but the Results section was mostly unchanged  In her correction, Littman emphasized that the article was "a study of parental observations which serves to develop hypotheses", saying "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is not a formal mental health diagnosis at this time  This report did not collect data from the adolescents and young adults (AYAs) or clinicians and therefore does not validate the phenomenon  Additional research that includes AYAs, along with consensus among experts in the field, will be needed to determine if what is described here as rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) will become a formal diagnosis "
Passage 2:
Behavior Genetics (journal)
Behavior Genetics is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published monthly by Springer Science+Business Media that is covering "research in the inheritance of behavior"  It is the official journal of the Behavior Genetics Association  The journal was established in 1971 with Steven G  Vandenberg as its founding editor-in-chief  The abstracts of the annual meetings are printed in the journal  Each year, the editorial board chooses a particularly meritorious paper in the previous year's volume of the journal for the Fulker Award, acknowledged by "$1000 and a good bottle of wine" as well as a citation made in the journal  This award was created in the honor of David Fulker, a past president of the Behavior Genetics Association (1982) and former editor-in-chief of the journal 

Abstracting and indexing
The journal is abstracted in Biological Abstracts/BIOSIS Previews, CAB Abstracts, Current Awareness in Biological Sciences, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences and Life Sciences, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, Scopus, Social Sciences Citation Index, and The Zoological Record  According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2020 impact factor of 2 805 
Passage 3:
Bosque (journal)
Bosque is a scientific journal published by the Forestry Faculty of the Southern University of Chile  It publishes articles on a wide range of forestry-related topics, primarily on issues that are relevant to Chile, Latin America and the Southern Hemisphere  The published articles include peer-reviewed scientific research papers, items of current interest and opinion pieces  Bosque's first issue was published in 1975 and the journal was issued yearly until 1985  From 1985 to 2003 it was issued twice a year and from 2003 on three times a year  The topics covered in Bosque are management and production of forestry resources, wood science and technology, silviculture, forest ecology, natural resources conservation, and rural development associated with forest ecosystems  The journal publishes research articles, notes and opinions, both in Spanish and English  Bosque was included in the Science Citation Index Expanded in 2009  The journal is also indexed in The Zoological Record 

See also
List of forestry journals
Passage 4:
Geophysical Journal International
Geophysical Journal International is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Deutsche Geophysikalische Gesellschaft (German Geophysical Society)  The journal publishes original research papers, research notes, letters, and book reviews  It was established in 1922  The editor-in-chief is Joerg Renner (Ruhr University Bochum)  The journal covers research on all aspects of theoretical, computational, applied and observational geophysics 

History
The journal was formerly entitled Geophysical Journal (Oxford) from January 1988 to June 1989  The Geophysical Journal was itself formed by the merger of three other publications: Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Journal of Geophysics, and Annales Geophysicae, Series B: Terrestrial and Planetary Physics Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society was in existence from March 1958 to December 1987 and was preceded by Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Geophysical Supplement  The Journal of Geophysics was in existence from 1974 to 1987, and preceded by the German-language journal, Zeitschrift für Geophysik (1924–1973) Finally, Annales Geophysicae, Series B: Terrestrial and Planetary Physics was in existence from 1986 to 1987, and preceded by Annales Geophysicae (Gauthier-Villars) (1983–1985)  Annales Geophysicae was formed by the merger of two other journals: Annales de Géophysique (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) (1942–1982), and Annali di Geofisica (1948–1982) 

Abstracting and indexing
The journal is abstracted and indexed in:

According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2021 impact factor of 3 352, ranking it 35th out of 100 journals in the category "Geochemistry & Geophysics" 
Passage 5:
Scientific journal
In academic publishing, a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by sharing findings from research with readers  They are normally specialized based on discipline, with authors picking which one they send their manuscripts to 

Content
Scientific journals
There are thousands of scientific journals in publication, with one estimate from 2012 indicating that there were 28,100 that were active, and many more have been published at various points in the past (see list of scientific journals)  Most journals are highly specialized, although some of the oldest journals such as Science and Nature publish articles and scientific papers across a wide range of scientific fields  Scientific journals contain articles that have been peer reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal's standards of quality and scientific validity Although scientific journals are superficially similar to professional magazines (or trade journals), they are actually quite different   Among others, scientific journals' papers' authors are experts who must cite everything (and have a bibliography)   They also deal with research, and are peer reviewed   Meanwhile, trade journals are aimed at people in different fields, they focus on how people in them can do their jobs better, they cover information related to work, and they include tips and advice for improving performance   Also, they are not scholarly 

Articles in scientific journals
Articles in scientific journals are mostly written by active scientists such as students, researchers, and professors instead of professional journalists   Their intended audience is others in the field (such as students and experts), plus their content is more advanced and sophisticated than what is found regular publications  They have different purposes, depending on the type   Ones with original research are meant to share it with others in the field, review articles give summaries of research that has already been done, and perspective articles give researchers' views on research that their peers performed Each article has several different sections, including the following:
The title;
Information about the author(s);
The abstract, which is a one-paragraph summary of the article;
The introduction, including a background, why the research was done, research on this topic that has been done before, and (possibly) a hypothesis;
The methodology or method, which includes the way the research was done, details concerning the study's sample, measures for assessment, and the procedure;
Findings or results, which summarize what the study found;
Conclusion, comments, or discussion, which both explain how the results answered the questions that were posed, as well as areas that could be researched in the future; and
A list of works that the article's author cited Scientific journal articles are not read casually like a person would read a magazine   For, whereas magazine articles can be read in a more casual manner, reading one in a scientific periodical would require a lot more concentration   More to the point, reading an article in a scientific journal would entail first reading the title, to see if it was related to the desired topic   If it was, the next step would be to read the abstract (or summary or conclusion, if it is missing the abstract), to see if it seems worth reading   And, if it seemed like reading it would be worthwhile, the reader would then read the whole article Publishing research results is an essential part of helping science to advance  If scientists are describing experiments or calculations, they should explain how they did them so that an independent researcher could repeat the experiment or calculation to verify the results, or so that they could evaluate whatever the research article's findings were  Each such journal article also becomes part of the permanent scientific record 

Scope
Articles in scientific journals can be used in research and higher education  Scientific articles allow researchers to keep up to date with the developments of their field and direct their own research  An essential part of a scientific article is citation of earlier work  The impact of articles and journals is often assessed by counting citations (citation impact)  Some classes are partially devoted to the explication of classic articles, and seminar classes can consist of the presentation by each student of a classic or current paper  Schoolbooks and textbooks have been written usually only on established topics, while the latest research and more obscure topics are only accessible through scientific articles  In a scientific research group or academic department it is usual for the content of current scientific journals to be discussed in journal clubs  Public funding bodies often require the results to be published in scientific journals  Academic credentials for promotion into academic ranks are established in large part by the number and impact of scientific articles published  Many doctoral programs allow for thesis by publication, where the candidate is required to publish a certain number of scientific articles 

Wording
Articles tend to be highly technical, representing the latest theoretical research and experimental results in the field of science covered by the journal  They are often incomprehensible to anyone except for researchers in the field and advanced students  In some subjects this is inevitable given the nature of the content  Usually, rigorous rules of scientific writing are enforced by the editors; however, these rules may vary from journal to journal, especially between journals from different publishers  Articles are usually either original articles reporting completely new results or reviews of current literature  There are also scientific publications that bridge the gap between articles and books by publishing thematic volumes of chapters from different authors  Many journals have a regional focus, specializing in publishing papers from a particular geographic region, like African Invertebrates 

History
In the 17th century, scientists wrote letters to each other, and included scientific ideas with them   Then, in the mid-17th century, scientists began to hold meetings and share their scientific ideas   Eventually, they led to starting organizations, such as the Royal Society (1660) and the French Academy of Sciences (1666)  In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society began systematically publishing research results  Over a thousand, mostly ephemeral, were founded in the 18th century, and the number has increased rapidly since then Peer review did not begin until the 1970s, and was seen as a way of enabling researchers who were not as well-known to have their papers published in journals that were more prestigious   Though it was originally done by mailing copies of papers to reviewers, it is now done online 

Publishing process
The authors of scientific articles are active researchers instead of journalists; typically, a graduate student or a researcher writes a paper with a professor  As such, the authors are unpaid and receive no compensation from the journal  However, their funding bodies may require them to publish in scientific journals  The paper is submitted to the journal office, where the editor considers the paper for appropriateness, potential scientific impact and novelty  If the journal's editor considers the paper appropriate, the paper is submitted to scholarly peer review  Depending on the field, journal and paper, the paper is sent to 1–3 reviewers for evaluation before they can be granted permission to publish  Reviewers are expected to check the paper for soundness of its scientific argument, including whether the author(s) are sufficiently acquainted with recent relevant research that bears on their study, whether the data was collected or considered appropriately and reproducibly, and whether the data discussed supports the conclusion offered and the implications suggested  Novelty is also key: existing work must be appropriately considered and referenced, and new results improving on the state of the art presented  Reviewers are usually unpaid and not a part of the journal staff—instead, they should be "peers", i e  researchers in the same field as the paper in question 

Standards and impact
The standards that a journal uses to determine publication can vary widely  Some journals, such as Nature, Science, PNAS, and Physical Review Letters, have a reputation of publishing articles that mark a fundamental breakthrough in their respective fields  In many fields, a formal or informal hierarchy of scientific journals exists; the most prestigious journal in a field tends to be the most selective in terms of the articles it will select for publication, and usually will also have the highest impact factor  In some countries, journal rankings can be utilized for funding decisions and even evaluation of individual researchers, although they are poorly suited for that purpose 

Reproducibility and replicability
For scientific journals, reproducibility and replicability of the scientific results are core concepts that allow other scientists to check and reproduce the results under the same conditions described in the paper or at least similar conditions and produce similar results with similar measurements of the same measurand or carried out under changed conditions of measurement  While the ability to reproduce the results based only on details included in the article is expected, verification of reproducibility by a third party is not generally required for publication  The reproducibility of results presented in an article is therefore judged implicitly by the quality of the procedures reported and agreement with the data provided  However, some journals in the field of chemistry such as Inorganic Syntheses and Organic Syntheses require independent reproduction of the results presented as part of the review process  The inability for independent researches to reproduce published results is widespread, with 70% of researchers reporting failure to reproduce another scientist's results, including more than half who report failing to reproduce their own experiments  Sources of reproducibility vary, including publication of falsified or misrepresented data and poor detailing of procedures 

Types of articles
There are several types of journal article; the exact terminology and definitions vary by field and specific journal, but often include:

Letters (also called communications, and not to be confused with letters to the editor) are short descriptions of important current research findings that are usually fast-tracked for immediate publication because they are considered urgent 
Research notes are short descriptions of current research findings that are considered less urgent or important than Letters 
Articles are usually between five and twenty pages and are complete descriptions of current original research findings, but there are considerable variations between scientific fields and journals—80-page articles are not rare in mathematics or theoretical computer science 
Supplemental articles contain a large volume of tabular data that is the result of current research and may be dozens or hundreds of pages with mostly numerical data  Some journals now only publish this data electronically on the Internet  Supplemental information also contains other voluminous material not appropriate for the main body of the article, like descriptions of routine procedures, derivations of equations, source code, non-essential data, spectra or other such miscellaneous information 
Review articles do not cover original research but rather accumulate the results of many different articles on a particular topic into a coherent narrative about the state of the art in that field  Review articles provide information about the topic and also provide journal references to the original research  Reviews may be entirely narrative, or may provide quantitative summary estimates resulting from the application of meta-analytical methods 
Data papers are articles dedicated to describe datasets  This type of article is becoming popular and journals exclusively dedicated to them have been established, e g  Scientific Data and Earth System Science Data 
Video papers are a recent addition to practice of scientific publications  They most often combine an online video demonstration of a new technique or protocol combined with a rigorous textual description The formats of journal articles vary, but many follow the general IMRAD scheme recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors  Such articles begin with an abstract, which is a one-to-four-paragraph summary of the paper  The introduction describes the background for the research including a discussion of similar research  The materials and methods or experimental section provides specific details of how the research was conducted  The results and discussion section describes the outcome and implications of the research, and the conclusion section places the research in context and describes avenues for further exploration 
In addition to the above, some scientific journals such as Science will include a news section where scientific developments (often involving political issues) are described  These articles are often written by science journalists and not by scientists  In addition, some journals will include an editorial section and a section for letters to the editor  While these are articles published within a journal, in general they are not regarded as scientific journal articles because they have not been peer-reviewed 

Electronic publishing
Electronic publishing is a new area of information dissemination  One definition of electronic publishing is in the context of the scientific journal  It is the presentation of scholarly scientific results in only an electronic (non-paper) form  This is from its first write-up, or creation, to its publication or dissemination  The electronic scientific journal is specifically designed to be presented on the internet  It is defined as not being previously printed material adapted, or retooled, and then delivered electronically Electronic publishing will likely continue to exist alongside paper publishing for the foreseeable future, since whilst output to a screen is important for browsing and searching, it is not well suited for extensive reading  Formats suitable both for reading on paper, and for manipulation by the reader's computer will need to be integrated  Many journals are electronically available in formats readable on screen via web browsers, as well as in portable document format PDF, suitable for printing and storing on a local desktop or laptop computer  New tools such as JATS and Utopia Documents provide a 'bridge' to the 'web-versions' in that they connect the content in PDF versions directly to the World Wide Web via hyperlinks that are created 'on-the-fly'  The PDF version of an article is usually seen as the version of record, but the matter is subject to some debate Electronic counterparts of established print journals already promote and deliver rapid dissemination of peer-reviewed and edited, "published" articles  Other journals, whether spin-offs of established print journals, or created as electronic only, have come into existence promoting the rapid dissemination capability, and availability, on the Internet  In tandem with this is the speeding up of peer review, copyediting, page makeup, and other steps in the process to support rapid dissemination Other improvements, benefits and unique values of electronically publishing the scientific journal are easy availability of supplementary materials (data, graphics and video), lower cost, and availability to more people, especially scientists from non-developed countries  Hence, research results from more developed nations are becoming more accessible to scientists from non-developed countries Moreover, electronic publishing of scientific journals has been accomplished without compromising the standards of the refereed, peer review process One form is the online equivalent of the conventional paper journal  By 2006, almost all scientific journals have, while retaining their peer-review process, established electronic versions; a number have moved entirely to electronic publication  In a similar manner, most academic libraries buy the electronic version and purchase a paper copy only for the most important or most-used titles 
There is usually a delay of several months after an article is written before it is published in a journal, making paper journals not an ideal format for announcing the latest research  Many journals now publish the final papers in their electronic version as soon as they are ready, without waiting for the assembly of a complete issue, as is necessary with paper



ground_truth: January 18, 1813

prompt_front: Answer the question based on the given passages. Only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What was the first year a scientific journal published by an organization located in the Bronx was published?

The following are given passages.
Context 2:  In many fields in which even greater speed is wanted, such as physics, the role of the journal at disseminating the latest research has largely been replaced by preprint databases such as arXiv org  Almost all such articles are eventually published in traditional journals, which still provide an important role in quality control, archiving papers, and establishing scientific credit 

Cost
Many scientists and librarians have long protested the cost of journals, especially as they see these payments going to large for-profit publishing houses  To allow their researchers online access to journals, many universities purchase site licenses, permitting access from anywhere in the university, and, with appropriate authorization, by university-affiliated users at home or elsewhere  These may be quite expensive, sometimes much more than the cost for a print subscription, although this may reflect the number of people who will be using the license—while a print subscription is the cost for one person to receive the journal; a site-license can allow thousands of people to gain access Publications by scholarly societies, also known as not-for-profit-publishers, usually cost less than commercial publishers, but the prices of their scientific journals are still usually several thousand dollars a year  In general, this money is used to fund the activities of the scientific societies that run such journals, or is invested in providing further scholarly resources for scientists; thus, the money remains in and benefits the scientific sphere 
Despite the transition to electronic publishing, the serials crisis persists Concerns about cost and open access have led to the creation of free-access journals such as the Public Library of Science (PLoS) family and partly open or reduced-cost journals such as the Journal of High Energy Physics  However, professional editors still have to be paid, and PLoS still relies heavily on donations from foundations to cover the majority of its operating costs; smaller journals do not often have access to such resources 
Based on statistical arguments, it has been shown that electronic publishing online, and to some extent open access, both provide wider dissemination and increase the average number of citations an article receives 

Copyright
Traditionally, the author of an article was required to transfer the copyright to the journal publisher  Publishers claimed this was necessary in order to protect authors' rights, and to coordinate permissions for reprints or other use  However, many authors, especially those active in the open access movement, found this unsatisfactory, and have used their influence to effect a gradual move towards a license to publish instead  Under such a system, the publisher has permission to edit, print, and distribute the article commercially, but the authors retain the other rights themselves 
Even if they retain the copyright to an article, most journals allow certain rights to their authors  These rights usually include the ability to reuse parts of the paper in the author's future work, and allow the author to distribute a limited number of copies  In the print format, such copies are called reprints; in the electronic format, they are called postprints  Some publishers, for example the American Physical Society, also grant the author the right to post and update the article on the author's or employer's website and on free e-print servers, to grant permission to others to use or reuse figures, and even to reprint the article as long as no fee is charged  The rise of open access journals, in which the author retains the copyright but must pay a publication charge, such as the Public Library of Science family of journals, is another recent response to copyright concerns 

See also
Passage 6:
Mycologia
Mycologia is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes papers on all aspects of the fungi, including lichens  It first appeared as a bimonthly journal in January 1909, published by the New York Botanical Garden under the editorship of William Murrill  It became the official journal of the Mycological Society of America, which still publishes it today  It was formed as a merger of the Journal of Mycology (14 volumes; 1885–1908) and the Mycological Bulletin (7 volumes; 1903–1908)  The Mycological Bulletin was known as the Ohio Mycological Bulletin in its first volume 

Editors
The following persons have been editor-in-chief of the journal:

The following persons have been managing editor of the journal:

Abstracting and indexing
Mycologia is abstracted and indexing in the following databases:
Passage 7:
The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology
The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology is a peer-reviewed open-access scientific journal published by the Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum at the National University of Singapore 

Overview
It covers the taxonomy, ecology, and conservation of Southeast Asian fauna  Supplements are published as and when funding permits and may cover topics that extend beyond the normal scope of the journal depending on the targets of the funding agency  It was established as the Bulletin of the Raffles Museum in 1928 and renamed Bulletin of the National Museum of Singapore in 1961, before obtaining its current title in 1971 

See also
List of zoology journals
Passage 8:
New York Botanical Garden
The New York Botanical Garden (NYBG) is a botanical garden at Bronx Park in the Bronx, New York City  Established in 1891, it is located on a 250-acre (100 ha) site that contains a landscape with over one million living plants; the Enid A  Haupt Conservatory, a greenhouse containing several habitats; and the LuEsther T  Mertz Library, which contains one of the world's largest collections of botany-related texts  As of 2016, over a million people visit the New York Botanical Garden annually 
NYBG is also a major educational institution, teaching visitors about plant science, ecology, and healthful eating through NYBG's interactive programming  Nearly 90,000 of the annual visitors are children from underserved neighboring communities  An additional 3,000 are teachers from New York City's public school system participating in professional development programs that train them to teach science courses at all grade levels  NYBG operates one of the world's largest plant research and conservation programs 
NYBG was established in 1891 and the first structures on the grounds opened at the end of that decade  Since 1967, the garden has been listed as a National Historic Landmark, and several buildings have been designated as official New York City landmarks 

Mission statement
The New York Botanical Garden is an advocate for the plant world  The Garden pursues its mission through its role as a museum of living plant collections arranged in gardens and landscapes across its National Historic Landmark site; through its comprehensive education programs in horticulture and plant science; and through the wide-ranging research programs of the International Plant Science Center 

History
Context
As early as 1877, ideas had been circulating in New York City to create a botanical garden; funding could not be obtained at the time, although the efforts led to parkland being set aside for future use  By 1888, the Torrey Botanical Society was promoting the construction of a large botanical garden in New York City  The Garden's creation followed a fund-raising campaign led by the Torrey Botanical Society and Columbia University botanist Nathaniel Lord Britton and his wife Elizabeth Gertrude Britton, who were inspired to emulate the Royal Botanic Gardens in London : 2 In 1889, the Torrey Botanical Society's members decided to build the botanical garden at Bronx Park in the center of the Bronx, New York City's northernmost borough : 2  The Lorillard family owned most of the land at that location : 147  The city had already been given authorization to acquire the land as part of the 1884 New Parks Act, which was intended to preserve lands that would soon become part of New York City : 166  Some 640 acres (2 6 km2) of land surrounding the Lorillard estate was acquired by the City of New York as part of Bronx Park in 1888–1889 : 147

Establishment
By act of the New York State Legislature, the New York Botanical Garden was established on April 28, 1891  The garden occupied part of the grounds of the Lorillard estate and a parcel that was formerly the easternmost portion of the campus of St  John's College (now Fordham University);: 147  the latter included three graves of the Fordham University Cemetery, which were then relocated  The stated purpose of the act was:

    for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a botanical garden and museum and arboretum therein, for the collection of and culture of plants, flowers, shrubs and trees, the advancement of botanical science and knowledge, and the prosecution of original researches therein and in kindred subjects, for affording instruction in the same, for the prosecution and exhibition of ornamental and decorative horticulture and gardening, and for the entertainment, recreation and instruction of the people : 2 
As per the acts of incorporation, a board of directors would manage the NYBG  The board of directors included Columbia College's president and professors of biology, chemistry, and geology; the presidents of the Torrey Society, New York City Board of Education, and the Department of Public Parks' board of commissioners; the Mayor of New York City; and nine other members elected to the board : 2  The legislation would provide 250 acres (100 ha) within Bronx Park to the NYBG, and enable the board of directors to construct a library and conservatory, if at least $250,000 was raised within five years  If this condition were reached, the city would then issue $0 5 million in bonds : 2  The principal officers of the new corporation set up for the garden were Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie and J P  Morgan, with Nathaniel Lord Britton as the new secretary Prominent civic leaders and financiers, including Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Morgan, agreed to match the City's commitment to finance the buildings and improvements : 2  By May 1895, the $250,000 in bonds had been raised but the plans had not been fully confirmed  The Board of Directors then asked landscape architect Calvert Vaux and his partner, Parks Superintendent Samuel Parsons Jr , to consult on site selection  The north end of Bronx Park was decided as the best location for the NYBG  By August 1895, the architects had started a survey on the site  Because the Bronx River and various small tributaries ran through the park, drainage was a major consideration  Though Vaux's preliminary layout was approved in October 1895, he died the following month : 3  The topographical survey was completed in March 1896  The master plan was created by a team that included Britton & Parsons, as well as landscape engineer John R  Brinley, landscape gardener Samuel Henshaw, botanist Lucien Marcus Underwood, and architects Robert W  Gibson and Lincoln Pierson (the latter from the firm Lord & Burnham) : 3 The LuEsther T  Mertz Library and Enid A  Haupt Conservatory were among the first structures at the NYBG to open  The Library was built between 1897 and 1900,: 4  and the Conservatory was built around the same time, being completed in 1902 

Later operations
For over a century after its opening, the NYBG refused to charge admission  Because of this, as well as insufficient government and private funding, its budget deficit started to increase in the 1950s  After the city cut the NYBG's budget in 1970, the garden was forced to remain closed for 3 to 4 days a week, and officials worried that this could eventually lead to permanent closure  In 1974, for the first time in the botanical garden's history, officials had to annually petition New York State Legislature for funds  That year, the NYBG announced a major renovation to the conservatory and the addition of a building dedicated to displaying plants in different habitats  The next year, budget cuts related to the 1975 New York City fiscal crisis resulted in the NYBG being closed on weekdays for the first time in its history In 1988, the NYBG announced a renovation of its museum building, including the addition of a new annex, which was supposed to open in 1991  By the early 1990s, the NYBG facilities were neglected  The garden did not have enough space in its parking lots to accommodate all its visitors, turning away potential guests  Many areas were neglected, except for the 40 acres (16 ha) surrounding the conservatory, and a wetland had even been created unintentionally due to a broken sewer  A controversy arose in 1994 when the adjacent Fordham University proposed building a 480-foot-tall (150 m) radio tower for its radio station WFUV directly across from the Haupt Conservatory  The dispute continued until 2002, after several years of failed resolutions, when Montefiore Medical Center offered to move WFUV's antenna to its own facilities By the mid-1990s, additions to the NYBG were being undertaken to reverse years of neglect  In 1994 the formerly free garden started charging an admission fee to fund these improvements as well as the continued maintenance of existing facilities  The Everett Children's Garden opened in mid-1998  By 2000, the NYBG had requested $300 million for renovations, including a new gift shop and renovation of the greenhouses and roads  A new visitor center and gift shop were announced the following year, which would replace temporary facilities built in 1990  The new main entrance, with a gift shop, bookstore, plaza, restrooms, cafe, and information kiosks, was completed in 2004 at a cost of $21 million  Meanwhile, the addition of the library annex was delayed to 1994, then to 2000  Construction on the annex started in 1998 and it opened in 2002 as the International Plant Science Center Through the next two decades, a number of projects were completed and programs were implemented  In 2004, the Leon Levy Visitor Center opened as the Botanical Garden's main entrance  It included the NYBG Shop and the Pine Tree Café  The following year, the Nolen Greenhouses for Living Collections opened with its publicly accessible Bourke-Sullivan Display House  Off-site, the institution opened The New York Botanical Garden Midtown Education Center in Manhattan in 2010  NYBG added a parking garage, the Peter J  Sharp Building, nearby in 2012, along with a Bedford Gate entrance to the Garden  NYBG restored its Lorillard Snuff Mill in 2010 and it was named the Lillian and Amy Goldman Stone Mill  NYBG's Humanities Research Institute, supported by The Andrew W  Mellon Foundation, was created in 2014 to stimulate public discourse about humankind's relationship with nature and the environment  NYBG opened an on-site restaurant, the Hudson Garden Grill, in 2015  It redesigned and reopened its East Gate entrance in 2017  The Edible Academy, an educational facility for teaching children, families, educators, and the general public about vegetable gardening, nutrition awareness, and environmental stewardship, opened in 2018  In February 2020, NYBG announced that it was partnering with Douglaston Development to create affordable apartments on the northwest edge of the garden 

Grounds
The different spaces
The Garden contains 50 different gardens and plant collections  There is a serene cascade waterfall, as well as wetlands and a 50-acre (20 ha) tract of original, never-logged, old-growth New York forest Garden highlights include the 1890s-vintage Haupt Conservatory, designed by Lord & Burnham; the Peggy Rockefeller Rose Garden, originally laid out by Beatrix Jones Farrand in 1916; an alpine rock garden, designed and installed by Thomas H  Everett in the 1930s; an Herb Garden, designed by Penelope Hobhouse; and a 37-acre (15 ha) conifer collection  The NYBG's extensive research facilities include a propagation center, 550,000-volume research library, and an herbarium of 7 2 to 7 8 million botanical specimens dating back more than three centuries, among the largest in the world At the heart of the Garden is the Thain Family Forest, an old-growth forest  It is the largest existing remnant of the original forest which covered all of New York City before the arrival of European settlers in the 17th century  The forest, which was never logged, contains oaks, American beeches, cherry, birch, tulip and white ash trees, some more than two centuries old The forest itself is split by the Bronx River, the only freshwater river in New York City, and this stretch of the river includes a riverine canyon and rapids  Along the shores sits the Stone Mill, previously known as the Lorillard Snuff Mill, built in 1840  Sculptor Charles Tefft created the Fountain of Life on the grounds in 1905 : 9 The Ladies' Border, originally commissioned by the Women's Auxiliary Committee in the 1920s, was designed by Ellen Shipman and installed between 1931 and 1933   In 2000, designer Lynden B  Miller created a new plan for the Ladies' Border  The Jane Watson Irwin Perennial Garden was designed in the 1970s by Dan Kiley and redefined by Miller in the 1980s and again in 2003 In addition to restoring or redesigning existing gardens and collections, such as the Ladies' Border (2002), the Benenson Ornamental Conifers (2004), the Peggy Rockefeller Rose Garden (2007), the Thain Family Forest (2011), and the Marjorie G  Rosen Seasonal Walk by Piet Oudolf (2014), The New York Botanical Garden added new gardens and collections to its grounds: the Home Gardening Center (2005), the Maureen K  Chilton Azalea Garden (2011) by landscape architect Shavaun Towers of Towers|Golde LLC, and Native Plant Garden (2013), by landscape architect Sheila Brady of Oehme, van Sweden 

Research laboratories
The Pfizer Plant Research Laboratory, built with funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, New York State and New York City, and named for its largest private donor, is a major new research institution at the Garden that opened in 2006  The laboratory is a pure research institution, with projects more diverse than research in universities and pharmaceutical companies 
The laboratory's research emphasis is on plant genomics, the study of how genes function in plant development  One question scientists hope to answer is Darwin's "abominable mystery"; when, where, and why flowering plants emerged  The laboratory's research also furthers the discipline of molecular systematics, the study of DNA as evidence that can reveal the evolutionary history and relationships of plant species  Staff scientists also study plant use in immigrant communities in New York City and the genetic mechanisms by which neurotoxins are produced in some plants, work that may be related to nerve disease in humans 
A staff of 200 trains 42 doctoral students at a time  Since the 1890s, scientists from the NYBG have mounted about 2,000 exploratory missions worldwide to collect plants in the wild 
At the Pfizer Plant Research Laboratory, genomic DNA from many different species of plants is extracted to create a library of the DNA of the world's plants  This collection is stored in a 768-square-foot (71 3 m2) DNA storage room with 20 freezers housing millions of specimens, including rare, endangered or extinct species  To protect the collection during winter power outages, there is a backup 300-kilowatt electric generator 
The Alfred P  Sloan Foundation has granted the NYBG $572,000 to begin a project called TreeBOL, the Tree Barcode of Life  By sampling the DNA from all 100,000 different species of trees from around the world, TreeBOL will document the diversity of plant life, and advance the process of plant DNA barcoding 

LuEsther T  Mertz Library
Founded in 1899 and named after supporter LuEsther Mertz, the LuEsther T  Mertz Library is located in the northern section of NYBG  A 2002 New York Times article mentioned that the library had 775,000 items and 6 5 million plant specimens in its collection  However, a book published in 2014 by the NYBG mentioned that the library had "550,000 physical volumes and 1,800 journal titles"  As of 2016 the Mertz Library still contained one of the world's largest collections of botany-related texts  Stephen Sinon, who leads the NYBG's special collections, research and archives, called its collection "the largest of its kind in the world under one roof" The library is housed in what was formerly known as the NYBG's Museum Building or Administration Building  Construction started in 1897 and it was completed in 1900  The structure was designed by Robert W  Gibson in the Renaissance Revival style : 1

Enid A  Haupt Conservatory
The Enid A  Haupt Conservatory, named after Enid A  Haupt, is a greenhouse near the western end of the NYBG  The conservatory was designed by the major greenhouse company of the late 1890s, Lord and Burnham Co  The design was modeled after the Palm House at the Royal Botanic Garden and Joseph Paxton's Crystal Palace in Italian Renaissance style  Groundbreaking took place on January 3, 1899, and the conservatory was completed in 1902 at a cost of $177,000  The building was constructed by John R  Sheehan under contract for the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation  Since the original construction, major renovations took place in 1935, 1950, 1978, and 1993 The conservatory houses numerous tropical plants and flowers, cacti and other desert plants, and rainforest vegetation  In summer months, the two pools adjacent to the conservatory display many varieties of lotuses and water lilies 

William & Lynda Steere Herbarium
The William & Lynda Steere Herbarium, in the International Plant Science Center behind the library, is one of the largest herbaria in the world, with approximately 7 2 million to 7 8 million specimens  after the French National Museum of Natural History in Paris  Founded in 1891, the herbarium quickly became a repository for many important collections  In 1895 the garden incorporated the herbarium of Columbia College, an acquisition of approximately 600,000 specimens, including the private herbaria of John Torrey and C  F  Meisner  In 1945 the garden incorporated the herbaria of the Columbia College of Pharmacy and Princeton University   The herbarium is named after William Steere (son of William C  Steere) and his wife Lynda, who endowed the herbarium in 2002 The Index Herbariorum code assigned to this botanic garden is NY and it is used when citing housed specimens 

School of Professional Horticulture
In 1932, Thomas H  Everett expanded an existing training program into a robust curriculum for developing professional horticulturists   Patterned after diploma programs at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, the School for Gardeners combined academic studies with hands-on practical experience in a two-year, full-time program  With the exception of a hiatus during and after the Second World War, the School has trained students since then  Now called the School of Professional Horticulture, this fully-accredited program continues to develop horticulturists of the highest caliber for positions in both public and private gardens  After successfully completing the program, students receive The New York Botanical Garden's Diploma in Horticulture 

Exhibitions
The New York Botanical Garden has mounted public exhibitions throughout its history  In 1992, NYBG began presenting what would eventually be called the Holiday Train Show, an annual exhibition of model trains running through a display of New York landmarks made of natural materials  In 2002, it introduced The Orchid Show, an annual exhibition of orchid displays and designed installations with changing themes  Beginning in 2007, the Garden added an annual fall exhibition of kiku, Japanese chrysanthemums trained to grow in modern and ancient forms The New York Botanical Garden has also presented large-scale, stand-alone exhibitions, including: Sculpture from the Museum of Modern Art at The New York Botanical Garden (2002), Chihuly at The New York Botanical Garden (2006), Darwin's Garden: An Evolutionary Adventure (2008), Moore in America: Monumental Sculpture at The New York Botanical Garden (2008–2009), Emily Dickinson's Garden: The Poetry of Flowers (2010), Spanish Paradise: Gardens of the Alhambra (2011), Monet's Garden (2012), Manolo Valdés: Monumental Sculpture (2012), Frida Kahlo: Art, Garden, Life (2015), Impressionism: American Gardens on Canvas (2016), CHIHULY (2017), Georgia O'Keeffe: Visions of Hawai'i (2018), Brazilian Modern: The Living Art of Roberto Burle Marx (2019), and KUSAMA: Cosmic Nature (2021) 

Executive leadership
Dr  Nathaniel Lord Britton (1891–1929)
Elmer D  Merrill (1930–1935)
Dr  Marshall A  Howe (1935–1936)
Dr  Henry A  Gleason (acting, 1937–1938)
Dr  William J  Robbins (1938–1958)
Dr  William C  Steere (1958–1972)
Dr  Howard S  Irwin (1973–1979)
James M  Hester (1980–1989)
Gregory Long (1989–2018)
Dr  Carrie Rebora Barratt (2018–2020)
Jennifer Bernstein (2021–Present)

Publications
The NYBG published The Garden Journal (ISSN 0016-4585) from 1977 to 1990 and from 1931 has produced the scientific journal, Brittonia 

Landmark status
The New York Botanical Garden was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1967  In addition, three structures are designated as individual New York City landmarks: the Enid A  Haupt Conservatory (designated in 1973),: 1  the LuEsther T  Mertz Library (2009),: 1  and the Lorillard Snuff Mill (1966, also separately on the National Register of Historic Places) 

See also
Education in New York City
List of herbaria in North America
List of botanical gardens and arboretums in New York
List of museums and cultural institutions in New York City
List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City
National Register of Historic Places listings in Bronx County, New York
Other botanical gardens in New York City
Brooklyn Botanic Garden
Queens Botanical Garden
Staten Island Botanical Garden
Passage 9:
ACS Macro Letters
ACS Macro Letters is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the American Chemical Society  As of 2017, ACS Macro Letters has the highest impact factor of any journal in the field of polymer science (6 131)  With the launch of ACS Macro Letters, all Communications to the Editor that were formerly published in Macromolecules will be published as Letters in ACS Macro Letters  Researchers are advised turn to ACS Macro Letters for reports of early, urgent results in polymer science and to Macromolecules for more detailed discussions of comprehensive research findings 

Scope
Examining both synthetic and naturally occurring polymers, ACS Macro Letters reports major advances in polymer synthesis, modification reactions, characteristics, theory, simulation, surface properties, and kinetics and mechanisms   The journal reports on all areas of soft matter science where macromolecules play a key role, including nanotechnology, self-assembly, supramolecular chemistry, biomaterials, energy, and sustainable materials 

Readership
ACS Macro Letters is intended for researchers in polymer science as well as materials science, nanotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and energy   The journal makes it possible for these researchers to stay abreast of the most urgent research results in polymer science and its related disciplines 

Types of Articles
ACS Macro Letters publishes peer-reviewed…

Letters: Short reports of original research focused on an individual finding of great significance to the field of polymer science 
Viewpoints: In-depth examinations and perspective on topics of current interest to researchers in the field 

Editor-in-Chief
Timothy P  Lodge served as the Founding Editor-in-Chief of ACS Macro Letters (2011–2017)  In 2018, Lodge was succeeded by Stuart J  Rowan, who was formerly the Deputy Editor 

Submissions
ACS Macro Letters enables researchers in the field to bring their important findings in polymer science and related disciplines to the attention of the global scientific community   Manuscripts are typically published within four to six weeks of manuscript submission   The journal encourages submissions and publishes Letters from around the world 

See also
Biomacromolecules
Macromolecules



ground_truth: 1909

prompt_front: Answer the question based on the given passages. Only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Gary L. Bennett was a part of the space missions that have a primary destination of what celestial body?

The following are given passages.
Context 3: Passage 1:
Gary L  Bennett
Gary L  Bennett (born January 17, 1940) is an American scientist and engineer, specializing in aerospace and energy   He has worked for NASA and the US Department of Energy (DOE) on advanced space power systems and advanced space propulsion systems   His professional career has included work on the Voyager, Galileo, and Ulysses space missions, and is currently working as a consultant in aerospace power and propulsion systems  He is also a science fiction author (The Star Sailors) 

Biography
Bennett was born in Twin Falls, Idaho  He joined the NASA headquarters in June 1988 as the Manager of Advanced Space Power Systems in the transportation division of the Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology  There, he managed a number of transportation technology programs including hybrid propulsion, electric propulsion, low-thrust chemical propulsion, and other advanced propulsion concepts (e g , fusion, antimatter)  He was also the first program manager of the advanced technology insertion program for the Pluto Fast Flyby (now New Horizons) mission and the TIMED space physics mission 
Prior to coming to NASA, Bennett held key positions in DoE's space radioisotope power program, including serving as Director of Safety and Nuclear Operations for the radioisotope power sources that were used on the Galileo mission to Jupiter and that are being used on the Ulysses mission to explore the polar regions of the Sun   This same radioisotope power source design was then flown on the Cassini mission to Saturn and on the New Horizons mission to Jupiter 
Previous positions included Chief of the Research Support Branch in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) where Bennett was instrumental in creating and managing NRC's reactor operational safety research program 
Bennett was the flight safety manager for the radioisotope power sources currently in use on the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft (which went to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and beyond) and on Lincoln Laboratory's LES 8 and LES 9 communications satellites 
Bennett also worked as a physicist in the NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications) program at what was then NASA's Lewis Research Center (now the John H  Glenn Research Center) in Cleveland, Ohio   He did fundamental reactor safety research at what is now the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 
From 1980 to 1988, he was a member of or adviser to US delegations to the two subcommittees of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and he prepared the official US position papers on the use of nuclear power sources in outer space 
From 1988 to 1990, Bennett chaired the Steering Group of the Interagency Advanced Power Group (IAPG), the national coordinating group for federally sponsored space and terrestrial power research   During his tenure and under his initiative the IAPG saw its greatest increase in membership 
Bennett received his PhD in physics from Washington State University in 1970; a Master of Nuclear Science degree in 1966, and a BSc degree in physics from the University of Idaho in 1962; and an Associate of Arts degree from Boise Junior College (now Boise State University) in 1960 
Since 1995, he has been active in promoting the teaching of science (specifically evolution) and received the Friend of Darwin Award  Bennett has also been a champion of the First Amendment and was elected to the National Advisory Council of Americans United for Separation of Church and State 

Selected works
Bennett has authored or coauthored over 160 technical papers, reports and articles on power, propulsion, and space missions 
Science fiction

G L  Bennett (1980)  The Star Sailors  ISBN 978-0-312-75582-9 Chapters in:

M S  El-Genk (1997)  A Critical Review of Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion, 1984-1993  ISBN 978-1-56396-317-9 
D M  Rowe (1995)  CRC Handbook of Thermoelectrics  ISBN 978-0-8493-0146-9 
R A  Meyers (2001)  Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology (3rd ed )  ISBN 978-0-12-227410-7 

Awards
In 2000, he received the Friend of Darwin Award by the National Center for Science Education
In 1996, he received the Schreiber-Spence Space Achievement Award for his leadership of the safety and nuclear operations for the Galileo and Ulysses radioisotope power source programs 
In 1995, he shared in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Aerospace Power Systems Award and Medal for his leadership of the Ulysses radioisotope power source program 
In 1994, he received the Silver & Gold Award from the University of Idaho Alumni Association
In 1990, he received the Distinguished Alumnus Award from Boise State University

Associations
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (fellow)
American Physical Society (fellow)
British Interplanetary Society (fellow)
Passage 2:
Planetary protection
Planetary protection is a guiding principle in the design of an interplanetary mission, aiming to prevent biological contamination of both the target celestial body and the Earth in the case of sample-return missions  Planetary protection reflects both the unknown nature of the space environment and the desire of the scientific community to preserve the pristine nature of celestial bodies until they can be studied in detail There are two types of interplanetary contamination  Forward contamination is the transfer of viable organisms from Earth to another celestial body   Back contamination is the transfer of extraterrestrial organisms, if they exist, back to the Earth's biosphere 

History
The potential problem of lunar and planetary contamination was first raised at the International Astronautical Federation VIIth Congress in Rome in 1956 In 1958 the U S  National Academy of Sciences (NAS) passed a resolution stating, “The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America urges that scientists plan lunar and planetary studies with great care and deep concern so that initial operations do not compromise and make impossible forever after critical scientific experiments ” This led to creation of the ad hoc Committee on Contamination by Extraterrestrial Exploration (CETEX), which met for a year and recommended that interplanetary spacecraft be sterilized, and stated, “The need for sterilization is only temporary  Mars and possibly Venus need to remain uncontaminated only until study by manned ships becomes possible” In 1959, planetary protection was transferred to the newly formed Committee on Space Research (COSPAR)  COSPAR in 1964 issued Resolution 26 affirming that:

the search for extraterrestrial life is an important objective of space research, that the planet of Mars may offer the only feasible opportunity to conduct this search during the foreseeable future, that contamination of this planet would make such a search far more difficult and possibly even prevent for all time an unequivocal result, that all practical steps should be taken to ensure that Mars be not biologically contaminated until such time as this search has been satisfactorily carried out, and that cooperation in proper scheduling of experiments and use of adequate spacecraft sterilization techniques is required on the part of all deep space probe launching authorities to avoid such contamination 
In 1967, the US, USSR, and UK ratified the United Nations Outer Space Treaty   The legal basis for planetary protection lies in Article IX of this treaty:
"Article IX:     States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose    
This treaty has since been signed and ratified by 104 nation-states  Another 24 have signed but not ratified   All the current space-faring nation-states, along with all current aspiring space-faring nation-states, have both signed and ratified the treaty The Outer Space Treaty has consistent and widespread international support, and as a result of this, together with the fact that it is based on the 1963 declaration which was adopted by consensus in the UN National Assembly, it has taken on the status of customary international law  The provisions of the Outer Space Treaty are therefore binding on all states, even those who have neither signed nor ratified it For forward contamination, the phrase to be interpreted is "harmful contamination"   Two legal reviews came to differing interpretations of this clause (both reviews were unofficial)  However the currently accepted interpretation is that “any contamination which would result in harm to a state’s experiments or programs is to be avoided”  NASA policy states explicitly that “the conduct of scientific investigations of possible extraterrestrial life forms, precursors, and remnants must not be jeopardized” 

COSPAR recommendations and categories
The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) meets every two years, in a gathering of 2000 to 3000 scientists, and one of its tasks is to develop recommendations for avoiding interplanetary contamination  Its legal basis is Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty  (see history below for details) 
Its recommendations depend on the type of space mission and the celestial body explored   COSPAR categorizes the missions into 5 groups:

Category I: Any mission to locations not of direct interest for chemical evolution or the origin of life, such as the  Sun or Mercury  No planetary protection requirements 
Category II: Any mission to locations of significant interest for chemical evolution and the origin of life, but only a remote chance that spacecraft-borne contamination could compromise investigations  Examples include the Moon, Venus, and comets  Requires simple documentation only, primarily to outline intended or potential impact targets, and an end of mission report of any inadvertent impact site if such occurred 
Category III: Flyby and orbiter missions to locations of significant interest for chemical evolution or the origin of life, and with a significant chance that contamination could compromise investigations e g , Mars, Europa, Enceladus  Requires more involved documentation than Category II  Other requirements, depending on the mission, may include trajectory biasing, clean room assembly, bioburden reduction, and if impact is a possibility, inventory of organics 
Category IV: Lander or probe missions to the same locations as Category III  Measures to be applied depend on the target body and the planned operations  "Sterilization of the entire spacecraft may be required for landers and rovers with life-detection experiments, and for those landing in or moving to a region where terrestrial microorganisms may survive and grow, or where indigenous life may be present  For other landers and rovers, the requirements would be for decontamination and partial sterilization of the landed hardware "Missions to Mars in category IV are subclassified further:Category IVa  Landers that do not search for Martian life - uses the Viking lander pre-sterilization requirements, a maximum of 300,000 spores per spacecraft and 300 spores per square meter 
Category IVb  Landers that search for Martian life   Adds stringent extra requirements to prevent contamination of samples 
Category IVc  Any component that accesses a Martian special region (see below) must be sterilized to at least to the Viking post-sterilization biological burden levels of 30 spores total per spacecraft Category V: This is further divided into unrestricted and restricted sample return Unrestricted Category V: samples from locations judged by scientific opinion to have no indigenous lifeforms  No special requirements 
Restricted Category V: (where scientific opinion is unsure) the requirements include: absolute prohibition of destructive impact upon return, containment of all returned hardware which directly contacted the target body, and containment of any unsterilized sample returned to Earth For Category IV missions, a certain level of biological burden is allowed for the mission  In general this is expressed as a 'probability of contamination', required to be less than one chance in 10,000 of forward contamination per mission, but in the case of Mars Category IV missions (above) the requirement has been translated into a count of Bacillus spores per surface area, as an easy to use assay method More extensive documentation is also required for Category IV  Other procedures required, depending on the mission, may include trajectory biasing, the use of clean rooms during spacecraft assembly and testing, bioload reduction, partial sterilization of the hardware having direct contact with the target body, a bioshield for that hardware, and, in rare cases, complete sterilization of the entire spacecraft For restricted Category V missions, the current recommendation is that no uncontained samples should be returned unless sterilized  Since sterilization of the returned samples would destroy much of their science value, current proposals involve containment and quarantine procedures  For details, see Containment and quarantine below  Category V missions also have to fulfill the requirements of Category IV to protect the target body from forward contamination 

Mars special regions
A special region is a region classified by COSPAR where terrestrial organisms could readily propagate, or thought to have a high potential for existence of Martian life forms  This is understood to apply to any region on Mars where liquid water occurs, or can occasionally occur, based on the current understanding of requirements for life 
If a hard landing risks biological contamination of a special region, then the whole lander system must be sterilized to COSPAR category IVc 

Target categories
Some targets are easily categorized  Others are assigned provisional categories by COSPAR, pending future discoveries and research 
The 2009 COSPAR Workshop on Planetary Protection for Outer Planet Satellites and Small Solar System Bodies covered this in some detail  Most of these assessments are from that report, with some future refinements  This workshop also gave more precise definitions for some of the categories:

Category I
“not of direct interest for understanding the process of chemical evolution or the origin of life ” 
Io, Sun, Mercury, undifferentiated metamorphosed asteroids

Category II
… where there is only a remote chance that contamination carried by a spacecraft could jeopardize future exploration”  In this case we define “remote chance” as “the absence of niches (places where terrestrial microorganisms could proliferate) and/or a very low likelihood of transfer to those places ” 
Callisto, comets, asteroids of category P, D, and C, Venus, Kuiper belt objects (KBO) < 1/2 size of Pluto 

Provisional Category II
Ganymede, Titan, Triton, the Pluto–Charon system, and other large KBOs (> 1/2 size of Pluto), CeresProvisionally, they assigned these objects to Category II  However, they state that more research is needed, because there is a remote possibility that the tidal interactions of Pluto and Charon could maintain some water reservoir below the surface  Similar considerations apply to the other larger KBOs 
Triton is insufficiently well understood at present to say it is definitely devoid of liquid water  The only close up observations to date are those of Voyager 2 
In a detailed discussion of Titan, scientists concluded that there was no danger of contamination of its surface, except short term adding of negligible amounts of organics, but Titan could have a below surface water reservoir that communicates with the surface, and if so, this could be contaminated 
In the case of Ganymede, the question is, given that its surface shows pervasive signs of resurfacing, is there any communication with its subsurface ocean? They found no known mechanism by which this could happen, and the Galileo spacecraft found no evidence of cryovolcanism  Initially, they assigned it as Priority B minus, meaning that precursor missions are needed to assess its category before any surface missions  However, after further discussion they provisionally assigned it to Category II, so no precursor missions are required, depending on future research 
If there is cryovolcanism on Ganymede or Titan, the undersurface reservoir is thought to be 50 – 150 km below the surface  They were unable to find a process that could transfer the surface melted water back down through 50 km of ice to the under surface sea  This is why both Ganymede and Titan were assigned a reasonably firm provisional Category II, but pending results of future research 
Icy bodies that show signs of recent resurfacing need further discussion and might need to be assigned to a new category depending on future research  This approach has been applied, for instance, to missions to Ceres  The planetary protection Category is subject for review during the mission of the Ceres orbiter (Dawn) depending on the results found 

Category III / IV
“…where there is a significant chance that contamination carried by a spacecraft could jeopardize future exploration ” We define “significant chance” as “the presence of niches (places where terrestrial microorganisms could proliferate) and the likelihood of transfer to those places ” 
Mars because of possible subsurface habitats 
Europa because of its subsurface ocean 
Enceladus because of evidence of water plumes 

Category V
Unrestricted Category V: “Earth-return missions from bodies deemed by scientific opinion to have no indigenous life forms ”
Restricted Category V: "Earth-return missions from bodies deemed by scientific opinion to be of significant interest to the process of chemical evolution or the origin of life "
In the category V for sample return the conclusions so far are:
Unrestricted Category V: Venus, the Moon 
Restricted Category V: Mars, Europa, Enceladus 

The Coleman–Sagan equation
The aim of the current regulations is to keep the number of microorganisms low enough so that the probability of contamination of Mars (and other targets) is acceptable  It is not an objective to make the probability of contamination zero 
The aim is to keep the probability of contamination of 1 chance in 10,000 of contamination per mission flown  This figure is obtained typically by multiplying together the number of microorganisms on the spacecraft, the probability of growth on the target body, and a series of bioload reduction factors 
In detail the method used is the Coleman–Sagan equation 
  
    
      
        P
        
          c
        
      
      =
      
        N
        
          0
        
      
      R
      
        P
        
          S
        
      
      
        P
        
          t
        
      
      
        P
        
          R
        
      
      
        P
        
          g
        
      
    
    P_{c}=N_{0}RP_{S}P_{t}P_{R}P_{g}
   
where 

  
    
      N
      
        0
      
    
    N_{0}
   = the number of microorganisms on the spacecraft initially

  
    R
    R
   = Reduction due to conditions on spacecraft before and after launch

  
    
      P
      
        S
      
    
    P_{S}
   = Probability that microorganisms on the spacecraft reach the surface of the planet

  
    
      P
      
        t
      
    
    P_{t}
   = Probability that spacecraft will hit the planet - this is 1 for a lander

  
    
      P
      
        R
      
    
    P_{R}
   = Probability of microorganism to be released in the environment when on the ground, usually set to 1 for crashlanding 

  
    
      P
      
        g
      
    
    P_{g}
   = Probability of growth  For targets with liquid water this is set to 1 for sake of the calculation Then the requirement is 
  
    
      
        P
        
          c
        
      
      <
      
        10
        
          −
          4
        
      
    
    P_{c}<10^{-4}
  
The 
  
    
      10
      
        −
        4
      
    
    10^{-4}
   is a number chosen by Sagan et al , somewhat arbitrarily  Sagan and Coleman assumed that about 60 missions to the Mars surface would occur before the exobiology of Mars is thoroughly understood, 54 of those successful, and 30 flybys or orbiters, and the number was chosen to endure a probability to keep the planet free from contamination of at least 99 9% over the duration of the exploration period 

Critiques
The Coleman–Sagan equation has been criticised because the individual parameters are often not known to better than a magnitude or so  For example, the thickness of the surface ice of Europa is unknown, and may be thin in places, which can give rise to a high level of uncertainty in the equation  It has also been criticised because of the inherent assumption made of an end to the protection period and future human exploration  In the case of Europa, this would only protect it with reasonable probability for the duration of the period of exploration Greenberg has suggested an alternative, to use the natural contamination standard — that our missions to Europa should not have a higher chance of contaminating it than the chance of contamination by meteorites from Earth 
As long as the probability of people infecting other planets with terrestrial microbes is substantially smaller than the probability that such contamination happens naturally, exploration activities would, in our view, be doing no harm  We call this concept the natural contamination standard 
Another approach for Europa is the use of binary decision trees which is favoured by the Committee on Planetary Protection Standards for Icy Bodies in the Outer Solar System under the auspices of the Space Studies Board  This goes through a series of seven steps, leading to a final decision on whether to go ahead with the mission or not 
Recommendation: Approaches to achieving planetary protection should not rely on the multiplication of bioload estimates and probabilities to calculate the likelihood of contaminating Solar System bodies with terrestrial organisms unless scientific data unequivocally define the values, statistical variation, and mutual independence of every factor used in the equation Recommendation: Approaches to achieving planetary protection for missions to icy Solar System bodies should employ a series of binary decisions that consider one factor at a time to determine the appropriate level of planetary protection procedures to use 

Containment and quarantine for restricted Category V sample return
In the case of restricted Category V missions, Earth would be protected through quarantine of sample and astronauts in a yet to be built Biosafety level 4 facility  In the case of a Mars sample return, missions would be designed so that no part of the capsule that encounters the Mars surface is exposed to the Earth environment  One way to do that is to enclose the sample container within a larger outer container from Earth, in the vacuum of space  The integrity of any seals is essential and the system must also be monitored to check for the possibility of micro-meteorite damage during return to Earth The recommendation of the ESF report is that
“No uncontained Mars materials, including space craft surfaces that have been exposed to the Mars environment should be returned to Earth unless sterilised"   "For unsterilised samples returned to Earth, a programme of life detection and biohazard testing, or a proven sterilisation process, shall be undertaken as an absolute precondition for the controlled distribution of any portion of the sample ”
No restricted category V returns have been carried out  During the Apollo program, the sample-returns were regulated through the Extra-Terrestrial Exposure Law  This was rescinded in 1991, so new regulations would need to be enacted  The Apollo era quarantine procedures are of interest as the only attempt to date of a return to Earth of a sample that, at the time, was thought to have a remote possibility of including extraterrestrial life 
Samples and astronauts were quarantined in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory  The methods used would be considered inadequate for containment by modern standards  Also the lunar receiving laboratory would be judged a failure by its own design criteria as the sample return didn't contain the lunar material, with two failure points during the Apollo 11 return mission, at the splashdown and at the facility itself 
However the Lunar Receiving Laboratory was built quickly with only two years from start to finish, a time period now considered inadequate  Lessons learned from it can help with design of any Mars sample return receiving facility Design criteria for a proposed Mars Sample Return Facility, and for the return mission, have been developed by the American National Research Council, and the European Space Foundation  They concluded that it could be based on biohazard 4 containment but with more stringent requirements to contain unknown microorganisms possibly as small as or smaller than the smallest Earth microorganisms known, the ultramicrobacteria  The ESF study also recommended that it should be designed to contain the smaller gene transfer agents if possible, as these could potentially transfer DNA from martian microorganisms to terrestrial microorganisms if they have a shared evolutionary ancestry  It also needs to double as a clean room facility to protect the samples from terrestrial contamination that could confuse the sensitive life detection tests that would be used on the samples 
Before a sample return, new quarantine laws would be required  Environmental assessment would also be required, and various other domestic and international laws not present during the Apollo era would need to be negotiated 

Decontamination procedures
For all spacecraft missions requiring decontamination, the starting point is clean room assembly in US federal standard class 100 cleanrooms  These are rooms with fewer than 100 particles of size 0 5 µm or larger per cubic foot  Engineers wear cleanroom suits with only their eyes exposed  Components are sterilized individually before assembly, as far as possible, and they clean surfaces frequently with alcohol wipes during assembly  Spores of Bacillus subtilis was chosen for not only its ability to readily generate spores, but its well-established use as a model species  It is a useful tracker of UV irradiation effects because of its high resilience to a variety of extreme conditions  As such it is an important indicator species for forward contamination in the context of planetary protection 
For Category IVa missions (Mars landers that do not search for Martian life), the aim is to reduce the bioburden to 300,000 bacterial spores on any surface from which the spores could get into the Martian environment  Any heat tolerant components are heat sterilized to 114 °C  Sensitive electronics such as the core box of the rover including the computer, are sealed and vented through high-efficiency filters to keep any microbes inside For more sensitive missions such as Category IVc (to Mars special regions), a far higher level of sterilization is required  These need to be similar to levels implemented on the Viking landers, which were sterilized for a surface which, at the time, was thought to be potentially hospitable to life similar to special regions on Mars today 
In microbiology, it is usually impossible to prove that there are no microorganisms left viable, since many microorganisms are either not yet studied, or not cultivable  Instead, sterilization is done using a series of tenfold reductions of the numbers of microorganisms present  After a sufficient number of tenfold reductions, the chance that there any microorganisms left will be extremely low The two Viking Mars landers were sterilized using dry heat sterilization   After preliminary cleaning to reduce the bioburden to levels similar to present day Category IVa spacecraft, the Viking spacecraft were heat-treated for 30 hours at 112 °C, nominal 125 °C (five hours at 112 °C was considered enough to reduce the population tenfold even for enclosed parts of the spacecraft, so this was enough for a million-fold reduction of the originally low population) Modern materials however are often not designed to handle such temperatures, especially since modern spacecraft often use "commercial off the shelf" components  Problems encountered include nanoscale features only a few atoms thick, plastic packaging, and conductive epoxy attachment methods  Also many instrument sensors cannot be exposed to high temperature, and high temperature can interfere with critical alignments of instruments As a result, new methods are needed to sterilize a modern spacecraft to the higher categories such as Category IVc for Mars, similar to Viking  Methods under evaluation, or already approved, include:

Vapour phase hydrogen peroxide - effective, but can affect finishes, lubricants and materials that use aromatic rings and sulfur bonds  This has been established, reviewed, and a NASA/ESA specification for use of VHP has been approved by the Planetary Protection Officer, but it has not yet been formally published 
Ethylene oxide - this is widely used in the medical industry, and can be used for materials not compatible with hydrogen peroxide  It is under consideration for missions such as ExoMars 
Gamma radiation and electron beams have been suggested as a method of sterilization, as they are used extensively in the medical industry  They need to be tested for compatibility with spacecraft materials and hardware geometries, and are not yet ready for review Some other methods are of interest as they can sterilize the spacecraft after arrival on the planet 
Supercritical carbon dioxide snow (Mars) - is most effective against traces of organic compounds rather than whole microorganisms  Has the advantage though that it eliminates the organic traces - while other methods kill the microorganisms, they leave organic traces that can confuse life detection instruments  Is under study by JPL and ESA 
Passive sterilization through UV radiation (Mars)  Highly effective against many microorganisms, but not all, as a Bacillus strain found in spacecraft assembly facilities is particularly resistant to UV radiation  Is also complicated by possible shadowing by dust and spacecraft hardware 
Passive sterilization through particle fluxes (Europa)  Plans for missions to Europa take credit for reductions due to this 

Bioburden detection and assessment
The spore count is used as an indirect measure of the number of microorganisms present  Typically 99% of microorganisms by species will be non-spore forming and able to survive in dormant states, and so the actual number of viable dormant microorganisms remaining on the sterilized spacecraft is expected to be many times the number of spore-forming microorganisms 
One new spore method approved is the "Rapid Spore Assay"  This is based on commercial rapid assay systems, detects spores directly and not just viable microorganisms and gives results in 5 hours instead of 72 hours 

Challenges
It is also long been recognized that spacecraft cleaning rooms harbour polyextremophiles as the only microbes able to survive in them  For example, in a recent study, microbes from swabs of the Curiosity rover were subjected to desiccation, UV exposure, cold and pH extremes  Nearly 11% of the 377 strains survived more than one of these severe conditions  The genomes of resistant spore producing Bacillus sp  have been studied and genome level traits potentially linked to the resistance have been reported This does not mean that these microbes have contaminated Mars  This is just the first stage of the process of bioburden reduction  To contaminate Mars they also have to survive the low temperature, vacuum, UV and ionizing radiation during the months long journey to Mars, and then have to encounter a habitat on Mars and start reproducing there  Whether this has happened or not is a matter of probability  The aim of planetary protection is to make this probability as low as possible  The currently accepted target probability of contamination per mission is to reduce it to less than 0 01%, though in the special case of Mars, scientists also rely on the hostile conditions on Mars to take the place of the final stage of heat treatment decimal reduction used for Viking  But with current technology scientists cannot reduce probabilities to zero 

New methods
Two recent molecular methods have been approved for assessment of microbial contamination on 
spacecraft surfaces 
Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) detection - this is a key element in cellular metabolism  This method is able to detect non cultivable organisms  It can also be triggered by non viable biological material so can give a "false positive" 
Limulus Amebocyte Lysate assay - detects lipopolysaccharides (LPS)  This compound is only present in Gram-negative bacteria  The standard assay analyses spores from microbes that are primarily Gram-positive, making it difficult to relate the two methods 

Impact prevention
This particularly applies to orbital missions, Category III, as they are sterilized to a lower standard than missions to the surface  It is also relevant to landers, as an impact gives more opportunity for forward contamination, and impact could be on an unplanned target, such as a special region on Mars 
The requirement for an orbital mission is that it needs to remain in orbit for at least 20 years after arrival at Mars with probability of at least 99% and for 50 years with probability at least 95%  This requirement can be dropped if the mission is sterilized to Viking sterilization standard In the Viking era (1970s), the requirement was given as a single figure, that any orbital mission should have a probability of less than 0 003% probability of impact during the current exploratory phase of exploration of Mars For both landers and orbiters, the technique of trajectory biasing is used during approach to the target  The spacecraft trajectory is designed so that if communications are lost, it will miss the target 

Issues with impact prevention
Despite these measures there has been one notable failure of impact prevention  The Mars Climate Orbiter which was sterilized only to Category III, crashed on Mars in 1999 due to a mix-up of imperial and metric units  The office of planetary protection stated that it is likely that it burnt up in the atmosphere, but if it survived to the ground, then it could cause forward contamination Mars Observer is another Category III mission with potential planetary contamination  Communications were lost three days before its orbital insertion maneuver in 1993  It seems most likely it did not succeed in entering into orbit around Mars and simply continued past on a heliocentric orbit  If it did succeed in following its automatic programming, and attempted the manoeuvre, however, there is a chance it crashed on Mars Three landers have had hard landings on Mars   These are Schiaparelli EDM lander, the Mars Polar Lander, and Deep Space 2  These were all sterilized for surface missions but not for special regions (Viking pre-sterilization only)  Mars Polar Lander, and Deep Space 2 crashed into the polar regions which are now treated as special regions because of the possibility of forming liquid brines 

Controversies
Meteorite argument
Alberto G  Fairén and Dirk Schulze-Makuch published an article in Nature recommending that planetary protection measures need to be scaled down  They gave as their main reason for this, that exchange of meteorites between Earth and Mars means that any life on Earth that could survive on Mars has already got there and vice versa Robert Zubrin used similar arguments in favour of his view that the back contamination risk has no scientific validity 

Rebuttal by NRC
The meteorite argument was examined by the NRC in the context of back contamination  It is thought that all the Martian meteorites originate in relatively few impacts every few million years on Mars  The impactors would be kilometers in diameter and the craters they form on Mars tens of kilometers in diameter  Models of impacts on Mars are consistent with these findings Earth receives a steady stream of meteorites from Mars, but they come from relatively few original impactors, and transfer was more likely in the early Solar System  Also some life forms viable on both Mars and on Earth might be unable to survive transfer on a meteorite, and there is so far no direct evidence of any transfer of life from Mars to Earth in this way 
The NRC concluded that though transfer is possible, the evidence from meteorite exchange does not eliminate the need for back contamination protection methods Impacts on Earth able to send microorganisms to Mars are also infrequent  Impactors of 10 km across or larger can send debris to Mars through the Earth's atmosphere but these occur rarely, and were more common in the early Solar System 

Proposal to end planetary protection for Mars
In their 2013 paper "The Over Protection of Mars", Alberto Fairén and Dirk Schulze-Makuch suggested that we no longer need to protect Mars, essentially using Zubrin's meteorite transfer argument  This was rebutted in a follow up article "Appropriate Protection of Mars", in Nature by the current and previous planetary protection officers Catharine Conley and John Rummel 

Critique of Category V containment measures
The scientific consensus is that the potential for large-scale effects, either through pathogenesis or ecological disruption, is extremely small  Nevertheless, returned samples from Mars will be treated as potentially biohazardous until scientists can determine that the returned samples are safe  The goal is to reduce the probability of release of a Mars particle to less than one in a million 

Policy proposals
Non-biological contamination
A COSPAR workshop in 2010, looked at issues to do with protecting areas from non biological contamination  They recommended that COSPAR expand its remit to include such issues  Recommendations of the workshop include:

Recommendation 3 COSPAR should add a separate and parallel policy to provide guidance on requirements/best practices for protection of non-living/nonlife-related aspects of Outer Space and celestial bodies
Some ideas proposed include protected special regions, or "Planetary Parks" to keep regions of the Solar System pristine for future scientific investigation, and also for ethical reasons 

Proposed extensions
Astrobiologist Christopher McKay has argued that until we have better understanding of Mars, our explorations should be biologically reversible  For instance if all the microorganisms introduced to Mars so far remain dormant within the spacecraft, they could in principle be removed in the future, leaving Mars completely free of contamination from modern Earth lifeforms 
In the 2010 workshop one of the recommendations for future consideration was to extend the period for contamination prevention to the maximum viable lifetime of dormant microorganisms introduced to the planet 

"'Recommendation 4 ' COSPAR should consider that the appropriate protection of potential indigenous extraterrestrial life shall include avoiding the harmful contamination of any habitable environment —whether extant or foreseeable— within the maximum potential time of viability of any terrestrial organisms (including microbial spores) that may be introduced into that environment by human or robotic activity "
In the case of Europa, a similar idea has been suggested, that it is not enough to keep it free from contamination during our current exploration period  It might be that Europa is of sufficient scientific interest that the human race has a duty to keep it pristine for future generations to study as well  This was the majority view of the 2000 task force examining Europa, though there was a minority view of the same task force that such strong protection measures are not required 

"One consequence of this view is that Europa must be protected from contamination for an open-ended period, until it can be demonstrated that no ocean exists or that no organisms are present  Thus, we need to be concerned that over a time scale on the order of 10 million to 100 million years (an approximate age for the surface of Europa), any contaminating material is likely to be carried into the deep ice crust or into the underlying ocean "
In July 2018, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a Review and Assessment of Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes  In part, the report urges NASA to create a broad strategic plan that covers both forward and back contamination  The report also expresses concern about private industry missions, for which there is no governmental regulatory authority 

Protecting objects beyond the Solar System
The proposal by the German physicist Claudius Gros, that the technology of the Breakthrough Starshot project may be utilized to establish a biosphere of unicellular organisms on otherwise only transiently habitable exoplanets, has sparked a discussion, to what extent planetary protection should be extended to exoplanets  Gros argues that the extended timescales of
interstellar missions imply that planetary and exoplanetary protection have different ethical groundings 

See also
Astrobiology – Science concerned with life in the universe
ExoMars – Astrobiology programme
List of microorganisms tested in outer space
Mars 2020 – Astrobiology Mars rover mission by NASA
Panspermia – Hypothesis on the interstellar spreading of primordial life
Passage 3:
Transit (astronomy)
In astronomy, a transit (or astronomical transit) is a phenomenon when a celestial body passes directly between a larger body and the observer  As viewed from a particular vantage point, the transiting body appears to move across the face of the larger body, covering a small portion of it The word "transit" refers to cases where the nearer object appears smaller than the more distant object  Cases where the nearer object appears larger and completely hides the more distant object are known as occultations 
However, the probability of seeing a transiting planet is low because it is dependent on the alignment of the three objects in a nearly perfectly straight line  Many parameters of  a planet and its parent star can be determined based on the transit 

In the Solar System
One example of a transit involves the motion of a planet between a terrestrial observer and the Sun  This can happen only with inferior planets, namely Mercury and Venus (see transit of Mercury and transit of Venus)  However, because a transit is dependent on the point of observation, the Earth itself transits the Sun if observed from Mars  In the solar transit by the Moon captured during calibration of the STEREO B spacecraft's ultraviolet imaging, the Moon appears much smaller than it does when seen from Earth, because the spacecraft–Moon separation was several times greater than the Earth–Moon distance 
The term can also be used to describe the motion of a satellite across its parent planet, for instance one of the Galilean satellites (Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto) across Jupiter, as seen from Earth 
Although rare, cases where four bodies are lined up do happen  One of these events occurred on 27 June 1586, when Mercury transited the Sun as seen from Venus at the same time as a transit of Mercury from Saturn and a transit of Venus from Saturn 

Notable observations
No missions were planned to coincide with the transit of Earth visible from Mars on 11 May 1984 and the Viking missions had been terminated a year previously  Consequently, the next opportunity to observe such an alignment will be in 2084 
On 21 December 2012, the Cassini–Huygens probe, in orbit around Saturn, observed the planet Venus transiting the Sun On 3 June 2014, the Mars rover Curiosity observed the planet Mercury transiting the Sun, marking the first time a planetary transit has been observed from a celestial body besides Earth 

Mutual planetary transits
In rare cases, one planet can pass in front of another  If the nearer planet appears smaller than the more distant one, the event is called a mutual planetary transit 

Outside the Solar System
Exoplanet Detection

The transit method can be used to discover exoplanets  As a planet eclipses/transits its host star it will block a portion of the light from the star  If the planet transits in-between the star and the observer the change in light can be measured to construct a light curve  Light curves are measured with a charge-coupled device  The light curve of a star can disclose several physical characteristics of the planet and star, such as density  Multiple transit events must be measured to determine the characteristics which tend to occur at regular intervals  Multiple planets orbiting the same host star can cause transit-timing variations (TTV)  TTV is caused by the gravitational forces of all orbiting bodies acting upon each other  The probability of seeing a transit from Earth is low, however  The probability is given by the following equation 

  
    
      
        
          P
          
            transit
          
        
        =
        (
        
          R
          
            star
          
        
        +
        
          R
          
            planet
          
        
        )
        
          /
        
        a
        ,
      
    
    {\displaystyle P_{\text{transit}}=(R_{\text{star}}+R_{\text{planet}})/a,}
  where Rstar and Rplanet are the radius of the star and planet, respectively, and a is the semi-major axis  Because of the low probability of a transit in any specific system, large selections of the sky must be regularly observed in order to see a transit  Hot Jupiters are more likely to be seen because of their larger radius and short semi-major axis  In order to find Earth-sized planets, red dwarf stars are observed because of their small radius  Even though transiting has a low probability it has proven itself to be a good technique for discovering exoplanets 
In recent years, the discovery of extrasolar planets has prompted interest in the possibility of detecting their transits across their own stellar primaries  HD 209458b was the first such transiting planet to be detected 
The transit of celestial objects is one of the few key phenomena used today for the study of exoplanetary systems  Today, transit photometry is the leading form of exoplanet discovery  As an exoplanet moves in front of its host star there is a dimming in the luminosity of the host star that can be measured  Larger planets make the dip in luminosity more noticeable and easier to detect  Followup observations using other methods are often carried out to ensure it is a planet 
There are currently (December 2018) 2345 planets confirmed with Kepler light curves for stellar host 

Contacts
During a transit there are four "contacts", when the circumference of the small circle (small body disk) touches the circumference of the large circle (large body disk) at a single point   Historically, measuring the precise time of each point of contact was one of the most accurate ways to determine the positions of astronomical bodies   The contacts happen in the following order:

First contact: the smaller body is entirely outside the larger body, moving inward ("exterior ingress")
Second contact: the smaller body is entirely inside the larger body, moving further inward ("interior ingress")
Third contact: the smaller body is entirely inside the larger body, moving outward ("interior egress")
Fourth contact: the smaller body is entirely outside the larger body, moving outward ("exterior egress")A fifth named point is that of greatest transit, when the apparent centers of the two bodies are nearest to each other, halfway through the transit 

Missions
Since transit photometry allows for scanning large celestial areas with a simple procedure, it has been the most popular and successful form of finding exoplanets in the past decade and includes many projects, some of which have already been retired, others in use today, and some in progress of being planned and created  The most successful projects include HATNet, KELT, Kepler, and WASP, and some new and developmental stage missions such as TESS, HATPI, and others which can be found among the List of Exoplanet Search Projects 

HATNet
HATNet Project is a set of northern telescopes in Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory, Arizona and Mauna Kea Observatories, HI, and southern telescopes around the globe, in Africa, Australia, and South America, under the HATSouth branch of the project  These are small aperture telescopes, just like KELT, and look at a wide field which allows them to scan a large area of the sky for possible transiting planets  In addition, their multitude and spread around the world allows for 24/7 observation of the sky so that more short-period transits can be caught A third sub-project, HATPI, is currently under construction and will survey most of the night sky seen from its location in Chile 

KELT
KELT is a terrestrial telescope mission designed to search for transiting systems of planets of magnitude 8<M<10  It began operation in October 2004 in Winer Observatory and has a southern companion telescope added in 2009  KELT North observes "26-degree wide strip of sky that is overhead from North America during the year", while KELT South observes single target areas of the size 26 by 26 degrees  Both telescopes can detect and identify transit events as small as a 1% flux dip, which allows for detection of planetary systems similar to those in our planetary system 

Kepler / K2
The Kepler satellite served the Kepler mission between 7 March 2009 and 11 May 2013, where it observed one part of the sky in search of transiting planets within a 115 square degrees of the sky around the Cygnus, Lyra, and Draco constellations  After that, the satellite continued operating until 15 November 2018, this time changing its field along the ecliptic to a new area roughly every 75 days due to reaction wheel failure 

TESS
TESS was launched on 18 April 2018, and is planned to survey most of the sky by observing it strips defined along the right ascension lines for 27 days each  Each area surveyed is 27 by 90 degrees  Because of the positioning of sections, the area near TESS's rotational axis will be surveyed for up to 1 year, allowing for the identification of planetary systems with longer orbital periods 

See also
Eclipse
Kepler Mission
Occultation
Syzygy (astronomy)
Conjunction (astronomy)
Opposition (planets)
Transit of asteroids
Transit of Deimos from Mars
Transit of Phobos from Mars
Transit of Vulcan
Transit of Mercury from Mars
Transit of Earth from Mars
Passage 4:
Roche limit
In celestial mechanics, the Roche limit, also called Roche radius, is the distance from a celestial body within which a second celestial body, held together only by its own force of gravity, will disintegrate because the first body's tidal forces exceed the second body's self-gravitation  Inside the Roche limit, orbiting material disperses and forms rings, whereas outside the limit, material tends to coalesce  The Roche radius depends on the radius of the first body and on the ratio of the bodies' densities 
The term is named after Édouard Roche (French: [ʁɔʃ], English:  ROSH), the French astronomer who first calculated this theoretical limit in 1848 

Explanation
The Roche limit typically applies to a satellite's disintegrating due to tidal forces induced by its primary, the body around which it orbits  Parts of the satellite that are closer to the primary are attracted more strongly by gravity from the primary than parts that are farther away; this disparity effectively pulls the near and far parts of the satellite apart from each other, and if the disparity (combined with any centrifugal effects due to the object's spin) is larger than the force of gravity holding the satellite together, it can pull the satellite apart  Some real satellites, both natural and artificial, can orbit within their Roche limits because they are held together by forces other than gravitation  Objects resting on the surface of such a satellite would be lifted away by tidal forces  A weaker satellite, such as a comet, could be broken up when it passes within its Roche limit 
Since, within the Roche limit, tidal forces overwhelm the gravitational forces that might otherwise hold the satellite together, no satellite can gravitationally coalesce out of smaller particles within that limit  Indeed, almost all known planetary rings are located within their Roche limit  (Notable exceptions are Saturn's E-Ring and Phoebe ring  These two rings could possibly be remnants from the planet's proto-planetary accretion disc that failed to coalesce into moonlets, or conversely have formed when a moon passed within its Roche limit and broke apart )
The Roche limit is not the only factor that causes comets to break apart  Splitting by thermal stress, internal gas pressure and rotational splitting are other ways for a comet to split under stress 

Determination
The limiting distance to which a satellite can approach without breaking up depends on the rigidity of the satellite  At one extreme, a completely rigid satellite will maintain its shape until tidal forces break it apart  At the other extreme, a highly fluid satellite gradually deforms leading to increased tidal forces, causing the satellite to elongate, further compounding the tidal forces and causing it to break apart more readily 
Most real satellites would lie somewhere between these two extremes, with tensile strength rendering the satellite neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly fluid  For example, a rubble-pile asteroid will behave more like a fluid than a solid rocky one; an icy body will behave quite rigidly at first but become more fluid as tidal heating accumulates and its ices begin to melt 
But note that, as defined above, the Roche limit refers to a body held together solely by the gravitational forces which cause otherwise unconnected particles to coalesce, thus forming the body in question  The Roche limit is also usually calculated for the case of a circular orbit, although it is straightforward to modify the calculation to apply to the case (for example) of a body passing the primary on a parabolic or hyperbolic trajectory 

Rigid satellites
The rigid-body Roche limit is a simplified calculation for a spherical satellite  Irregular shapes such as those of tidal deformation on the body or the primary it orbits are neglected  It is assumed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium  These assumptions, although unrealistic, greatly simplify calculations 
The Roche limit for a rigid spherical satellite is the distance, 
  
    
      
        d
      
    
    {\displaystyle d}
  , from the primary at which the gravitational force on a test mass at the surface of the object is exactly equal to the tidal force pulling the mass away from the object:

  
    
      
        d
        =
        
          R
          
            M
          
        
        
          
            (
            
              2
              
                
                  
                    ρ
                    
                      M
                    
                  
                  
                    ρ
                    
                      m
                    
                  
                
              
            
            )
          
          
            
              1
              3
            
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle d=R_{M}\left(2{\frac {\rho _{M}}{\rho _{m}}}\right)^{\frac {1}{3}}}
  where 
  
    
      
        
          R
          
            M
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle R_{M}}
   is the radius of the primary, 
  
    
      
        
          ρ
          
            M
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle \rho _{M}}
   is the density of the primary, and 
  
    
      
        
          ρ
          
            m
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle \rho _{m}}
   is the density of the satellite  This can be equivalently written as

  
    
      
        d
        =
        
          R
          
            m
          
        
        
          
            (
            
              2
              
                
                  
                    M
                    
                      M
                    
                  
                  
                    M
                    
                      m
                    
                  
                
              
            
            )
          
          
            
              1
              3
            
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle d=R_{m}\left(2{\frac {M_{M}}{M_{m}}}\right)^{\frac {1}{3}}}
  where 
  
    
      
        
          R
          
            m
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle R_{m}}
   is the radius of the secondary, 
  
    
      
        
          M
          
            M
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle M_{M}}
   is the mass of the primary, and 
  
    
      
        
          M
          
            m
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle M_{m}}
   is the mass of the secondary 
This does not depend on the size of the objects, but on the ratio of densities  This is the orbital distance inside of which loose material (e g  regolith) on the surface of the satellite closest to the primary would be pulled away, and likewise material on the side opposite the primary will also go away from, rather than toward, the satellite 

Fluid satellites
A more accurate approach for calculating the Roche limit takes the deformation of the satellite into account  An extreme example would be a tidally locked liquid satellite orbiting a planet, where any force acting upon the satellite would deform it into a prolate spheroid 
The calculation is complex and its result cannot be represented in an exact algebraic formula  Roche himself derived the following approximate solution for the Roche limit:

  
    
      
        d
        ≈
        2 44
        R
        
          
            (
            
              
                
                  ρ
                  
                    M
                  
                
                
                  ρ
                  
                    m
                  
                
              
            
            )
          
          
            1
            
              /
            
            3
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle d\approx 2 44R\left({\frac {\rho _{M}}{\rho _{m}}}\right)^{1/3}}
  However, a better approximation that takes into account the primary's oblateness and the satellite's mass is:

  
    
      
        d
        ≈
        2 423
        R
        
          
            (
            
              
                
                  ρ
                  
                    M
                  
                
                
                  ρ
                  
                    m
                  
                
              
            
            )
          
          
            1
            
              /
            
            3
          
        
        
          
            (
            
              
                
                  (
                  1
                  +
                  
                    
                      m
                      
                        3
                        M
                      
                    
                  
                  )
                  +
                  
                    
                      c
                      
                        3
                        R
                      
                    
                  
                  (
                  1
                  +
                  
                    
                      m
                      M
                    
                  
                  )
                
                
                  1
                  −
                  c
                  
                    /
                  
                  R
                
              
            
            )
          
          
            1
            
              /
            
            3
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle d\approx 2 423R\left({\frac {\rho _{M}}{\rho _{m}}}\right)^{1/3}\left({\frac {(1+{\frac {m}{3M}})+{\frac {c}{3R}}(1+{\frac {m}{M}})}{1-c/R}}\right)^{1/3}}
  where 
  
    
      
        c
        
          /
        
        R
      
    
    {\displaystyle c/R}
   is the oblateness of the primary  The numerical factor is calculated with the aid of a computer 
The fluid solution is appropriate for bodies that are only loosely held together, such as a comet  For instance, comet Shoemaker–Levy 9's decaying orbit around Jupiter passed within its Roche limit in July 1992, causing it to fragment into a number of smaller pieces  On its next approach in 1994 the fragments crashed into the planet  Shoemaker–Levy 9 was first observed in 1993, but its orbit indicated that it had been captured by Jupiter a few decades prior 

See also
Roche lobe
Chandrasekhar limit
Hill sphere
Spaghettification (the extreme case of tidal distortion)
Black hole
Triton (moon) (Neptune's satellite)
Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9
Passage 5:
Ulysses (spacecraft)
Ulysses ( yoo-LISS-eez, UK also  YOO-liss-eez) was a robotic space probe whose primary mission was to orbit the Sun and study it at all latitudes  It was launched in 1990 and made three "fast latitude scans" of the Sun in 1994/1995, 2000/2001, and 2007/2008  In addition, the probe studied several comets  Ulysses was a joint venture of the European Space Agency (ESA) and the United States' National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), under leadership of ESA with participation from Canada's National Research Council  The last day for mission operations on Ulysses was 30 June 2009 To study the Sun at all latitudes, the probe needed to change its orbital inclination and leave the plane of the Solar System  To change the orbital inclination of a spacecraft to about 80° requires a large change in heliocentric velocity, the energy to achieve which far exceeded the capabilities of any launch vehicle  To reach the desired orbit around the Sun, the mission's planners chose a gravity assist maneuver around Jupiter, but this Jupiter encounter meant that Ulysses could not be powered by solar cells  The probe was powered instead by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) 
The spacecraft was originally named Odysseus, because of its lengthy and indirect trajectory to study the solar poles  It was renamed Ulysses, the Latin translation of "Odysseus", at ESA's request in honor not only of Homer's mythological hero but also of Dante's character in the Inferno  Ulysses was originally scheduled for launch in May 1986 aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger on STS-61-F  Due to the 28 January 1986 loss of Challenger, the launch of Ulysses was delayed until 6 October 1990 aboard Discovery (mission STS-41) 

Spacecraft
The spacecraft was designed by ESA and built by Dornier Systems, a German aircraft manufacturer  The body was roughly a box, approximately 3 2 m × 3 3 m × 2 1 m (10 5 ft × 10 8 ft × 6 9 ft) in size  The box mounted the 1 65 m (5 ft 5 in) dish antenna and the GPHS-RTG radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) power source  The box was divided into noisy and quiet sections  The noisy section abutted the RTG; the quiet section housed the instrument electronics  Particularly "loud" components, such as the preamps for the radio dipole, were mounted outside the structure entirely, and the box acted as a Faraday cage 
Ulysses was spin-stabilised about its z-axis which roughly coincides with the axis of the dish antenna  The RTG, whip antennas, and instrument boom were placed to stabilize this axis, with the spin rate nominally at 5 rpm  Inside the body was a hydrazine fuel tank  Hydrazine monopropellant was used for course corrections inbound to Jupiter, and later used exclusively to repoint the spin axis (and thus, the antenna) at Earth  The spacecraft was controlled by eight thrusters in two blocks  Thrusters were pulsed in the time domain to perform rotation or translation  Four sun sensors detected orientation  For fine attitude control, the S-band antenna feed was mounted slightly off-axis  This offset feed combined with the spacecraft spin introduced an apparent oscillation to a radio signal transmitted from Earth when received on board the spacecraft  The amplitude and phase of this oscillation were proportional to the orientation of the spin axis relative to the Earth direction  This method of determining the relative orientation is called conical scanning and was used by early radars for automated tracking of targets and was also very common in early infrared guided missiles 
The spacecraft used S-band for uplinked commands and downlinked telemetry, through dual redundant 5-watt transceivers  The spacecraft used X-band for science return (downlink only), using dual 20 watts TWTAs until the failure of the last remaining TWTA in January 2008  Both bands used the dish antenna with prime-focus feeds, unlike the Cassegrain feeds of most other spacecraft dishes 
Dual tape recorders, each of approximately 45-megabit capacity, stored science data between the nominal eight-hour communications sessions during the prime and extended mission phases 
The spacecraft was designed to withstand both the heat of the inner Solar System and the cold at Jupiter's distance  Extensive blanketing and electric heaters protected the probe against the cold temperatures of the outer Solar System 
Multiple computer systems (CPUs/microprocessors/Data Processing Units) are used in several of the scientific instruments, including several radiation-hardened RCA CDP1802 microprocessors  Documented 1802 usage includes dual-redundant 1802s in the COSPIN, and at least one 1802 each in the GRB, HI-SCALE, SWICS, SWOOPS and URAP instruments, with other possible microprocessors incorporated elsewhere Total mass at launch was 371 kg (818 lb), of which 33 5 kg was hydrazine propellant used for attitude control and orbit correction 

Instruments
The twelve different Instruments came from ESA and NASA  The first design was based on two probes, one by NASA and one by ESA, but the probe of NASA was defunded and in the end the instruments of the cancelled probe were mounted on Ulyssses 
Radio/Plasma antennas: Two beryllium copper antennas were unreeled outwards from the body, perpendicular to the RTG and spin axis  Together this dipole spanned 72 meters (236 2 ft)  A third antenna, of hollow beryllium copper, was deployed from the body, along the spin axis opposite the dish  It was a monopole antenna, 7 5 meters (24 6 ft) long  These measured radio waves generated by plasma releases, or the plasma itself as it passed over the spacecraft  This receiver ensemble was sensitive from DC to 1 MHz 
Experiment Boom: A third type of boom, shorter and much more rigid, extended from the last side of the spacecraft, opposite the RTG  This was a hollow carbon-fiber tube, of 50 mm (2 in ) diameter  It can be seen in the photo as the silver rod stowed alongside the body  It carried four types of instruments: a solid-state X-ray instrument, composed of two silicon detectors, to study X-rays from solar flares and Jupiter's aurorae; the Gamma-Ray Burst experiment, consisting of two CsI scintillator crystals with photomultipliers; two different magnetometers, a helium vector magnetometer and a fluxgate magnetometer; and a two-axis magnetic search coil antenna measured AC magnetic fields 
Body-Mounted Instruments: Detectors for electrons, ions, neutral gas, dust, and cosmic rays were mounted on the spacecraft body around the quiet section 
Lastly, the radio communications link could be used to search for gravitational waves (through Doppler shifts) and to probe the Sun's atmosphere through radio occultation  No gravitational waves were detected 
Total instrument mass was 55 kg 
Magnetometer (MAG): MAG measured the magnetic field in the heliosphere  Measurements of Jupiter's magnetic field were also performed 
Solar Wind Plasma Experiment (SWOOPS): detected the solar wind at all solar distances and latitudes and in three dimensions  It measured positive ions and electrons 
Solar Wind Ion Composition Instrument (SWICS): determined composition, temperature and speed of the atoms and ions that comprise the solar wind 
Unified Radio and Plasma Wave Instrument (URAP): picked up radio waves from the Sun and electromagnetic waves generated in the solar wind close to the spacecraft 
Energetic Particle Instrument (EPAC) and GAS: EPAC investigated the energy, fluxes and distribution of energetic particles in the heliosphere  GAS studied the uncharged gases (helium) of interstellar origin 
Low-Energy Ion and Electron Experiment (HI-SCALE): investigated the energy, fluxes and distribution of energetic particles in the heliosphere 
Cosmic Ray and Solar Particle Instrument (COSPIN): investigated the energy, fluxes and distribution of energetic particles and galactic cosmic rays in the heliosphere 
Solar X-ray and Cosmic Gamma-Ray Burst Instrument (GRB): studied cosmic gamma ray bursts and X-rays from solar flares 
Dust Experiment (DUST): Direct measurements of interplanetary and interstellar dust grains to investigate their properties as functions of the distance from the Sun and solar latitude 

Mission
Planning
Until Ulysses, the Sun had only been observed from low solar latitudes  The Earth's orbit defines the ecliptic plane, which differs from the Sun's equatorial plane by only 7 25°  Even spacecraft directly orbiting the Sun do so in planes close to the ecliptic because a direct launch into a high-inclination solar orbit would require a prohibitively large launch vehicle 
Several spacecraft (Mariner 10, Pioneer 11, and Voyagers 1 and 2) had performed gravity assist maneuvers in the 1970s  Those maneuvers were to reach other planets also orbiting close to the ecliptic, so they were mostly in-plane changes  However, gravity assists are not limited to in-plane maneuvers; a suitable flyby of Jupiter could produce a significant plane change  An Out-Of-The-Ecliptic mission (OOE) was thereby proposed  See article Pioneer H 
Originally, two spacecraft were to be built by NASA and ESA, as the International Solar Polar Mission  One would be sent over Jupiter, then under the Sun  The other would fly under Jupiter, then over the Sun  This would provide simultaneous coverage  Due to cutbacks, the U S  spacecraft was cancelled in 1981  One spacecraft was designed, and the project recast as Ulysses, due to the indirect and untried flight path  NASA would provide the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) and launch services, ESA would build the spacecraft assigned to Astrium GmbH, Friedrichshafen, Germany (formerly Dornier Systems)  The instruments would be split into teams from universities and research institutes in Europe and the United States  This process provided the 12 instruments on board 
The changes delayed launch from February 1983 to May 1986 when it was to be deployed by the Space Shuttle Challenger (boosted by the proposed Centaur G Prime upper stage  However, the Challenger disaster forced a two-and-a-half year stand down of the shuttle fleet, mandated the cancellation of the Centaur-G upper stage, and pushed the launch date to October 1990 

Launch
Ulysses was deployed into low Earth orbit from the Space Shuttle Discovery  From there, it was propelled on a trajectory to Jupiter by a combination of solid rocket motors  This upper stage consisted of a two-stage Boeing IUS (Inertial Upper Stage), plus a McDonnell Douglas PAM-S (Payload Assist Module-Special)  The IUS was inertially stabilised and actively guided during its burn  The PAM-S was unguided and it and Ulysses were spun up to 80 rpm for stability at the start of its burn  On burnout of the PAM-S, the motor and spacecraft stack was yo-yo de-spun (weights deployed at the end of cables) to below 8 rpm prior to separation of the spacecraft  On leaving Earth, the spacecraft became the fastest ever artificially-accelerated spacecraft, and held that title until the New Horizons probe was launched 
On its way to Jupiter, the spacecraft was in an elliptical non-Hohmann transfer orbit  At this time, Ulysses had a low orbital inclination to the ecliptic 

Jupiter swing-by
It arrived at Jupiter on 8 February 1992 for a swing-by maneuver that increased its inclination to the ecliptic by 80 2°  The giant planet's gravity bent the spacecraft's flight path southward and away from the ecliptic plane  This put it into a final orbit around the Sun that would take it past the Sun's north and south poles  The size and shape of the orbit were adjusted to a much smaller degree so that aphelion remained at approximately 5 AU, Jupiter's distance from the Sun, and perihelion was somewhat greater than 1 AU, the Earth's distance from the Sun  The orbital period is approximately six years 

Polar regions of the Sun
Between 1994 and 1995 it explored both the southern and northern polar regions of the Sun, respectively 

Comet C/1996 B2 (Hyakutake)
On 1 May 1996, the spacecraft unexpectedly crossed the ion tail of Comet Hyakutake (C/1996 B2), revealing the tail to be at least 3 8 AU in length 

Comet C/1999 T1 (McNaught–Hartley)
An encounter with a comet tail happened again in 2004  when Ulysses flew through the ion tailings of C/1999 T1 (McNaught-Hartley)  A coronal mass ejection carried the cometary material to Ulysses 

Second Jupiter encounter
Ulysses approached aphelion in 2003/2004 and made further distant observations of Jupiter 

Comet C/2006 P1 (McNaught)
In 2007, Ulysses passed through the tail of comet C/2006 P1 (McNaught)  The results were surprisingly different from its pass through Hyakutake's tail, with the measured solar wind velocity dropping from approximately 700 kilometers per second (1,566,000 mph) to less than 400 kilometers per second (895,000 mph) 

Extended mission
ESA's Science Program Committee approved the fourth extension of the Ulysses mission to March 2004  thereby allowing it to operate over the Sun's poles for the third time in 2007 and 2008  After it became clear that the power output from the spacecraft's RTG would be insufficient to operate science instruments and keep the attitude control fuel, hydrazine, from freezing, instrument power sharing was initiated  Up until then, the most important instruments had been kept online constantly, whilst others were deactivated  When the probe neared the Sun, its power-hungry heaters were turned off and all instruments were turned on On 22 February 2008, 17 years and 4 months after the launch of the spacecraft, ESA and NASA announced that the mission operations for Ulysses would likely cease within a few months  On 12 April 2008, NASA announced that the end date will be 1 July 2008 The spacecraft operated successfully for over four times its design life  A component within the last remaining working chain of X-band downlink subsystem failed on 15 January 2008  The other chain in the X-band subsystem had previously failed in 2003 Downlink to Earth resumed on S-band, but the beamwidth of the high gain antenna in the S-band was not as narrow as in the X–band, so that the received downlink signal was much weaker, hence reducing the achievable data rate  As the spacecraft traveled on its outbound trajectory to the orbit of Jupiter, the downlink signal would have eventually fallen below the receiving capability of even the largest antennas (70 meters - 229 7 feet - in diameter) of the Deep Space Network 
Even before the downlink signal was lost due to distance, the hydrazine attitude control fuel on board the spacecraft was considered likely to freeze, as the radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs) failed to generate enough power for the heaters to overcome radiative heat loss into space  Once the hydrazine froze, the spacecraft would no longer be able to maneuver to keep its high gain antenna pointing towards Earth, and the downlink signal would then be lost in a matter of days  The failure of the X-band communications subsystem hastened this, because the coldest part of the fuel pipework was routed over the X-band traveling-wave tube amplifiers, because they generated enough heat during operation to keep the propellant plumbing warm 
The previously announced mission end date of 1 July 2008, came and went but mission operations continued albeit in a reduced capacity  The availability of science data gathering was limited to only when Ulysses was in contact with a ground station due to the deteriorating S-band downlink margin no longer being able to support simultaneous real-time data and tape recorder playback  When the spacecraft was out of contact with a ground station, the S-band transmitter was switched off and the power was diverted to the internal heaters to add to the warming of the hydrazine  On 30 June 2009, ground controllers sent commands to switch to the low gain antennas  This stopped communications with the spacecraft, in combination with previous commands to shut down its transmitter entirely 

Results
During cruise phases, Ulysses provided unique data  As the only spacecraft out of the ecliptic with a gamma-ray instrument, Ulysses was an important part of the InterPlanetary Network (IPN)  The IPN detects gamma ray bursts (GRBs); since gamma rays cannot be focused with mirrors, it was very difficult to locate GRBs with enough accuracy to study them further  Instead, several spacecraft can locate the burst through multilateration  Each spacecraft has a gamma-ray detector, with readouts noted in tiny fractions of a second  By comparing the arrival times of gamma showers with the separations of the spacecraft, a location can be determined, for follow-up with other telescopes  Because gamma rays travel at the speed of light, wide separations are needed  Typically, a determination came from comparing: one of several spacecraft orbiting the Earth, an inner-Solar-system probe (to Mars, Venus, or an asteroid), and Ulysses  When Ulysses crossed the ecliptic twice per orbit, many GRB determinations lost accuracy 
Additional discoveries:
Data provided by Ulysses led to the discovery that the Sun's magnetic field interacts with the Solar System in a more complex fashion than previously assumed 
Data provided by Ulysses led to the discovery that dust coming into the Solar System from deep space was 30 times more abundant than previously expected 
In 2007–2008 data provided by Ulysses led to the determination that the magnetic field emanating from the Sun's poles is much weaker than previously observed 
That the solar wind has "grown progressively weaker during the mission and is currently at its weakest since the start of the Space Age" 

Fate
Ulysses will most likely continue in heliocentric orbit around the Sun indefinitely  However, there is a chance that in one of its re-encounters with Jupiter a close fly-by with one of the Jovian moons would be enough to alter its course and so the probe would enter a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun and leave the Solar System 

See also
Advanced Composition Explorer – NASA satellite of the Explorer program
List of heliophysics missions
List of missions to the outer planets
Parker Solar Probe – NASA robotic space probe of the outer corona of the Sun
Solar and Heliospheric Observatory – European space observatory
STEREO – Solar observation mission (2006–present)
TRACE – NASA satellite of the Explorer program
WIND – NASA probe to study solar wind, at L1 since 1995
Solar Orbiter – European space-based solar observatory



ground_truth: Sun