84?20604

A LARGE-AREA GAMMA-RAY IMAGING TELESCOPE SYSTEM

NASW-3743

Final Report

For the period 24 March 1983 through 1 September 1983

Principal Investigator:

David G. Koch

Prepared for:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters

Washington, D.C. 20546

August 1983

Smithsonian Institution

Astrophysical Observatory

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

is a member of the

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
A LARGE-AREA GAMMA-RAY IMAGING TELESCOPE SYSTEM

NASW-3743

Final Report

For the period 24 March 1983 through 1 September 1983

Principal Investigator:

David G. Koch

Prepared for:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters

Washington, D.C. 20546

August 1983

Smithsonian Institution

Astrophysical Observatory

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

is a member of the

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Abstract

This report details the concept definition of using the

External Tank (ET) of the Space Shuttle as the basis for

constructing a large-area gamma-ray imaging telescope in space. The

telescope will be used to locate and study cosmic sources of

gamma-rays of energy greater than 100 MeV. The report describes in

detail both the telescope properties and the means whereby an ET is

used for this purpose. A parallel is drawn between those systems

that would be common to both a Space Station and this ET

application. In addition, those systems necessary for support of

the telescope can form the basis for using the ET as part of the

Space Station. The major conclusions of this concept definition are

that the ET is ideal for making into a gamma-ray telescope, and that

this telescope will provide the substantial increase in collecting

area recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. The principal

recommendation is that NASA proceed at this time with a design

definition of the concept presented herein.

Key words: Space Station, External Tank Applications, Telescopes,

Gamma-Ray Detectors
Acknowledgements

The concept presented here is not new in its parts. The

original idea for the telescope is that of Kenneth Greisen. The

concept of using a spent SIVB fuel tank had been proposed as part of

the Orbital Workshop, later known as Skylab. The possibility of

applications of the ET has been kicking around for a number of

years. Smaller versions of the telescope had been proposed as part

of the HEAD and Spacelab programs. However, it wasn't until now

that this has all come together along with the real need for a

telescope to follow up on the work of GRO. Therefore, I appreciate

all the thoughts of others that have led to this concept.

In addition to the study done at SAOr a parallel effort was

performed by the Advanced Programs group of the Michoud Division of

Martin Marietta Aerospace (MMA). A copy of this report is available

from Frank Williams, Director Advanced Programs, Martin Marietta

Aerospace, P. 0. Box 29304, New Orleans, LA 70189 [(504) 255-3738].

Section 5 of this study is almost entirely drawn from the MMA IR&D

report. Other details and thoughts from MMA are distributed

throughout this study and it is difficult to isolate and credit each

individual one. I appreciate the interest and support of this

group.

The work performed for this study was supported by NASA

contract NASW-3743.

11
A Large Area Gamma-Ray Imaging Telescope System

Final Report

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract i

Acknowledgements ii

Acronyms and Abbreviations v

1.0 THE CONCEPT 1

2.0 EVOLUTION AND FUTURE GROWTH OF GAMMA-RAY ASTRONOMY .... 6

3.0 TELESCOPE ~ TECHNICAL DISCUSSION 10

3.1 Detection Technique 10

3.2 Properties of Cherenkov Radiation 14

3.3 Sensitivity 18

3.4 Angular Resolution 25

3.4.1 Peak-to-Peak Angular Resolution 25

3.4.2 Centroid Uncertainty 28

3.5 Anticipated Count Rates 29

3.6 Energy Resolution 31

3.7 Threshold Selection and Radiating Gas 35

3.8 Immunity to Background Cosmic Rays 38

3.8.1 Direct Registration of Primary Protons 38

3.8.2 Protons Interacting to Produce Pions 39

3.8.3 Muons 39

3.8.4 Backward-Going Particles that Stop in the

Converter 40

3.8.5 Primary Electrons 41

3.8.6 Chance Coincidences 41

3.8.7 Summary of Background Effects 43

4.0 TELESCOPE-COMPONENT DESCRIPTION 44

4.1 The Tank 44

4.2 The Trigger Module and Sensitive Area 46

4.3 The Mirror 51

4.4 The Focal Plane 56

4.5 The Time of Flight (TOF) Module 58

4.6 Telescope Electronics 60

4.7 Supporting Elements 62

4.7.1 Attitude Control 62

4.7.2 Data Acquisition and Telemetry 63

4.7.3 South Atlantic Anomaly Detector 64

4.7.4 Meteoroid Shield 64

5.0 MISSION SCENARIO 66

5.1 Detailed Operations 67

iii
Page

6.0 ADVANTAGES OF PURSUING OPTIONS 81

6.1 A Side-Mounted Docking Adapter 81

6.2 Aft Cargo Carrier 83

6.3 Intertank Mounting of Support Systems 84

7.0 A SYNERGETIC OPPORTUNITY 87

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 88

REFERENCES 91

Illustrations and Tables

Figure 1. Gamma-Ray Imaging Telescope System 3

Figure 2. Schematic to Show Concept 11

Figure 3. Layout of the Focal-Plane Array 13

Figure 4. Cherenkov Parameter Dependence on the Threshold

Lorentz Factor 16

Figure 5. Light Production and Cone Angle Dependence on the

Particle Energy 17

Figure 6. Instrument Detection Efficiency vs. Converter

Thickness 23

Figure 7. Single Event Energy Uncertainty 33

Figure 8. Pressure for Various Gases vs. the Selected

Threshold Lorentz Factor 37

Figure 9. Wall Thicknesses of Aft Dome 45

Figure 10. Typical Trigger Module 48

Figure 11. Layout of the Trigger Module Assembly 49

Figure 12. Layout of the Segmented Mirror 53

Figure 13. Lattice Support Structure for Segmented Mirror .... 55

Figure 14. Layout of the Time of Flight (TOF) Scintillator .... 59

Figure 15. Liquid Hydrogen Feedline Siphon Assembly 75

Figure 16. Telescope with Aft Cargo Carrier 85

Table 1. Peak-to-Peak Angular Resolution vs. Energy 27

Table 2. Mission Timelines . 68

Table 3. Comparison in the Number of Components for the

Existing Manhole and the Proposed Docking Adapter ... 83

IV
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACC

ECL

ET

ev

EVA

POV

Y

GeV

GRO

HEAO

HV

IMU

IR&D

KSC

LDR

MECO

MeV

MMA

MMU

MWS

NA

NASA

QMS

OSO

PAM-D

PMT

psia

RCA

RCS

rms

RMS

rss

SAO

SAS

SOFI

SRB

SSS

STA

STS

TOP

aft cargo carrier

emitter coupled logic

External Tank

electron Volt

extravehicular activity

field of view

Lorentz factor

gega electron Volts (109)

Gamma Ray .Observatory

High Energy Astronomy Observatory

high voltage

inertial measuring unit

Independent research and development

Kennedy Space Center

Large Deployable Reflector

Main engine cutoff

Million electron Volts

Martin Marietta Aerospace

manned maneuvering unit

mobile work station

not applicable

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

orbiter maneuvering system

Orbiting Solar Observatory

payload assist module, delta class

photomultiplier tube

pounds per square inch absolute

Radio Corporation of America

reaction control system

root mean square

remote manipulator system

root sum square

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

Small Astronomy Satellite

spray on foam insulation

solid rocket boosters

support system saddle

station

Space Transportation System

time of flight
Page 1

1.0 THE CONCEPT

The advent of the Shuttle has brought with it a greatly

increased capability to work in space. The Shuttle as a system was

designed for reuse. The only major hardware component that is an

expendable is the External Tank (ET). Presently, the ET is taken to

98% of orbital velocity and then it is disposed, since it is no

longer of any use. However, the fact that it is a large,

thin-walled, gas-tight, light-tight, rigid pressure vessel makes it

ideally suited for use as a gamma-ray telescope. A number of

studies have been conducted to find applications for the ET (Cal

Space 1982). Many of the ideas proposed call for considerable

on-orbit reworking of the ET (such as cutting off an end or melting

it down for its value in raw materials). But for this application,

the ET would be used as is, with only minor modifications in the

manufacturing process to permit later attachment of hardware

on-orbit. None of the modifications would necessitate

requalification of the ET or any of its functions during launch.

Thus the Shuttle has at present the capability to deploy in space a

telescope whose size far exceeds its conventional payload

capability.

The telescope essentially "down-converts" (in frequency)

gamma-ray photons of energies greater than a few hundred MeV to

pulses of a hundred optical photons of a few eV. This light is then

focussed and detected using conventional methods. A large

thin-walled, gas-tight, light-tight pressure vessel is essential for

the technique to work. If the ET didn't exist, one would have to be

designed in order to construct the telescope. A schematic of the
Page 2

telescope after on-orbit assembly is shown in Figure 1.

The detection technique was originally conceived by Professor

Kenneth Greisen (1966) of Cornell University. It has the virtues of

1. Simplicity of design

2. Extendibility to large areas

3. Inherently excellent immunity to non-gamma-ray background

4. Angular resolution approaching the theoretical limit.

In the early 1970's, Greisen's group in collaboration with SAO

developed and flew a prototype several times on a high-altitude

balloon (Albats, et al. 1971; Koch, et al., 1973), proving the

concept. With it they were able to detect for the first time a

discrete non-solar gamma-ray source of energy greater than 100 MeV

(McBreen, et al., 1973). From additional flights, variability in

the intensity and spectrum of gamma-rays from the Crab pulsar was

also found for the first time (Greisen, et al., 1975). Subsequent

measurements with COS-B have verified this phenomenon (Wills,

et al., 1982).

By the time this mission would be carried out, a pointed

telescope of this sensitivity would be required to study the sources

catalogued by the forthcoming Gamma Ray Observatory (GRO). The GRO

will be performing an all-sky survey.

In the process of developing the resources for this telescope

many spinoffs will result that would have applications in areas

related to the Space Station. These will include:
Page 3

OJ
Page 4

1. Demonstration that there are real applications for the ET

on-orbit.

2. Attitude control, telemetry and power systems needed for

this telescope could form the basis for using the ET as an

unmanned platform.

3. The resealable manholes (possibly a docking adapter), gas

pressurization system, meteoroid protection and thermal

control along with point 2 could form the basis for using

the ET as a manned platform.

4. Demonstration of the astronauts performing significant

on-orbit assembly which is required for later more complex

instruments such as the Large Deployable Reflector (LDR)

and Space Station elements.

5. By packing, shipping, and performing final assembly

on-orbit, it will be possible to deploy systems which

otherwise could not be launched.

6. Pioneer a new era with less rugged components that would be

packed rather than integrally strengthened to survive

launch.

This report will summarize very briefly the field of high

energy gamma-ray astronomy so that one can see that this telescope

will meet the needs for the next phase of instrument development. A

detailed description of the telescope will be given not only so one

may understand how it works, but also so one can see that the ET is

ideally suited for this application. The detailed description will

also help to understand the reasons for the supporting requirements.

A mission scenario is given a) to show that the nominal Shuttle
Page 5

functions of delivering a payload to orbit will still be possible

(i.e.r the telescope would not significantly reduce the mission

resources), and b) to identify the on-orbit activities. For

convenience and to be able to provide specific detail, the scenario

assumes the Orbiter as the work base. However, all the on-orbit

activities could be carried out from the Space Station. Finally a

synergetic approach to the mission could utilize and demonstrate

many aspects of tethering, in particular

1. part of the attitude control system,

2. part of the energy storage for use on the night time of the

orbit, and

3. part of the orbit reboost system.

Thus the capabilities developed for this telescope would form the

basis for many of the components that would comprise a Space

Station. Or vice versa, many of the components that would be needed

for a Space Station could be utilized by this ET application.
Page 6

2.0 EVOLUTION AND FUTURE GROWTH OF GAMMA-RAY ASTRONOMY

Gamma-ray astronomy is important for a complete astrophysical

understanding of the Universe and how it functions, since gamma-rays

are a direct measure of the presence and effects of energetic

cosmic-rays. Charged primaries are absorbed and deflected as they

propagate through space. However, the Galaxy and the Universe are

essentially transparent to gamma-rays in the energy range of

107-1015 eV. There is only about a one-percent attenuation of the

flux for a beam travelling through the galactic plane. Most

importantly, their directional information is unchanged. Thus,

gamma-ray observations directly provide spatial, spectral and

temporal information about the source. High energy gamma-rays

result directly or as secondaries from energetic processes, namely,

electron-Bremsstrahlung, magneto-Bremsstrahlung (synchrotron

radiation), inverse Compton scattering of star light and the

microwave background, and by nuclear collisions. These processes

take place in such diverse places as molecular and dark clouds,

supernovae and pulsars, and in quasars and active galaxies. It is

not the intent of this study to survey the field. Rather the reader

is referred to a number of books on the subject (Greisen, 1971;

Stecker, 1971; Chupp, 1976; and Fichtel and Trombka, 1981).

The predictions by Morrison (1958) and others lead to a flurry

of optimistic attempts to detect gamma-rays with instruments flown

on high altitude balloons. However, due to the very high flux of

diffuse secondary gamma-rays produced in the residual atmosphere, it

wasn't until the 1970's after many generations of detector

development that the first unambiguous measurements were made using
Page 7

very large detectors on the order of meters in area at altitudes in

excess of 35 km or more. This has necessitated going to orbiting

platforms.

The first significant results in high energy gamma-ray

astronomy were those from OSO-3 (Kraushaar, et al.f 1972). This

detector consisted of scintillators and a Cherenkov counter. It had

a sensitive area of 46 cm2, a large field of view to permit

surveying, and functioned for 16 months during 1967-1968. This

instrument measured for the first time cosmic gamma-rays of energies

above about 50 MeV. The celestial distribution consisted of a

galactic plane component with an enhancement towards the galactic

center and a diffuse extragalactic component. The next significant

results came with the launching by NASA of the SAS-2 in

November 1972 and by ESA of the COS-B in August 1975. These two

detectors were very similar. Both were spark chambers with large

fields of view for surveying and both were of about the same size,

SAS-2 of 640 cm2 and COS-B of 576 cm2. The important difference

being that COS-B operated for 81 months, versus SAS-2, which

functioned for only 7 months. The results from these instruments

showed that:

1. The galactic component had structure to it and can be

correlated to the distribution of matter in the Galaxy,

2. The extragalactic component is diffuse and

3. 25 discrete sources have been identified. (See Bignami and

Hermsen, 1983, for a review on gamma-ray sources.)

Of the 25 discrete sources, only four can be associated with known

objects. These are the pulsars in the Crab and Vela nebulae (based
Page 8

upon their pulsed radiation), the quasar 3C273, and the molecular

cloud P Oph. (The latter two identifications are based solely on

positional coincidences.) The remaining sources are unidentifiable

primarily due to their positional uncertainty and possibly also

because they may form a new category of astronomical object. Thus

more sensitive detectors are necessary.

The detection process is hampered by two phenomena,

reconstructing the direction of the primary gamma-ray and the very

low fluxes. As an example, the strongest source above 100 MeV is

the Vela pulsar with a flux of 10~5 photons/cm2 sec., as compared to

the strongest X-ray source in the 2-10 keV region Sco X-l, which has

a flux that varies from about 20 to 40 photons/cm2 sec. Hence, it

is quite obvious that gamma-ray detectors must be orders of

magnitude larger in collecting area to be able to detect sources

with the same significance as in the X-ray region. The next step in

progress is the GRO. This platform will be launched in the late

1980's aboard the Shuttle and contain another spark chamber, but of

6560 cm2, ten times that of the previous two satellites. It too

will be performing an all-sky survey. However, spark chambers are

limited in their size by their complexity. Thus another form of

gamma-ray detector of greater area is necessary to follow up the

survey work. The need for such an instrument has been outlined in

the "Field committee report" of the National Academy of Sciences -

National Research Council (1982). Specifically (p. 165):

"The Astronomy Survey Committee recommends the

study and development of advanced gamma-ray

experiments to follow the program to be carried out

by the Gamma Ray Observatory (GRO).

"Subsequent to GRO, an advanced high-energy
Page 9

gamma-ray telescope of very large area, high

sensitivity, and high angular resolution will be

needed for long-term observations of selected

sources and regions of special interest. This will

be necessary to achieve the statistical accuracy in

the counting of gamma-ray photons required to

resolve spatial and spectral features of the sources

and to analyze their variations. The field of view

of the telescope need not be wide, and an

appropriate goal for angular resolution is the order

of 1 to 2 arcmin."

The evolution of gamma-ray detectors has followed closely the

evolution in launch capability. The instruments on GRO, although

not straining the launch capability of the Shuttle, could not

provide the necessary orders of magnitude increase in area within

the conventional payload limits.

However, the telescope conceived of by Greisen would meet the

recommendation set forth by the Astronomy Survey Committee and could

be flown today with the existing Space Transportation System (STS),

albeit in an unconventional fashion. Namely, this telescope would

have a collecting area of 2.5 x lO^cm^ and make use of the currently

disposed-of ET by appropriately instrumenting it once on-orbit. THE

ET IS IDEALLY SUITED FOR THIS SINCE A LARGE THIN-WALLED PRESSURE

VESSEL IS NECESSARY AND IT IS AVAILABLE ON-ORBIT AT NO COST TO THE

PAYLOAD CAPABILITY OF THE SHUTTLE OR THE SCIENCE BUDGET OF NASA.

The prototype of this telescope has been proven to be an

astrophysically useful tool, and with the culmination of the Shuttle

and its ET, the GRO survey, and the starting of the Space Station,

the time for deployment of this telescope has come. The results of

this concept definition show how this can come about.
Page 10

3.0 TELESCOPE ~ TECHNICAL DISCUSSION

3.1 Detection Technique

The best way to describe how the telescope works is to trace

the sequence of events necessary to identify a gamma-ray event.

Presume a high energy gamma-ray is incident onto the detector

roughly parallel to the telescope axis; refer to Figure 2 for

notation. Since the container walls are relatively thin, the

probability of being converted in passing through the aft LH2 tank

dome is small. The first element used to mark the signature is the

veto scintillator, SI. A sheet of plastic scintillator will produce

a very fast pulse of light caused by the ionization of charged

particles passing through it. SI is used to reject all charged

particles. The gamma-ray, being neutral, will not be detected by SI

and the probability of its being converted is also small. Next the

gamma-ray enters the converter, nominally lead. Since the converter

is a small fraction of a radiation length thick, say .036, the

probability of the gamma-ray being converted into an electronpositron pair is .028. Although the pair will emerge from the

converter with a total energy nearly equal to that of the incident

gamma-ray, the emission angle of the secondaries and multiple

Coulomb scattering within the converter will cause each particle in

the pair to deviate somewhat from the incident gamma-ray direction. '

The pair immediately enters the second scintillator, S2. This time

a pulse is produced, and in fact the pulse amplitude will be

indicative of a two-particle event. Next the pair travels the

length of the telescope, emitting Cherenkov light as it passes

through the gas (see the next section for a discussion of Cherenkov
Pag

e 11

rl (0OWO-U0)OOO•sOJJOx:OCO

co

u-> o

C\J COs &8 fe P- «2l

- 8

CN01UaCP

•rH

EL4
Page 12

radiation). This light is then imaged by the optical system onto an

array of photomultipliers in the focal plane, C (see Figure 3).

Pulse height analysis of the array will enable reconstruction of the

two rings of light and thus determine the incident gamma-ray

direction. After the pair continues through the mirror it passes

through a third scintillator, S3. This third scintillator is

incorporated to provide an additional time of flight, TOF,

measurement and reduce the chance coincident rate, particularly from

backwards-going particles. Thus the electrical signal that will

uniquely identify a gamma-ray event will be Sl(t) * S2(t) *

S3(t+79) * C(t+92); that is, a pair triggers S2 with no

simultaneous veto signal in SI; 79 nsec later (1 nsec = 10~9 sec)

the pair is detected in S3, and 92 nsec after pair creation takes

place in the converter the light indicative of two Cherenkov rings

arrives at the focal plane.

The salient features of this detection technique are that:

1. The active collecting area can easily be made very large to

detect the very low fluxes without significantly increasing

the complexity of the instrument.

2. The telescope has excellent background rejection

properties. This is discussed in great detail in a later

section but in summary:

a. The veto, converter and trigger form a tightly packed

sandwich.

b. The large component spacing and threefold time-delayed

coincidence eliminates backwards-going events and

reduces random processes to a negligible rate.
Page 13

5.04'

5 FOV

4.84'

Figure 3. Layout of the focal-plane array. The focal plane

consists of 127 resolution elements. Each cell contains a phototube

and light pipe. A pair of rings are shown for a) a typical

low-energy event and b) a typical high-energy event. The cone

diameters are 1.4° and the center-to-center cell spacing is 0.42°.
Page 14

c. The Cherenkov process requires particles of a large

Lorentz factor [see equation (1) of the next section].

d. The mirror images the light into two unique well

defined rings of light.

3. Since very fast (nanosecond) logic signals are used

throughout, the instrument is virtually deadtimeless. And

although gamma-ray bursts have not yet been detected at

several hundred MeV, this instrument is capable of

detecting bursts of very high fluxes without being jammed.

3.2 Properties of Cherenkov Radiation

The character of the Cherenkov process is as follows: whenever

a charged particle passes through a media with a velocity greater

than the velocity of light in that media, it will emit light. The

threshold velocity, the angle of emission 0 and the number of

photons emitted £ are all related to the index of refraction, n.

x_

Briefly summarized here are a number of properties of the

Cherenkov radiation process. For highly relativistic particles, the

relationship between the energy, E, velocity, v, and Lorentz

factor y is given by:

E = m0c

2/(l-v2/c2)1/2

 = TmQc

2 (1)

where mo is the particle rest mass and c is the velocity of light in

a vacuum. In a dielectric medium the velocity of light is less than

c, specifically
Page 15

v = c/n (2)

where n is the index of refraction. Whenever a charged particle

passes through a medium with a velocity greater than the velocity of

light in a media, that is, the charge moves faster than its

associated field can propagate, it will emit Cherenkov light quite

analogous to a bow wave or sonic boom. Combining (1) and (2) gives

the threshold Lorentz factor YT.

= l/(l-l/n2)

1/2 z. l/(2n)1/2

(3)

where n = n - 1 provided n « 1. Figure 4 shows this relationship.

The geometry of the phenomena, that is, the angle of the

coherent wave front, dictates that the radiation is emitted at a

specific angle, 0, from the direction of propagation given by:

cose = c/nv . (4)

At threshold c = nv and 0=0. When v = c, cos0 = 1/n which is the

maximum angle of emission. Combining this with (3) and using the

small angle approximation for cosines gives

ec = I/YT . (5)

Combining (1) and (4) and assuming Y » 1 yields the relationship for

the emission cone half angle as a function of the Lorentz factor Y.

0

2/0 c2

 = 1 -YT

2/Y2 . (6)

This is shown in Figure 5. It can be seen that the cone angle rises

very rapidly to near its asymptotic value.
Page 16

100

do"4),

9

(deg),

- photons .

\ m /

10 _

1.0 -

0.1

J I

7 I i

10

r i i i 11 1

100 1000

Figure 4. Cherenkov parameter dependence on the threshold Lorentz

factor. n = n-1 (n = index of refraction), cone angle, ec, and

light production, £c, vs. the selected threshold Lorentz factor, Y
Page 17

ooooooooo o

O <J> CO U) vn •*• «O CM —;

. m

8

•H

4J

n)

o

\

uj>

O

O

CXI

O W

•H -P

T3

nj o

VJ JJ

> 0)

o >

.* -H

C 4J

0) (0

U rH

0) (1)

•P C (0 <i>

•H

0) •

u w

0)

H ©

©

in

a>

0)

-P

0)
Page 18

The final quantity that depends on the threshold Lorentz factor

is the amount of light emitted per unit path length, 5. The energy

radiated in the near UV through visible is given by

C = 400 sin2 0 photons/m . (7)

At threshold sin0= 0 and C= 0. As the particle approaches the

velocity c,

Zc = 400 sin2 0C = 400AT

2

 . (8)

This is also shown in Figure 4. For intermediate velocities, the

above equations can be combined to yield the relationship of light

production as a function of Lorentz factor:

5/Cc = i-YT

2/Y2 . (9)

This is also shown in Figure 5.

3.3 Sensitivity

The primary features by which nearly all astronomical

instruments are measured are sensitivity, angular resolution, and

energy resolution. Fortunately, in this portion of the spectrum a

general criterion can be derived in a rather straightforward manner

with little or no approximating. The sensitivity or statistical

significance in terms of the number of sigmas above the background,

NSIG, for Gaussian statistics is the source strength (after

background subtraction) divided by the standard deviation of the

background. This is given by
Page 19

NSIG = NS/NB

1/2

 (10)

where NS is the number of counts from the source and NB the average

counts due to the sum of all sources of background. The source

counts are given by

Ns = a 6 Is A t d ec (11)

where

a = exp (-7rA/9) = attenuation of the incident gamma-ray flux due to

the overlying materials, rA in radiation lengths,

a is close to unity since the average thickness of aluminum

overlying the detector is a small fraction of a radiation

length.

6 = fraction of counts within resolution element, fi , = .632.

Is = source flux above the threshold in photons/cm2/sec.

o

A = sensitive area in cm .

t = exposure time in seconds.

ec = [1 - exp (-7r/9)l = conversion efficiency, r in radiation

lengths for Bremsstrahlung. For the energies of interest,

the asymptotic limit is used.

d = duty cycle equal to one minus the fractional dead time and is

essentially unity for this detector.

The background counts are given by

NB = a ID A t d ec ft+ ENBi (12)
Page 20

where

Ip = diffuse gamma-ray background flux above the threshold in

photons/cnr/sec/s ^ r

•\

n = irZ6| = solid angle of resolution element due to various random

effects.

Ng. are those portions of the non-gamma-ray backgrounds which cannot

be rejected, ft is taken to be the solid angle within which

different directions can not be distinguished and within which the

possibility for detection of an event from a point source is high.

0 is the result of a random process (emission angle and multiple

Coulomb scattering). For a two-dimensional random walk process, the

probability of emerging with an angle less than 0 is

P«0) = 1 - exp(-Tr02/a) (13)

( 0 < 2°, Bethe, 1953) .

The effects that contribute to the resolution element are the

following:

1. Emission angle of the secondaries.

0| = [q« (.51 MeV/E) * In (E/.51 MeV)]2

= (21 MeV/E)2 * [.0243 In (E/.51)]2 (14)

where q1 is a slowly varying function of order unity and E

is the primary energy in MeV.
Page 21

2. Secondary scattering in the lead converter as a result of

multiple Coulomb scattering.

e^b = [21 MeV/(E/2)]2 * r * (4/9)

=(21 MeV/E)2 * 16r/9 (15)

where the secondary energy is taken to be about E/2 and r

is the converter thickness in radiation lengths. The 4/9

results from the secondary scattering only after its

creation; i.e., the average scattering is only 2/3 the

value it would be for a particle always traversing the

entire thickness.

3. Secondary scattering in the trigger scintillator.

0| = [21 MeV/(E/2)]2 * (.4/42.4)

= (21 MeV/E)2 * .0377 (16)

where 4 mm thick plastic scintillator is assumed. A

radiation length in plastic scintillator of 42.4 cm.

4. Scattering in the gas while radiating.

e^ = [21 MeV/(E/2)]2 * (1730/1.26 x 105) * (4/9)

= (21 MeV/E)2 * .02448 (17)

where N2 gas is assumed, a radiation length at 3.56 psi is

1.26 x 10^ cm and the 4/9 results from the average

scattering in the gas since once the Cherenkov photon is

emitted its direction is unaffected by further scattering

of the secondary.
Page 22

5. Measurement error in reconstructing the direction of each

secondary em.

In Section 3.8 it will be argued that the non-gamma-ray backgrounds

are insignificant; therefore, the signal to noise can be written as

NSIG = NS/NB

1/2

 = 6 Is (aA t d ec/ID«)1/2

1 /•>

= 6is (oA t d/7r ID) * h(r,E) * (E/21 MeV) (18)

where

h

2(r/E) = fl-exp(-7r/9)] /

{[.0243 In (E/.51)]2 + 16r/9 + .0622 + <9m E/21)2} (19)

The function h contains the instrument dependence on energy,

converter thickness, and measurement error. This function is shown

in Figure 6. When 0m < 5 arcmin, the quantity h(r,E) depends very

slowly on E and for the energies of interest (200 MeV to 2 GeV) the

denominator can be approximated as 16r/9 + 0.09. Then for the

asymptotic cases,

h(r,E) r 2.93 r1/2 (r « .01) and

h(r,E) z. .75 r"1/2 (r » 1).

The peak in h(r,E) = .58 occurs near 1/3 radiation length and

remains within 10% of the peak for 0.09 < r < 1.2. Even at

.036 < r < 2.7, h(r,E) is within 75% of its peak. Hence for a wide

range of values of r, h z. 0.5 if 9m < 5 arcmin and then

NSIG z. Is(aA t d/ID)

1/2

 * E/117 . (20)
Page 23

W)

0)

c

o

CB

• H

13

0] jj r-|

(fl (U U

0 4-1 flj

C U 0)

s> qi (-;

0

•H

 £ C M

,C O -H

4J O

A

u •.

l_j (h4 (y

o> 0 a > c

C <D O

O O

O C <N

w o>

> o

O fQ

C C

VI

o

•rH

14-1

*"O p^

© n I | i

QJ C -

g I O

U CQ

<U C 4J

4J -H C

0) 0)

X! S

4J 4-1 W

C 3

0) 03 03

3 ••-( Ol

u n] g

4J 4J

W C >D

C O C

4-1

(0 0)

W "O

0) C

C 0)

3 O O

O^ C '

3 fi C

14-1 4J -H
Page 24

When the measurement error 0m is not negligible NSIG is reduced at

the higher energies. This is shown in Figure 6 by curves for

9m = 0.1, 0.2, and 0.5°. For this telescope 0m should be less than

or on the order Of 0.1°. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THE COLLECTING

AREA AND LIVE TIME; AND IT IS ESSENTIALLY INDEPENDENT AT THESE

ENERGIES OF ALL OTHER INSTRUMENTATION PARAMETERS PROVIDED THE

MEASUREMENT ERROR IS KEPT SMALL. Therefore, to first order the

larger the area, the greater the sensitivity.

The NSIG given by (20) has been considered so far in terms of

the instrumental effects, but it also depends on the spectrum of the

source and background, in particular Is and ID, which are the

integral fluxes above a given energy. The results from COS-B

(Bignami and Hermsen, 1983) indicate that a typical source spectral

dependence is of the form dN/dE a E~2; that is, Ig a 1/E. The

galactic background dependence given by Hartman, et al. (1979) is

dN/dE a E"1*

7, that is ID a E~°*7. Inserting these dependences into

(20) gives

NSIG a E°'35 . (21)

IT IS RATHER AMAZING THAT NSIG INCREASES WITH ENERGY EVEN THOUGH THE

DIFFERENTIAL SPECTRAL INDEX IS DROPPING OFF ALMOST THREE TIMES AS

FAST AS THE BACKGROUND. (This is true up to an energy where the

source intensity is cut off.) Not only is NSIG better at the higher

energies, but also the angular resolution is better, as will be

shown in the next section. Thus to make significant progress in

gamma-ray astronomy it is important to work at the higher energies.
Page 25

And to do this will require a large-area detector such as this one.

3.4 Angular Resolution

The angular resolution has different meanings in different

contexts; in particular, it may refer to the minimum separation

necessary to distinguish two point sources or to map an extended

region of emission, or it may refer to the positional uncertainty of

the centroid of events for an isolated point source.

3.4.1 Peak— to— Peak Angular Resolution

The peak-to-peak angular resolution will be taken to be a

quantity analogous to what is commonly referred to as the full width

at half maximum. As described in the previous section, various

random processes cause the incident gamma-ray beam to produce a

two-dimensional distribution of events about the incoming direction,

(13) . The resolving power for peak-to-peak separation, 0pp, will be

defined to be the angle within which 1 - 1/e = 63.2% of the events

are distributed. That is, 0_p will be taken to be twice the rms

angle for the gamma-ray direction. The rms angles given in the

previous section were for one of the electrons in terms of the

primary gamma-ray energy. Combining the directions from a pair

reduces the rms uncertainty by </2~. Therefore

2 2 2 2 2 1 /") epp = /2 (0 + 0b + 0 + 9 + 0) . (22)

One of the major objectives of this telescope is to improve on the

angular position; that is, to have G_p as small as possible. First

of all the ultimate resolution is limited by the emission angle 9e
Page 26

of the pair when they are produced. Secondly, as shown in the

previous section, the statistical significance is independent of the

converter thickness for a wide range of thickness, provided the

converter is thicker than the scintillator in radiation lengths.

Therefore it is important to use a converter thickness that will

minimize the scattering without severely reducing NSIG. A converter

thickness of r = 0.036 radiation lengths seems to be a reasonable

tradeoff between angular resolution and a small reduction in NSIG.

The scintillator thickness has been minimized to what is probably

the thinnest practical. The calculations assumed N2 as the gas.

However, if H2 were used, the radiation length of the gas could be

reduced by a factor of ten. Table 1 gives the peak-to-peak

resolution for a number of primary energies. IN SUMMARY, THE

PEAK-TO-PEAK ANGULAR RESOLUTION IS WITHIN A FACTOR OF TWO OF THE

ULTIMATE ACHIEVABLE DUE TO THE EMISSION ANGLE AND COULD POSSIBLY BE

IMPROVED BY USING H2. Also note that the resolution is nearly

inversely proportional to the energy. It is recommended that a

scintillator module be constructed to determine the minimum

thickness of scintillator that can be used. It is also recommended

that the necessary tradeoffs between the various possible gases be

conducted as soon as possible.
Page 27

Table 1

Peak—to— Peak Angular Resolution Vs. Energy

Thickness

in Radia- ^rms for Given Incident Gamma-Ray Energy

Process tion Lengths 250 MeV 500 MeV 1 GeV 2 GeV

Emission Angle NA 0.72 0.40 0.22 0.12

Coulomb Scattering

Converter

Scintillator (4 mm)

Gas (N2)

0.036

0.00943

0.00612

NA

NA

1.22

0.93

0.75

0.10

1.86

0.61

0.47

0.38

0.10

0.95

0.30

0.23

0.19

0.10

0.49

0.15

0.12

0.09

0.10

0 0.27

rss = (

(per particle)

6 „ NA 1.32 0.67 0.35 0.19

ESS

(per event)

Qpp = /2~rss NA 2.63 1.34 0.70 0.37

Note that all angles are in degrees.

The fact that two secondaries are produced for each primary, to

first order, will not affect the shape of the distribution. The

division of energy between the electron and positron is in general

not equal. In this case the particle of lower energy will scatter

more. Because the ring of light will also be blurred due to the

Coulomb scattering in the gas and since it produces measurably less

Cherenkov light, it can be discriminated against in favor of the

higher energy particle having less scattering. The net result is

that the peak-to-peak resolution should be slightly better than what

is derived here.
Page 28

3.4.2 Centroid Uncertainty

Although a number of random processes cause a collimated beam

of gamma-rays to produce an extended peak about the incident

direction, in the limiting case of infinite statistical significance

and infinitesimally small resolution elements, the centroid of the

distribution could be located with absolute precision. However, as

in all cases, the size of the resolution element and NSIG are

finite. In what follows it will be assumed that NSIG will be large

enough so that the positional uncertainty is dominated by the size

of the resolution element.

In the simplest case, for a rectangular distribution with a

yes/no criterion in each cell, the positional uncertainty is simply

one-half the cell size. The situation improves by 1/N where N is

the number of gradations within each cell. Because of the unusual

geometry of rings of light, the hexagonal cell shape, and the small

number of photoelectrons defining each ring (an average of three per

cell) an analytic expression for the uncertainty of the centroid1s

position can not easily be derived. It is recommended that a Monte

Carlo simulation be performed for an ET configuration using the

Chi-squared method to determine the uncertainty.

In the configuration as proposed the center-to-center angular

distance of each cell is 0.42 degrees. Assuming that the

uncertainty is at least as good as in the simplest case and probably

is on the order of three times better (due to the average of three

photoelectrons per cell), the positional uncertainty for the

limiting case of very large NSIG is on the order of 0.07 to

0.21 degrees or 4 to 13 arcminutes for an isolated point source.
Page 29

3.5 Anticipated Count Rates

In order to appreciate the sensitivity of this telescope it is

useful to see what the count rates will be from already known

sources and compare them with the previous detectors. The two

pulsars will be considered. First of all the background flux from

the Galaxy in the region around these sources is about

ID = 0.3 x 10~4 photons/cm2 sec sr (E > 300 MeV)

(Mayer-Hasselwander, et al., 1982). From (12) the background rate

is

RB = a ID A ec n . (23)

For the ETf the aft dome wall thickness is on the order of

.034 radiation lengths so that a = .97. The active area will be

c o

taken as 2.4 x 103cm . The conversion efficiency will be taken to

be .0276 (.036 radiation lengths) and a resolution element to be

n = 1.15 x 10~3 sr (G = 1.1 at 300 MeV from Table 1). Then

RB = 7.26 ID counts/sec/resolution element

= 0.8 counts/hr/resolution element (E > 300 MeV)

The maximum counting rate occurs around the galactic center where

IQC = 2 x 10~3 photons/cm2 sec sr (E > 200 MeV) ,

fl = .006 sr (0 = 2.5) for the field of view. Then

RQC =1.2 cnts/min (E > 200 MeV). Using the intensities and

spectral parameters from Bignami and Hermsen (1983), the intensities

for the Vela and Crab pulsars (E > 300 MeV) are respectively

4.75 x 10~6 and 0.67 x 10~6 photons/cm2 sec.
Page 30

From (11) the source rate is

Rg = a 6 is A ec = 4060 * Is counts/sec . (24)

Thus the Vela and Crab rates are

RV = 70 counts/hr and

Rc = 9.8 counts/hr

or in one hour the number of sigma above background will be

NSIGy = 78 and NSIGC = 11.

As a comparison, in a combination of five observations of the Crab,

totaling 189 days with the COS-B (Wills, et al., 1982),

1733 gamma-rays were detected from the region of the Crab. Of

these, about 1265 were background, leaving a signal of 468 or a

NSIG = 13.2. In addition to a comparison of the statistical

significance the comparison of signal to noise can be made. For the

Crab measurement by COS-B, the measured value of 1733 has an

uncertainty of 41.6. Assuming that the background uncertainty is

small compared to this, then the signal to noise is

(1733 - 1265)/41.6 = 11.2. For this telescope, the signal will be

9.8t and the noise will be [(9.8 + 0.8) x t]1/2. The signal to

noise will reach 11.2 in 13.8 hours; that is, a light curve with

the equivalent signal to noise of that given by Wills, et al.,

requiring half a year of integration could be obtained with this

telescope in just over half a day of integration. This points out

the fact that the increase in area of this telescope relative to

COS-B of about 420 is roughly equal to the reduction in integration

time of 330 for this telescope to obtain a comparable signal to

noise. Thus, one can see how much more sensitive this telescope is
Page 31

compared to the previous satellites. The sensitivity of GRO will be

somewhere between that of OOS-B and this telescope. THIS GREATER

SENSITIVITY WILL PERMIT MEASUREMENT OF SHORT-TERM TEMPORAL PHENOMENA

WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE POSSIBLE WITH A SMALLER DETECTOR.

3.6 Energy Resolution

In addition to determining the arrival time and direction of

each gamma-ray it is useful to know its energy. For it is from the

spectral distribution of photons that the source mechanism is

generally understood. In the radio and infrared portions of the

spectrum one sees molecular transitions, in the visible and X-ray

one sees atomic transitions, and in the gamma-ray there are the

nuclear transitions and interactions. In addition there are

continuum spectra both thermal and non-thermal. The bulk of the

nuclear lines are in the energy range of 1 to 10 MeV (see Chupp,

1976). The only distinctive gamma-ray spectrum at higher energies

is due to pion decay. The decay spectrum from isotropically moving

TT° mesons has a maximum at E^ = mirc

2/2 = 68 MeV. Pions of energy

ym^c2 produce a flat decay spectrum from ^72 Y to 2YEm. The the

gamma-ray spectrum from a non-mono-energetic source will have a very

broad distribution peaked at 68 MeV. THUS IN THE HIGH ENERGY REGION

(E > 100 MeV) THERE IS LITTLE NEED FOR FINE ENERGY RESOLUTION SINCE

ALL THERE IS TO MEASURE ARE CURVATURES, SLOPES, AND CUTOFFS OF

CONTINUUM SPECTRA. Therefore in this telescope there is no major

effort to obtain fine energy resolution.
Page 32

The inherent energy resolution for a single event is obtained

from a measurement of the separation of the electron-positron pair

due to their emission angle and multiple Coulomb scattering. The

differential probability distribution for the opening angle is

dP/dG = (0/02) exp(-02/2e£> (25)

where 0H = 02^/2 is the most probable opening angle. The

probability that the measured opening angle 0m results from a

gamma-ray at an energy E which is different from the most probable

energy E^ is

dP/de = (em/02) exp(-02/202) (26)

where 0p is the peak probability for energy E. The peak probability

is (0 = e )

dP/d© = (l/6p) exp(-l/2) . (27)

Dividing (26) by (27) gives the normalized likelihood for getting 0

when 0_ is expected. From Table 1 it is clear that the rms

scattering and hence the rms opening angles are nearly inversely

proportional to E. Thus

E/Em - em/ep • <28)

Substituting this into the ratio of (26) and (27) gives

£ = E/Em * exp(l/2 - E2/2£2) . (29)

This function is plotted in Figure 7. The likelihood ratio is 0.5

for E/Em =0.32 and 1.92. This defines the energy resolution for a

single event. Combining the measured energy distribution with the

m
Page 33

UJ

UJ

CO
Page 34

known instrument performance, it will be possible to perform least

squares fits to determine source spectra.

Improved energy resolution at these high energies could be

accomplished if desired in a number of ways.

1. A total absorption calorimeter as has been used with the

smaller spark chambers. This unfortunately would be very

heavy, requiring at least ten radiation lengths of

material. Also, the cost of the traditional Nal or Csl

crystals would be truly astronomical.

2. A somewhat lighter and quite practical system would be a

shower counter composed of layers of scintillators and

lead. But even one radiation length of lead (6.37 gm/cm2),

which would be a barely useful thickness, placed behind the

mirror (area z. 5 x 105 cm2) would weigh 3185 kg

(7030 Ibs.). However, this should not be ruled out as a

future possibility.

3. Transition radiation detectors (Swordy, et al., 1982) have

been investigated. They are quite attractive for measuring

the higher energies E > 500 MeV since they do not require

total absorption of the particle energy and are relatively

lightweight. However, since the active components are

gas-filled proportional counters, the necessary equipment

would more than exceed in complexity the rest of the

telescope.
Page 35

3.7 Threshold Selection and Radiating Gas

There are many factors that influence the selection of the

energy threshold for this telescope. The threshold for generating

Cherenkov light is determined by the Lorentz factor Y = E/mc^ where

E is the energy and m the rest mass of the particle.

In order to be immune to the decay products of muons (maximum

energy 53 MeV) that could stop and then decay in the converter, the

threshold, YT, should be 100. This eliminates the need for a long

veto pulse of 10 microseconds. Another reason for setting YT high

is to ensure that the gamma-rays interact purely by the pair

production mechanism. At 20 MeV (in aluminum) the Compton

scattering and pair production cross sections are about equal. At

100 MeV- the pair production cross section is ten times the Compton

and also has nearly reached its asymptotic value. Finally, the

multiple Coulomb scattering is worse at lower energies and as shown

in Section 3.3 the statistical significance as well as the angular

resolution actually decrease with decreasing energy.

The argument for keeping YT as small as possible is that the

light production goes inversely as the square of YT [equation (8)].

Thus there is no hard and fast rule for quantitatively determining

YT. A value of YT = 83 had been used in the previous generation of

this telescope and for a lack of a good reason for change, this

value will be used here. From (3) the index of refraction

corresponding to ^T = 83 is n = 1.0000726 (n = 72.6 x 10~6). The

asymptotic ring diameter is 1.38 degrees and the asymptotic number

of photons produced per particle is 5.8 per meter. If a selection

criterion is set to require detection of at least 80%of the light in
Page 36

each ring, then from (9) the effective threshold will be yeff = 186.

ASSUMING EQUAL DIVISION OF THE ENERGY BETWEEN THE PAIR, THE

EFFECTIVE THRESHOLD FOR GAMMA-RAY DETECTION WILL BE ABOUT 182 MeV.

None of the above constraints dictates the particular gas, but

only defines the index of refraction that is the gas density.

Figure 8 shows the pressure vs. Cherenkov threshold for various

gases. (Others may also be considered along with gas mixtures.)

For YT = 83 the pressures would be 7.62, 3.56, 4.01, and 2.60 psia

for H2, N2, 02, and C02 respectively. These values are all safely

within the ET operating pressure limit of 40 psi. From this list,

the preferred gas would be H2 simply because the thickness of the

gas in radiation lengths is less than one-tenth that of any other

gas for this index of refraction. This would reduce the scattering

in the gas to a negligible level. Two other reasons H2 comes to

mind is that the vessel being used is the LH2 tank and there is a

large residual of LH2 in each tank at MECO. However, N2 has been

assumed since this would permit the astronauts to work in a

shirtsleeve environment provided the pressure was temporarily

raised. C02 is also a possibility and has the advantage that, being

stored as a liquid, it would be handled at a lower pressure than N2.

02 is also readily available on-orbit from the 02 tank and unlike

N2, the astronauts could work in the tank without requiring portable

oxygen units. Whatever gas is used it will be necessary to know its

composition and density, i.e., its pressure and temperatures.
Page 37

100

10 —

p

(psia)

(0°C)

1.0 -

0.1

I I I I I II I

10 100 1000

Figure 8. Pressure, p, for various gases vs. the selected threshold

Lorentz factor, YT.
Page 38

3.8 Immunity to Background Cosmic Rays

ONE OF THE GREAT VIRTUES OF THIS TELESCOPE IN ADDITION TO ITS

SIMPLICITY AND LARGE APERTURE IS ITS INHERENT ABILITY TO NATURALLY

REJECT VIRTUALLY ALL NON-GAMMA-RAY EVENTS. What follows is a litany

of potential background events and a description of how each is

rejected.

3.8.1 Direct Registration of Primary Protons

The expected number of events of this type is

N = I A t d a (1 - eA) i\ e2 (30)

where EA is the efficiency of the veto scintillator, SI >99%, and

e, is the probability that the pulses in S2 and S3 due to a single

charged particle exceed the threshold detection level set for a

pair, <1%. e2 is the probability of a single charged particle

producing the same amount of light as a pair of particles. Two

particles will generate on the average 60 photoelectrons. If the

threshold for detection is set at 48, the probability of detection

is 0.935. The probability of a single particle producing 48 or more

when 30 is expected is 0.0014. The probability of accepting one

particle when two are expected is then e_ = 1.5 x 10 . I is the

*- P

proton flux above the energy required for Cherenkov-light production

in the gas, namely about 100 GeV. This flux is about

-3 -2 -1 -1 10 cm sec sr . The remaining parameters are as in (12).

Production of the light via knock-on electronics from protons of

lower energy adds only about 10% to the rate. Taking the integral

diffuse gamma-ray flux for high galactic latitudes above 250 MeV to
Page 39

—5 2 be 2 x 10 photons/cm /sec/sr, (Mayer-Hasselwander, et al.f 1982)

then gives

* (1-

"D -

(31J

*D C

Thus the rate of primary proton detection is small in comparison to

the diffuse gamma-ray background.

3.8.2 Pjrotons Interacting to Produce Pions

The threshold energy for charged pions to produce Cherenkov

light is lower, 15 GeV, than for protons. However, the energy of

the primary proton necessary to produce the pion must still be above

100 GeV. Since the converter plus scintillator amount to only 1/60

of an interaction length, this process is negligible compared to

direct registration of primary protons. Protons will also interact,

producing neutral pions which immediately decay to produce a pair of

gamma-rays. These gamma-rays will be detected in the same way as

primary gammas. However, on the average they will have only half as

much converter in which to pair produce. Finally, the Cherenkov

light produced by all the secondaries from the proton interaction

must not mimic that produced by just a single pair. Thus it is even

less likely to detect the products of proton interactions than to

detect protons directly.

3.8.3

Muons that stop in the converter and subsequently decay have

been troublesome in some detectors because the decay electron

originates on the average 2.2 microseconds after the muon signal and

can appear to have been generated in the converter by neutral
Page 40

radiation. To avoid these spurious events the use of a long veto

pulse (about 10 microsec) is generally required. This would rule

out the possibility of constructing an apparatus on a large scale

(because of jamming). The gas-Cherenkov telescope avoids this

problem. The high threshold energy for producing Cherenkov

radiation makes this instrument completely insensitive to the decay

electrons of stopped muons. Thus, the veto pulse width can be kept

extremely short, on the order of 5 nsec, and a large area is

possible without jamming. Additionally, a gamma-ray burst producing

a high instantaneous count rate in excess of many megahertz can be

recorded .

3.8.4 Backward-Going Particles that Stop in the Converter

Backward-going particles, which stop in the converter and hence

fail to trip the veto scintillator, could look like electrons

produced by gamma-rays in the converter. The gas-Cherenkov

telescope is insensitive to these events for several reasons:

1. Any Cherenkov light that may be produced by backward-going

particles can reach the phototubes only if the particle

itself passes through the focal plane.

2. The threefold time-delayed coincidence of the pulses

between the Cherenkov light-collecting phototubes and in

the scintillators would be incorrect.

3. The light reaching the focal plane will be in the form of a

pool of 1.4 degrees diameter rather than a ring resulting

from the imaging of the mirror.
Page 41

3.8.5 Primary Electrons

Through inefficiency of the anticoincidence scintillatorf

electrons might be recorded as spurious gamma-rays in the same way

that the fast protons could. Although primary cosmic-ray electrons

are much less numerous than are protons of the same energy, the

threshold energy for electrons to radiate is much lower than for

protons. This lower value for electrons is due to the threshold

energy of this detector depending on the Lorentz factor. Above the

approximate threshold of 90 MeV for a single particle, the electron

2

flux in space is 0.166/cm /sec/sr (Hayakawa, p. 632, 1969). This

value is 166 times greater than the flux of protons above the

Cherenkov threshold. Comparing the electron background with that of

diffuse gamma-rays, the ratio is about 166 times that given by (31),

i.e.,

N

-^ < 4.3 x 10~4 (32)

N

D

3.8.6 Chance Coincidences

A chance coincidence requires a pulse in the pair-recording

scintillator S2, unaccompanied by one in the veto scintillator SI,

followed after 79 nsec by an unrelated pulse in S3, and followed

after an additional 13 nsec by an unrelated pulse of the correct

amplitude in Cherenkov light-collecting phototubes. The pulses in

S2 unassociated with veto pulses in SI will be due mainly to soft

electrons entering from below and to gamma-rays outside the

acceptance angle of the telescope. The estimated pulse rate is

A

2 x 10 /sec. The pulse rate in S3 is expected to be about

4 x 10 /sec. The pulse rate in the focal plane will be dominated by
Page 42

Cherenkov pulses from primary electrons hitting the focal plane.

This rate is

RFP

where

Ie = .166 electrons/cm2 sec sr

A2 :L 5.9 x 103cm2,

«2 = TT/4 sr (30°FOV, since an electron from a steep angle will

produce substantially less light)

and e2 = .0014 as before (Section 3.8.1).

Combining these rates and using a 5-nsec pulse width, At, gives a

chance coincidence rate of

NC = 4 R2R3RFP (At)2 = 8.8 x 10~7/sec . (34)

The diffuse gamma-ray rate above the effective threshold energy is

-4

ND = aIDAOec = 7.7 x 10 / sec

where a = .97, ID = 2 x 10~5, A = 2.4 x 105, n = .006, and

ec = .0276 all as used before.

Thus the ratio of chance coincidences to the diffuse gamma-ray

background is

N

^T - 1.1 x 10"J (35)

ND

which also can be neglected. The character of the pulse of light

has been neglected, i.e., an unimaged cone of light will appear as a

filled pool of light rather than a ring. This will reduce
Page 43

significantly the rate RFP when the images are analyzed.

3.8.7 Summary of Background Effects

The dominant background effect is due to primary electrons,

which might be expected since the telescope is designed to detect

them as the secondaries produced by the incident gamma-rays.

However, the effect of the primary electrons is small compared to

the diffuse gamma-ray background. In summary, the non-gamma-ray

background is rejected in a natural way by:

1. Requiring a large Lorentz factor

2. Detecting the image and amplitude due to two Cherenkov

light cones

3. Tightly packing the converter with a trigger and a veto

scintillator, and

4. Requiring a threefold fast time coincidence appropriately

delayed for the long time of flight between system

components.

Note also that these backgrounds were compared with the diffuse

flux at high galactic latitudes. On the plane and especially toward

the galactic center the background effects will be somewhat more

negligible.
Page 44

4.0 TELESCOPE-COMPONENT DESCRIPTION

4.1 The Tank

The principal component necessary for this telescope to work,

the LH2 portion of the ET, is the ideal vessel for many reasons. It

is large, thin-walled, gas-tight, light-tight, insulated, and rigid.

There are no central obscurations and it already has three 36-inch

manholes. Finally it is available at no cost (normally it is

disposed of) and the energy required to put it in-orbit has already

been invested into it. It is truly a windfall to the user.

As described in Section 3.7 the telescope must operate within a

pressure vessel at a few psi. The ET is designed to operate up to

40 psi, thus it can be operated safely as a telescope. In addition,

the ET operating pressure is not so much greater that the tank wall

would significantly absorb the gamma-rays or serve as a source of

secondary gamma-rays due to high energy cosmic-ray interactions.

Figure 9 is a drawing of the aft dome (front of the telescope) and

on it are indicated the typical thicknesses of the aluminum.

Assuming an average thickness of 0.12 inches within the field of

view, the gamma-ray attenuation is only 2.6% and there is only 1/129

of an interaction length for primary protons to produce pions.

Because of these concerns, it is important to maintain the material

thickness within the field of view at an absolute minimum.

Therefore it is desirable to remove the hydrogen siphon and

anti-vortex baffles from the aft dome. According to MMA, it appears

to be feasible to do this by unbolting it from the inside and

stowing it in the region of the forward dome.
Page 45

s>

SEE VIEW

18 EQ SP QEF

— 7000

THEOR

.200

ALL BUTT

WELDMENTS

Figure 9. Wall thickness (inches) of aft dome.
Page 46

4.2 The Trigger Module and Sensitive Area

In order to detect the gamma-rays they are first converted to

an electron-positron pair. To be able to determine that this has

happened, the converter is surrounded with plastic scintillator.

Plastic scintillator has the property that when an energetic charged

particle passes through it, it emits a very fast pulse of light, on

the order of 5 nsec in duration. The light can be efficiently

collected and detected with photomultiplier tubes (PMT). Each

scintillator with its PMTs is sealed in aluminum foil to optically

isolate it. One layer of scintillator is placed on the incident

side of the converter; this is used as a veto to reject all charged

particles. The converter used is generally a high Z material to

minimize weight. A sheet of lead 0.2 mm thick will provide the

necessary radiation thickness. Another scintillator is placed on

the exit side to detect the charged pair produced by a gamma-ray.

When a pulse indicative of two particles is seen in the trigger

without a coincident pulse in the veto, it is very likely that the

event was due to a gamma-ray. The trigger scintillator is slightly

smaller than the veto to ensure charged primary rejection near the

edges. To minimize scattering a scintillator 4 mm thick will be

used.

The trigger module is limited in size by the manholes in the

ET. Many modules are necessary to define the active area of the

telescope. A convenient shape for the modules is hexagonal.

Adiabatic light pipes can be attached to two opposite edges, making

for fairly uniform and efficient light collection utilizing the

property of total internal reflection within the scintillator and
Page 47

light pipes for conducting the light to the PMTs. To provide

mechanical strength to the modules so that they can be handled by

the astronauts without fear of breaking, an aluminum honeycomb

sandwich is included. The module as described is shown in

Figure 10.

These modules and slightly truncated versions of them can be

arranged to define the aperture. The clear aperture is limited by

the inside diameter of the 2058 ring at the base of the aft dome.

This diameter is 252 inches. Although a larger aperture would be

desirable, vignetting would result in the gain in off-axis area to

be marginally useful. With the present configuration the sensitive

area is constant within the field of view. Figure 11 shows the

layout that would fill the clear aperture with the modules shown in

Figure 10. The areas containing the light pipes and PMTs would be

inactive. There is no overlap of the modules in order to minimize

the amount of scattering material after the pair is produced. The

arrangement of the outer ring has been chosen so as to place light

pipes and PMTs at the six corners and thereby minimize the loss of

active area. The flat side-to-side dimension of a trigger

scintillator is 78 cm and the sensitive area per module is 5270 cm2

for a whole module and 4172 cm2 for a truncated module. With

36 whole and 18 truncated modules the total sensitive area will be

2.5 x 105cm2. (Those portions of a module that would be blocked by

the 2058 ring would be made of clear plastic.) The large inactive

area in the center serves a dual function:
Page 48

i

o

o

o

O CD

°- oo °

00 O CO

^ o •••.

P B5

II o

CO

Q_

00

'O

cn

o>

•H

u

4J

O

•H

0)

U

3
Page 49

Figure 11. Layout of the trigger module assembly. The 252 inside

diameter of the 2058 ring is also shown.
Page 50

1. To permit astronaut access (45 inch side to side), and

2. The focal-plane array introduces some central obscuration.

Each module would have mounted on it a small electronics

module. It would provide the following functions:

1. Receive 28 VDC power and convert it to the necessary 2-3 kV

required by the four PMTs. The high voltage connections

between the HV supply and the PMTs would be hardwired and

potted. No HV connectors would be used.

2. Using emitter-coupled logic (ECL) the module would perform

the necessary fast asynchronous logic processing, thus

providing the appropriate fast signal via 50-Ohm cable to

the central logic unit for all the modules.

3. Permit selection via a coded command one of the following

signals to be sent to the central logic unit:

a. veto scintillator only (for housekeeping health check)

b. trigger scintillator only (for housekeeping health

check)

c. veto.trigger (for master trigger logic)

All of these modules would be protectively packed into a

shipping crate and placed in the Orbiter cargo bay. A NASA

"standard shipping crate" could be developed for this purpose which

would provide a thermally protected, acoustically isolated, and

contamination-free environment. The modules would then be removed

from the crate and installed by the astronauts, at present a novel

way to build a satellite but hopefully the beginning of what should
Page 51

become commonplace. One great advantage to this approach is that

individual modules do not have to be as rugged as similar equipment

has had to be in the past, since the protective packing can provide

support and isolation from the launch loads.

In the IR&D study done by MMA, a concept was developed for

mounting the modules to form the array. This consisted of

stretching a fabric across the 2058 ring and attaching the modules

with Velcro or push-in pins. The trampoline, as it has come to be

called, would have the wiring harness sewn in it and would be rolled

up so that it would fit through the manhole. Alignment of the

trigger modules on the trampoline is not critical.

4.3 The Mirror

Unlike the previous forms of gamma-ray detectors, this one will

function much like a conventional optical telescope in that a mirror

is used to collect information over a large area and concentrate it

at the focal plane. Since the error in the image reconstruction

technique is anticipated to be on the order of 5 arcmin, it is not

necessary for the image quality of the mirror to be any better than

1 arcmin. A 311-inch diameter mirror attached at the 1377 ring

frame would provide an unvignetted field of view. To include the

full cone of light the mirror diameter will be made as large as

possible to fit within the 328.5 I.D. of the tank (wall thickness

plus stringers).

Two possibilities for the mirror construction were considered,

a single element and a segmented multi-element design. If

constructed as a single element, it would have to be installed in
Page 52

the tank during its assembly at Michoud. Its advantage is that it

would reduce the amount of on-orbit assembly required. The problems

with this concept are:

1. No vendor has been found from which a single mirror of the

required size is readily available.

2. The effects on the flow of liquids and gases within the Ll^

tank during launch would probably be unacceptable. In

particular, hot GH2 is entering the top of the tank, while

cold LH2 is being siphoned from the bottom.

3. It is not clear that the quality of the mirror would be

acceptable after launch, due to either thermal stress or

degradation of its front surface.

For these reasons a segmented design was pursued. High quality

segmented mirrors of 10-meter diameter have been built in the past

(Fazio, et al., 1968, and Leighton, 1978). In both of these

designs, each element was a hexagon. The component array was held

together by a lattice framework. In this way a large reflector with

the required resolution could be constructed at an affordable cost.

Indeed, the mirror used in the prototype version of this telescope

was segmented and was literally home spun (out of epoxy) hexagons.

The individual mirror elements would be constrained in size to

be less than 36 inches in order to fit through the existing manhole.

Figure 12 shows the layout of the proposed array. It would consist

of 61 whole segments and 24 truncated ones. Each element would be

made out of an aluminum honeycomb sandwich that has a very high

strength-to-weight ratio. The backface would have a flat plate

bonded to the honeycomb. The front of the honeycomb would be
Page 53

Figure 12. Layout of the segmented mirror,

diameter and 400 inches in focal length.

Mirror is 328 inches in
Page 54

roughly machined to the proper curvature. The front plate would be

predeformed prior to bonding. Inserts would be incorporated in the

sandwich for mounting purposes. The front surface would then be

appropriately machined, polished, and coated using conventional

techniques. The figure of the mirror would be referenced to the

mounting pads so that the elements would be interchangeable, thus

simplifying later installation by the astronauts.

The elements would be supported by a lattice framework. The

layout of this is shown in Figure 13. It would be made a welded

structure of thin-walled aluminum tubing and installed in the ET

during assembly at Michoud. From the study carried out by MNA it

was concluded that this would be feasible without impacting the

qualification of the ET. This is one of only two major

modifications to the ET. The lattice design ensures that there are

no stresses induced to the mirror segments by requiring all three

mounting points for an element to be connected via a triangle. The

strength of the structure will be dictated by the launch loads

and/or the stiffness under 1 G while performing the original

alignment on the ground. The lattice would be mounted to the ET

with a three-point mount having the necessary six degrees of freedom

since the tank itself becomes elliptical when it is laid on its side

and there will be differential thermal expansion during cryogen

loading and launch and while on-orbit. The mirror is currently

shown as being mounted to the major ring frame at STA 1377;

however, the closer it is to the forward dome (back of the

telescope), the longer the path length for producing Cherenkov

light, which is very critical. Longitudinal struts between the 1130
Page 55

Figure 13. Lattice support structure for segmented mirror. The

mirrors are always mounted onto three mutually adjacent nodes.
Page 56

and 1377 ring frames would permit this as well as distributing the

launch loads.

To minimize off-axis distortion, particularly in optical

systems with a large field of view, it is desirable to maximize the

focal length. It is also desirable to be able to verify the mirror

alignment. This would be possible if the focal length were chosen

to be equal to half the distance from the mirror to the aft dome,

that is, a focal length of 400 inches. Then a point source placed

at that point would be reflected back onto itself from all mirror

elements. With this focal length and a 5-degree field of view, the

focal plane (Figure 3) would be 33.5 inches side to side, just small

enough to fit through the manhole.

The mirror elements would initially be aligned on the ground,

then packed in shipping crates for delivery on-orbit, and

reinstalled by the astronauts. The alignment tolerance of one

arcminute allows for a mechanical fit on the mounting pads to within

.008 inches, which is well within the realm of reproducibility.

Alignment can be verified during installation both on the ground and

on-orbit by placing a point light source and TV camera at twice the

focal length.

4.4 The Focal Plane

The requirements for the focal-plane detector are that it must

have very fast time resolution (a few nanoseconds), have reasonable

quantum efficiency, ~ 25%, have good amplitude resolution right down

to the single photon level and have enough elements in an array to

provide the necessary spatial resolution. Neither image tube nor
Page 57

solid state cameras can provide the required time resolution. The

only device that can fulfill all of the above requirements is a

photomultiplier tube (PMT). An array of 127 PMTs has been selected.

For a 5-degree FOV the center-to-center tube spacing would be

0.42 degrees. With the 400-inch focal length mirror the plate scale

is 1 degree to 6.98 inches or 2.932 inches tube center to center. A

particularly good tube type for this application is a 2-inch PMT

made by RCA, the 8850. This tube has a bialkali photo cathode with

a peak quantum efficiency of about 30% and a GaP first dynode that

is of sufficiently high gain to permit single photoelectron

resolution. One variant of this tube (the C31000M) has a quartz

window that extends the sensitivity to 200 ran where the Cherenkov

light is most intense. Another version of this tube (the C31057) is

available ruggedized for space flight. All of these features could

be made available in one tube.

So that light is not lost between the PMTs, hexagonally-shaped

reflective light cones are placed on each tube. Figure 3 shows the

focal-plane array. The array would be brought in as an assembled

unit and held in place by a tripod which is connected to the mirror

fixing it to the optical axis.

The light from each Cherenkov ring will on the average be

divided among 14 tubes. By performing pulse height analysis on each

tube (at most 4 or 8 levels would be adequate) the rings of light

can be reconstructed and the direction of the gamma-ray determined.

Off-axis aberrations can be corrected in a unique way, since the

trigger module in which the event originated will determine the

location within the aperture and hence the amount of aberration that

had occurred.
Page 58

4.5 The Time of Flight (TOP) Module

The time of flight (TOP) scintillator is placed behind the

mirror in order to assist in unambiguously identifying each

gamma-ray event and in the rejection of non-gamma-ray events. The

design of a single module is basically the same as a trigger in that

a hexagonally-shaped plastic scintillator is viewed by a pair of

PMTs with the light being efficiently transmitted from the

scintillators to the PMTs via adiabatic light pipes. The

scintillator-light pipe-PMT assembly is wrapped with aluminum foil

to optically isolate it. A TOP module will consist of a single

scintillator, honeycomb strongback, and electronics module. The

electronics module will contain the HV supply for the PMTs and

supply a 50-Ohm signal indicative of either one or two electrons

formed from the signals from the two phototubes on each module. The

modules would be mounted to a trampoline similar to that used to

position the trigger modules. Since scattering is unimportant at

this time, active scintillator can overlap the light pipes and 'PMTs

and vice versa. In this way all dead areas can be filled with

modules. To account for the beam divergence the area of the TOP,

like the mirror, must fill the entire cross section of the tank.

Figure 14 shows the layout of the TOP modules. The array will

consist of 61 whole modules and 24 truncated modules.

If a shower counter were desired in order to obtain greater

energy resolution then one or more layers of lead and scintillator

would be added to each module. In addition each module would now

contain the necessary fast electronics to determine the energy of

the shower.
Page 59

Figure 14. Layout of the time of flight (TOP) scintillator array.

The bulk of the light pipes and PMTs have been overlayed by another

scintillator to provide a nearly completely active array.
Page 60

4.6 Telescope Electronics

The ability of this telescope to successfully detect gamma-rays

and efficiently reject background relies on the ability to perform

time-delayed coincidence between the veto, trigger, TOP, and focal

plane. The pulse rise and fall times must be kept to 1 nanosecond

and the pulse widths must be no more than 5 nanoseconds. This fast

timing can be performed using emitter-coupled logic (ECL).

Functional modules are readily available for lab use from a number

of commercial vendors (for example, LeCroy Research System, Phillips

Scientific, and EG&G Ortec). Literally thousands of these modules

are interconnected as part of massive particle detectors at high

energy accelerators, cosmic-ray detectors, and the like (Gidal,

et al., 1983). What is critical at these high speeds is the design

of the interconnection. Exterior to the module, 50-Ohm coaxial

cable is required and each connector must be terminated with 50 Ohms

to prevent ringing. Likewise the internal design of the module must

be done taking into account the capacitance and inductance of every

\

connection. Each path must be considered a transmission line. The

point is that the technology exists and it must be used for the

telescope to function. In order to achieve the fast switching

times, the ECL circuits require higher currents than are normally

encountered in logic modules. The power required to operate the

telescope will be on the order of 1 kW.

The master event trigger would be generated by
Page 61

1. Forming a logical OR of all the trigger modules;

2. Forming a logical OR of all the TOF modules;

3. Requiring at least four of the focal-plane PMTs to have two

or more photoelectrons; and

4. Performing a threefold properly time-delayed coincidence of

1, 2, and 3.

A master event trigger would then:

1. Latch the pulse height information for all 127 PMTs in the

focal plane;

2. Latch the 54 trigger module signals;

3. Latch the clock reading;

4. Latch the attitude reading;

5. Initiate synchronous data readout and recording.

The acid test to prove that the telescope is working is to introduce

an incorrect time delay into one of the three coincidence signals.

This command capability will be included. Additional capabilities

for verifying the health of the telescope will be the monitoring of

the background rates in each module and focal-plane PMTs. This can

be accomplished as part of the normal housekeeping activity,

sampling one module at a time and subcommutating the information.
Page 62

4.7 Supporting Elements

4.7.1 Attitude Control

Since this is not a surveying instrument, but rather a

telescope, it must be pointed inertially, that is, its axes must be

held fixed with respect to the celestial sphere. However, unlike a

conventional telescope, which requires pointing to a fraction of a

resolution element to keep the image on a spectrograph slit or allow

for picture taking with a long exposure, this telescope can account

for image motion during reconstruction of each event. Thus the

pointing requirement is simply to keep the source within about a

one-degree deadband of the five-degree field of view. A two-axis

system is required as a minimum (pitch and yaw). However, for other

reasons, power in particular, three axes may be required.

Additionally, the post facto attitude information must be adequate

to permit determination to one arcminute. This requirement has been

set so that the attitude error does not contribute significantly to

the uncertainty in the determination of the gamma-ray direction.

The hold time on any particular source can be anywhere from

half an orbit to indefinite. The slew rate need not be rapid, about

one degree per minute with a few minutes settling time. This will

keep the lost observing time to a few percent, on the average.

There are many possibilities for attitude control but in

general no single system is perfect or complete. These include:

1. Reaction wheels which have to be unloaded using another

technique.
Page 63

2. Thrusters which have consumables.

3. Magnetic torquing which cannot be used to control motion

• azimuthally about the local field direction.

4. Gravity gradient which cannot be used to control motion

azimuthally about the local vertical.

5. Spinning the entire spacecraft, but this complicates

rendezvousing, power, and telemetry and requires a

symetrically balanced mass.

6. Hard mounting, but this assumes the availability of a

stable structure with many times the inertia.

Therefore some combination will be required. The most economical

and feasible choice will have to be worked out in a Phase B design

definition.

4.7.2 Data Acquisition and Telemetry

With the selected converter thickness, the peak count rate is

from Vela at about 2 counts/min. The background rate will be on the

order of 1 count/min maximum. Thus for planning purposes an average

rate not to exceed 5 counts/min will be assumed. The information

recorded for each event will include the pulse heights, requiring

512 bytes. The time, attitude, housekeeping, and statuses will not

require more than an additional 512 bytes. Thus the total data

storage requirement is 7200 Kbytes (57600 Kbits) a day and the data

could be dumped in 15 min using an S-band transponder at 64 kbps.

For control of the telescope, primarily for pointing, one 64-Kbyte

message per day is all that is necessary. For diagnostic purposes,

a real-time downlink rate of 1 kbps and command rate of 125 bps are
Page 64

adequate .

4.7.3 South Atlantic Anomaly Detector

Since the telescope will periodically pass through the South

Atlantic Anomaly, and since the telescope has many high voltage

devices/ the high voltage will have to be turned off to prevent

coronal discharge and damage to the power supplies and PMTs. The

time at which the power is turned off and on is based on the local

ionization rate. A South Atlantic Anomaly Detector will be provided

which will consist of a simple windowless Geiger-Muller tube similar

to that used on HEAO-2.

4.7.4 Meteoroid Shield

Since this telescope must operate in a pressurized vessel, it

is essential to protect the vessel from puncture by meteoroids.

This is the same requirement that is faced by a manned Space

Station. Development of shielding for the ET would make it even

more attractive as a habitat. Fred Whipple (1947) originally

suggested a double wall system which is what is now commonly used.

The principle being to fragment the meteoroid with an outer bumper

spaced sufficiently far from the inner wall for the energy to

dissipate. An empirical equation developed by Nysmith (1969) for a

double wall aluminum structure giving the relationship of the

meteoroid properties and the structural design is

v = 0.0029 (t1/dm)

1

'

9

(t2/dm)

3

'

6

(s/din)

5

 km/sec

where v is the meteoroid impact velocity in km/ sec, tj and t2 are

the outer and inner wall thickness, s is the wall separation and djj^
Page 65

is the diameter of the meteoroid, all in mm. Using t = 0.635 mm

(.025 inch) the same as that on Skylab, t2 = 3.8 mm (for the mean ET

cylinder wall thickness) s = 25.4 mm (the SOFI thickness) and

v = 20 km/sec, implies that a normal incident meteoroid 2.9 mm in

diameter will not penetrate the inner wall. The weight of the

shield would be 2500 Ibs. to cover the cylindrical portion of the

LH2 tank and 860 Ibs. for the aft dome. Since the velocity

dependence goes as s5 and the meteoroid diameter approximately as

1/9

s*'* great benefit would be derived from increasing s by several

inches, i.e., by mounting the shield on standoffs. In addition

decreasing tj has little effect on d^ but would reduce the shield

weight in direct proportion. The intent here is not to design the

shield but rather to scope its mass. An optimized shield would

result from a Phase B design definition. THIS SHIELD ALONG WITH THE

FACTORY INSTALLED-MIRROR ARE THE ONLY TWO MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE

ET.
Page 66

5.0 MISSION SCENARIO*

For purposes of discussion of specific details a mission

scenario is presented assuming:

1. The mission would be performed from the Orbiter rather than

from the Space Station; and

2. The telescope would be an autonomous free flyer rather than

attached to the Space Station.

In any case, a Space Station scenario would not affect the

performance of the telescope. Its relation to the Space Station,

once assembled, would define the amount of support provided by the

Space Station.

For the telescope to be economical, it must not significantly

reduce the available resources of a normal STS mission. That is, it

must be in the form of a piggyback to a paying mission which will

either be deploying free flyers or carrying supplies to the Space

Station. This appears quite possible. The estimated weight for all

items required for the telescope and its assembly is 7590 Ibs. plus

3360 Ibs. for a meteoroid shield. This is about one-third the

weight of GRO and yet the sensitive area of the telescope is

40 times greater.

The next chapter describes a major modification to the ET that

would significantly reduce the work load described in this scenario.

The telescope assembly requires seven crew members for a

duration of seven days. Six crew members are assigned to three EVA

*The majority of this chapter is from a Martin Marietta Aerospace

IRfcD report of work performed by the Advanced Programs group of the

Michoud Division done in parallel with this study.
Page 67

crews of two personnel each. The mission commander is not assigned

EVA duties. To create more interior area, the standard Orbiter

airlock is moved from its location in the cockpit to an optional

location in the Orbiter cargo bay, on top of the tunnel adapter.

The mission timeline includes a three-hour crew member

prebreathe requirement. However, by the time this mission is flown,

this requirement may be reduced to less than 40 minutes due to

equipment and operational modifications.

Prior to launch of the mission, certain modifications are

performed on the ET. Among these are the factory installation of

the mirror frame, addition of the meteoroid shield, manhole

modifications, and various small adapters and flanges to aid

on-orbit assembly. Components and equipment used for on-orbit

assembly are packaged in the Orbiter cargo bay. When deemed

necessary to determine concept feasibility, operational procedures

have been amplified and highlighted by indentation. Table 2

provides a summary of the events given in the scenario.

5.1 Detailed Operations

After the launch, the solid rocket boosters (SRBs) are expended

and jettisoned. The Shuttle would not undergo the normal maneuver

for ET.disposal and would continue to use the more efficient main

engines for final orbit insertion. After main engine cutoff (MECO),

the ET is retained and, at apogee, the first orbital maneuvering

system (OMS) burn is initiated, which circularizes the Orbiter/ET.

The next two hours are used to prepare for on-orbit operations.
TABLE 2. MISSION TIMELINES

Page 68

Event Start

(Day:Hour:Minute)

(Mission Elapsed

Time)

00:00:00

00:00:02.2

00:00:08

00:00:52

00:00:54.7

00:03:00

00:03:15

00:03:55

00:04:30

00:05:30

00:09:30

00:10:05

00:11:05

00:11:50

00:20:00

00:21:30

00:22:00

01:00:00

01:00:30

01:00:30

01:00:40

01:01:00

01:02:00

01:02:30

01:03:00

01:03:30

01:03:40

01:04:00

01:05:00

01:06:00

01:06:30

01:09:30

01:09:30

Duration

(Minutes) Event Remarks

2 Hours

15

40

35

60

4 Hours

35

60

45

8 Hours

3 Hours

3 Hours

2 Hours

1 Hour

3 Hours

6 Hours

20

1-1/2 Hrs.

10

4 Hours

1 Hour

6 Hours

1-1/3 Hrs,

2-1/2 Hrs.

1 Hour

3-1/2 Hrs.

9-1/2 Hrs,

FLIGHT DAY 1

Launch

SRB Separation

MECO

QMS Circularization

Burn

Post-Insertion

Activities

Prep for ET Venting

ET Venting

IMU Activities

Lunch

PAM-D Payload Deploy Activities

IMU Activities

Supper

Presleep

Sleep

FLIGHT DAY 2

Orbit Circularized

at 160 NM

Complete by 00:03:00

Morning Activities

(Reduced for EVA

Crew #1)

Prebreathe for EVA

Checkout of SSS § MMU

Deploy SSS

Prebreathe for EVA

EVA

Don MMUs

Install SSS, Momentum Exchange

Devices and

Startrackers

Deploy SSS Solar

Arrays

Remove Aft ET

Manhole Cover

Lunch

EVA

Install Aft Rail

Transport System

Checkout of SSS

Complete/Recheck SSS,

Momentum Exchange

Devices and

Startrackers

Remove Aft ET

Manhole Cover

Terminate EVA

Terminate EVA

Evening Activities

Postsleep, Teleprinter, IMU Align,

Breakfast

EVA Crew #1

IVA Crew

IVA Crew

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #1

EVA Crew #1

EVA Crew #1 & RMS

IVA Crew

EVA Crew #1

(with MMUs)

IVA Crew members

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #2

IVA Crew members

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #1

EVA Crew #2

Supper/Debrief/

Rest/Presleep/Sleep
Page 69

TABLE 2. MISSION TIMELINES (continued)

Event Start

(Day:Hour:Minute)

(Mission Elapsed

Time)

01:19:00

01:22:00

02:00:30

02:01:00

02:01:15

02:01:45

02:02:00

02:03:30

02:03:40

02:05:40

02:07:00

02:07:40

02:09:30

02:09:30

02:19:00

02:22:00

03:00:30

03:01:00

03:01:15

03:02:00

03:03:00

03:03:30

03:03:40

03:07:00

03:07:00

03:09:30

03:09:30

03:19:00

03:22:00

04: 00: 30

04:01:00

04:01:15

04:02:00

Duration

(Minutes)

3 Hours

3 Hours

3 Hours

6 Hours

30

5-1/2 Hrs.

1 Hour

6 Hours

2 Hours

2 Hours

1-3/4 Hrs.

9-1/2 Hrs.

3 Hours

3 Hours

3 Hours

6 Hours

1-3/4 Hrs.

Event

4 Hours

6 Hours

3-1/3 Hrs.

2-1/2 Hrs.

9-1/2 Hrs.

3 Hours

3 Hours

3 Hours

6 Hours

1-3/4 Hrs.

1 Hour

FLIGHT DAY 3

Morning Activities

Prebreathe for EVA

Prebreathe for EVA

EVA

Preposition Safety

Equipment/MWS

Remove/Store Hydrogen

Tank MPS Siphon

Lunch

EVA

Install Sta 1130

Trampoline

Install Wiring

Harness

Terminate EVA

Install Sta 1130

Scintillaters

Terminate EVA

Evening Activities

FLIGHT DAY 4

Morning Activities

Prebreathe for EVA

Prebreathe for EVA

EVA

Preposition Safety

Equipment

Install Sta 1130

Scintillators

Lunch

Install Mirror

Segments

EVA

Install Focal-Plane

Array

Mirror Alignment

Checks

Terminate EVA

Terminate EVA

Evening Activities

FLIGHT DAY 5

Morning Activities

Prebreathe for EVA

Prebreathe for EVA

EVA

Preposition Safety

Equipment

Install Sta 2058

Trampoline, Wiring

Lunch

Remarks

EVA Crew #3

EVA Crew #1

EVA Crew #3

EVA Crew #3

EVA Crew #3

IVA Crews

EVA Crew #1

EVA Crew #1

EVA Crew #1

EVA Crew #3

EVA Crew #1

EVA Crew #1

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #3

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #2

IVA Crew

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #3

EVA Crew #3

EVA Crew #3

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #3

EVA Crew #1

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #1

EVA Crew #1

IVA Crews
Page 70

TABLE 2: MISSION TIMELINES (continued)

Event Start

(Day:Hour:Minute)

(Mission Elapsed

Time)

04:03:00

04:03:30

04:03:40

04:05:00

04:05:00

04:07:00

04:08:00

04:09:30

04:09:30

04:19:00

04:22:00

04:23:00

04:23:10

05:01:00

05:01:10

05:01:30

05:03:30

05:05:30

05:07:00

05:07:30

05:15:30

05:18:20

05:22:20

05:23:20

Duration

(Minutes)

2 Hours

6 Hours

1-1/3 Hrs.

2 Hours

3 Hours

1-1/2 Hrs.

11 Hours

3 Hours

3 Hours

10

40

6 Hours

20

2 Hours

3-1/2 Hrs,

10 Hours

Event

Complete Mirror Alignment Checks

EVA

Install Sta 2058

Scintillators

Install MMU Retention

Brackets and Handrail

Available EVA Time

Terminate EVA

Stow Aft Rail Transport

System

Terminate EVA

Evening Activities

FLIGHT DAY 6

3 Hours

4 Hours

Morning Activities

Prebreathe for EVA

Orbiter/ET Separation

Rendezvous to Stationkeeping Position

with ET

EVA

Don MMUs

Install E04 Cover Plate

Standby for CRT

Activation

Evening Activities for

Deorbit Crew

Terminate EVA

Evening Activities

FLIGHT DAY 7

Morning Activities

Deorbit Preparations

Deorbit Burn

Land KSC

Remarks

EVA Crew #1

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #1

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #1

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #2

EVA Crew #3

EVA Crew #3

EVA Crew #3

EVA Crew #3

EVA Crew #3

5 IVA Crew

Commander §

Pilot

EVA Crew #3

Non-Deorbit Crew
Page 71

In addition to these preparations, venting of the ET residual

propellants is required. This is accomplished by dumping the

residuals overboard through the Orbiter's propellant fill and drain

valves. This venting causes an unequal thrust-reaction which is

compensated by the Orbiter's RCS.

After ET venting, the inertial measurement unit (IMU) is

aligned. One or more PAM-D type payloads may be carried in the

Orbiter cargo bay. The crew conducts a predeployment checkout and

deploys the payload. Crew presleep and sleep periods complete the

first flight crew duty day.

After crew wakeup and morning activities, Crew #1 begins

prebreathing for their EVA followed later by Crew #2. Checkout of

the telescope support systems saddle (SSS) is conducted by Orbiter

cockpit crew members by an analysis of data received through an

umbilical from the aft flight deck to the SSS. The Orbiter remote

manipulator system (RMS) is activated and checked. The Orbiter RMS

grapples the SSS, moves it into view above the overhead aft flight

deck observation windows, and commands the SSS legs to deploy. The

commands are sent through the Orbiter S-Band data system or an RMS

electrical connection.

After nearly three hours of prebreathe activity, Crew #1 enters

the airlock, prepares for their EVA, and egresses into the cargo

bay. The two manned maneuvering units (MMU) are donned. The RMS

moves the SSS over the Orbiter nose where it is placed in the

forward SRB thrust fittings. Crew #1 assists in the final placement

of the SSS.
Page 72

Physical connection of the SSS to the ET is

made by Crew 11 placing one pin through each

forward SRB thrust fitting. A third

connection of the SSS is made through a

preflight installed special receptacle fitting

on the intertank. Electrical power and data

bus umbilicals are connected from the SSS to a

preflight installed connector. This connector

is behind a new preflight-installed access

cover on the intertank.

Similarly, an umbilical is connected from the

SSS for gas transfer into the hydrogen tank.

The gas umbilical is connected to a

commandable valve and fitting on the hydrogen

tank forward manhole cover. This valve is

closed for preflight and launch. The valve is

commanded open via the SSS during the on-orbit

checkout operations. The power and data

umbilicals pass through the modified forward

hydrogen tank manhole cover.

The foldup solar arrays are then self-deployed. Checkout of the

SSS is completed by the intravehicular activity (IVA) crew in the

Orbiter cockpit. The two sets of reaction wheels are attached by

the RMS and Crew #1. Similarly, the star tracker assemblies are

installed. (At this point, if the ET had to be jettisoned in an

emergency, it could function as an autonomous space craft with

attitude control. Thus a later rendezvous would be possible.)
Page 73

Bottles containing the gas to pressurize the hydrogen tank are now

connected to the SSS.

Crew #1 will install an EVA rail around the aft manhole of

the ET to be used for tank entry/ and portable foot restraints are

then added to this rail. These are used as an aid for grasping,

etc., by EVA crew members. The rails and foot restraints are

installed by inserting pins into preflight installed receptor

flanges. The rail around the manhole need not be removed as it

will be useful for later refurbishment operations. EVA Crew #1

will then remove the ET aft manhole cover.

Special tools are required to remove the 92 bolts that hold

the aft manhole cover in place. A zero reaction powered socket

wrench, or another suitable wrench, is required. Power is

supplied to this wrench via an umbilical from the Orbiter cargo

bay. The cover is stored in a receptacle in an Orbiter cargo bay

cradle. At this time, the Crew #1 will return to the Orbiter

cockpit.

The initial EVA task for Crew #2 is to deploy and assemble

the aft rail system. This is used for personnel and cargo

transport from the Orbiter and ET aft areas. This aft rail system

leads from its cradle in the aft cargo bay to the edge of the tank

entry manhole. One end is secured by the cradle while the other

is secured by pins to the rail around the manhole. This rail

system is jettisonable by Orbiter command to clear the Orbiter in

case an emergency separation of the Orbiter and ET is required.

Crew #2 is then available to take over and complete the aft

manhole cover removal task if Crew II has not completed it. If

time permits, Crew #2 may begin prepositioning equipment needed
Page 74

for the next day's activities and start removal of the LH2

feedline siphon assembly. Termination of the EVA for Crew #2 and

evening activities conclude Flight Day 2.

After morning activities and the prebreathe period, Crew #3

begins their EVA, followed later by Crew #1. The sole objective

of Crew #3 is to remove and stow the LH2 feedline siphon assembly.

First, they preposition emergency breathing equipment inside the

ET hydrogen tank.

Referring to Figure 15, the feedline support

bracket, item A, is removed. Using an

extension bar and socket, the feedline is

unbolted at point B. Bolts retaining the

16 vortex baffle support rods (not shown) at

points C and D are now removed. The support

rods are removed and stowed. The four vortex

baffles are unbolted (at points E and F),

removed, and stowed.

A pulley system is installed from the aft dome

to the forward dome of the hydrogen tank

passing through the mirror frame. The

feedline siphon assembly is attached to the

pulley cord. The siphon support is unbolted

(at point G) from the ET aft dome. The

feedline assembly is now free to be removed

and transported through the mirror frame to

the forward dome where it is stowed and

removed from the pulley system.
Page 75

SUPPORT

BRACKET

EXTERNAL

FEEDLINE

INTERNAL

BELLOWS

E. (typical)

D. (typical)

SIPHON ASSEMBLY

ET/ORBITER

VORTEX DISCONNECT

BAFFLE

RECIRCULATION

LINE

LH2 TANK

BOTTOM

DOME

C.(typical)

SIPHON

SUPPORT

SEPARATION PLANE

Figure 15. Liquid hydrogen feedline siphon assembly.
Page 76

This concludes Crew #3 EVA activities for the day.

Crew #1 begins their EVA by removing several extendible poles

from the cargo bay. These poles are used as mobile work stations

(MWS) inside the ET. Each end of the extendible pole has a

rubber-like "foot" for gripping between the stringers of the'

inside wall of the hydrogen tank. The MWSs are installed just aft

of STA 1130 ring frame in the hydrogen tank.

Crew #1 removes the time of flight (TOP) scintillator

mounting trampoline from the Orbiter cargo bay and transports it

through the open ET manhole, and using the pulley system, to the

STA 1130 ring frame of the hydrogen tank. One end of the pulley

system is temporarily disconnected. One edge of the trampoline is

connected to the STA 1130 ring frame via special preflight

installed receptors which are mounted to the ring frame. The crew

members then transverse the diameter of the hydrogen tank (along

the MWS poles) to attach the opposite end of the trampoline. The

trampoline has wiring and connectors already installed and ready

to receive the scintillator segments. The MWS poles are moved as

necessary to complete trampoline installation. The pulley system

is then reinstalled, passing through the mirror frame and

trampoline. The pulley system is used as necessary to aid in

later personnel and cargo transport.

Crew #1 then removes the wiring harness from the Orbiter

cargo bay. The harness is transported to the STA 1130 trampoline

where its installation is begun. The harness is secured to the

trampoline using Velcro (or other appropriate means) and is

plugged into its mating connector. Another mating connector to
Page 77

the harness is in a protective container and is wired through the

hydrogen tank forward manhole cover electrical feed-through

fitting. The harness is secured to the interior of the aft dome

and sides of the ET as necessary. The harness has a second branch

which leads to the STA 2058 scintillator trampoline. A third

branch of the harness leads to the focal-plane array, all of which

are installed later.

Checkout of the scintillator segments is accomplished by

scientists on the ground by data analysis of the downlinked

telemetry, during the time period since Orbiter arrival on-orbit.

Sufficient spares would be included to permit installation of a

fully operational complement of modules. The scintillator

segments are packaged in "shipping and testing crates." Each crate

stores several segments and each segment has its own electrical

connection to an umbilical leading to the aft flight deck. Each

crate is also designed to absorb the launch loads and protect the

scintillator segments.

After harness installation, Crew fl begins transporting the

TOP scintillator segments from their crates for installation on

the STA 1130 trampoline. Each scintillator is attached to the

trampoline using push-in pins. Its connector is then plugged into

a mating connector on the trampoline. Completion of scintillator

mounting should complete the EVA for Crew #1. Evening activities

conclude Flight Day 3.

After Flight Day 4 morning activities, Crew #2 completes

their prebreathe and commences their EVA (followed later by EVA

Crew #3) . Crew #2 will transport safety equipment as necessary

and complete installation of the STA 1130 scintillators if
Page 78

required. Crew #2 then begins transporting and installing the

mirror segments on the STA 1377 mirror frame.

Each mirror segment is numbered to identify its specific

position on the mirror frame. The astronauts use the numbers to

assure proper location and orientation of each segment. Each

segment is installed from the aft side of the mirror frame. The

mirror segment is centered to the mirror frame and connected by

springs with a hook to the mirror frame. A point light source and

TV camera placed at twice the focal length will be used to verify

alignment. Completion of this task should terminate EVA for

Crew #2.

Crew #3 begins their EVA by transporting and installing the

focal-plane array and tripod mount. The tripod is composed of

three legs which are pinned to the mirror periphery (preflight)

and to the focal-plane array (on-orbit). The array is composed of

127 PMTs and reflecting light cones. The wiring umbilical is

attached and runs along one tripod and then to the main wiring

harness. After a total of six hours, the EVA is terminated.

Evening activities conclude Flight Day 4.

After Day 5 morning activities and the prebreathe period,

Crew #1 begins EVA. They preposition safety equipment and install

the STA 2058 trampoline and wiring. The last two hours of their

EVA is dedicated to "pin on" installation of two MMU retention

bracket assemblies to the aft hydrogen tank exterior. This allows

future EVA crew members to approach the telescope and park their

MMU prior to tank entry. They also install an EVA handrail from

each MMU bracket assembly to the manhole rail.
Page 79

Crew #2 is the second EVA crew for Flight Day 5. They

install the STA 2058 scintillator segments. The installation of

the scintillators and wiring is identical to that for STA 1130.

After scintillator installation, Crew #2 is available for

3 hours to perform any unscheduled requirements. After equipment

stowage in the hydrogen tank, the hydrogen tank aft hatch is

closed. This hatch is installed preflight. To maintain a

conservative scenario, the current externally-mounted manhole

cover is retained. The aft rail system is stowed in its Orbiter

cargo bay cradle. This completes the EVA for Crew #2. Evening

activities conclude Flight Day 5.

Flight Day 6 is characterized by the Orbiter/ET separation,

followed by an Orbiter rendezvous with the ET. Day 6 will provide

time for any contingency activity. Crew 13 will begin their EVA,

don the MMU's, fly to the ET, and install cover plates (with

gasket) on the 17-inch feedline on umbilical plate E04, the LI^

recirculation line, and GH2 pressurization line. Repressurization

will begin at this point. They then stationkeep with the ET while

the telescope is activated and checked. This completes their EVA

tasks.

Meanwhile, the mission commander and pilot begin an early

sleep period to allow early wakeup for the next day's deorbit and

landing activities. This concludes Flight Day 6 activities.

Flight Day 7 is allocated for standard deorbit day

activities.

In summary, the telescope can be assembled in space within

four days of a nominal seven-day mission. This mission would

include typical payload deployment prior to commencing assembly
Page 80

activities. The scenario presented has included comfortable

margins for contingency activities. This scenario has assumed

carrying out assembly from the Orbiter. A similar scenario could

be constructed wherein the Orbiter delivered the ET and telescope

components and the assembly would be carried out with the Space

Station as the base of operation.
Page 81

6.0 ADVANTAGES OF PURSUING OPTIONS

All of the discussions that have been made so far have been

based on the premise that there is to be no redesign or

requalification necessary to any of the existing hardware systems.

The only significant addition has been inclusion of the mirror

lattice in and meteoroid shield on the ET. However, there are a

number of options that would provide significant savings in

on-orbit assembly time and have applications for other uses, once

developed.

6.1 A, Sj.de—Mounted Docking Adapter

It is proposed that one of the many side panels that are

machined and welded to make up the ET be modified to permit

installation on-orbit of a docking adapter/airlock. The new side

manhole would be made large enough to permit bringing the various

components into the ET in quantity. The RMS would be used to

remove the "shipping" crates from the Orbiter payload bay and

insert them through the new hole in the ET. An EVA crew would

them permanently stow them around the wall behind the 2058 ring

and the mirror where they would be out of the field of view. The

RMS and an EVA crew would then install the docking adapter/airlock

on the side of the ET. After completion of these tasks and return

of the EVA crew, the Orbiter separates from the ET and performs

proximity maneuvers to dock with the ET. The ET hydrogen tank is

then pressurized. Crew members may then move from the Orbiter

cockpit through its docking module (JSC 07700, Vol. XIV,

Section 9.1.3) through the docking adapter and into the ET.
Page 82

If the ET pressure is increased to approximately 10 psia for

the assembly operations, a modified shirtsleeve environment

exists. Crew members will require portable oxygen breathing

systems. However, they would not require their standard

spacesuit. Crew members would then not have the manual dexterity

limitations of spacesuits and assembly operations could become

more rapid and perhaps more accurate. In all, the on-orbit

assembly time would be significantly reduced. Additionally, since

the EVA prebreathe requirement should not exist at all, five to

six crew members (vs. two) could assist in the assembly operations

each day after the Orbiter docking. Even 24-hour-per-day assembly

operations might be possible.

The capability to add a docking adapter to the hydrogen tank

could be quite useful in other projects where on-orbit manned

entry into the hydrogen tank is anticipated. For example, an

empty ET could be docked to a Space Station to increase the

internal volume of the station.

The prime motivation from the standpoint of the telescope

design is that the component size would not be limited to fitting

through the existing 36-inch diameter manholes. Thus there would

be fewer pieces to install, fewer electronics modules that could

fail, and lower power consumption due to fewer detector modules

and processing electronics modules. Table 3 provides a detailed

list of the number of components comparing the two situations.

The existing manhole requires about 50% more modules and

phototubes than use of the docking adapter would require. The

scintillators are taken to be 40 inches across which would permit

replacement of any failed units by bringing individual ones
Page 83

through the 40-inch D-hole in the docking adapter.

Table 3

Comparison in the Number of Components.

The two cases are for the existing 36-inch manhole

and the proposed 40-inch docking adapter

36" Manhole 40" Docking Adapter

Scintillators Required

Veto

Trigger

TOP

Total

Phototubes Required

Veto

Trigger

TOP

Total

Modules to Install

Trigger

TOP

Mirrors

Total

54

54

_85_

193

96

96

146.

338

54

85

_S5

224

30

30

_fil

121

54

54

H6_

224

30

61

_£1

152

6.2 Aft Cargo Carrier

One of the upgrades that has been proposed for the Shuttle is

the aft cargo carrier (ACC), a unit which would be attached to the

bottom of the ET. The prime motivation for the ACC is to provide

the capability to place into orbit structures that could not

presently fit into the Orbiter payload bay. The principal

motivation for using the ACC as part of this mission is that all

of the support systems would be built into the ACC rather than

require on-orbit installation. Secondly, all components would be

housed in the ACC, eliminating any use of space in the Orbiter

payload bay.
Page 84

Figure 16 depicts an ACC used to contain the support systems

required. This option has another advantage. Should an emergency

arise while on-orbit, the ET may be jettisoned at almost any time.

This still leaves the ET in a mode which is remotely commandable

and capable of subsequent attitude and reboost control without a

revisit by an EVA crew.

The support systems and telescope components in the ACC are

protected thermally and from meteoroids by the ACC structural

design itself. This design allows easy and spacious access by EVA

crews. The special aft closure of this ACC has a built-in easily

opened manhole hatch. All internal support equipment is located

around the periphery of the ACC, which is outside of the telescope

field of view. Components and equipment to be used in the

construction of the telescope are packaged in the central areas of

the ACC since they will be removed and installed in the ET

hydrogen tank. This packaging concept shortens both the distance

and time required for their on-orbit transferral into the hydrogen

tank. Umbilicals for power, data, and pressurization would pass

through a special replacement manhole cover. This replacement

cover is installed on-orbit.

6.3 Intertank Mounting of Support Systems

Another option that would be advantageous would be to mount

all of the supporting systems in the intertank region. Like the

ACC it would eliminate a considerable amount of on-orbit assembly

and not use up precious Orbiter payload bay volume; however, it

would not depend on the development of the ACC or have a weight
Page 85

u

0)

•rH

VJ

8

o

u

S

-p

•a

4-1

•rH

»

O

o

VO

0)

M

3
Page 86

penalty. Like the ACC it would provide meteoroid and thermal

protection. It has other features in that reaction wheels or

magnetic torquers could be located much closer to the center of

mass.

There are a number of drawbacks to using the intertank

region. First, the ACC would be a much more universal piece of

hardware; and second, access for refurbishment would be more

difficult compared to external mounting or ACC mounting. However,

the existing doors on the intertank could be configured for

on-orbit opening.
Page 87

7.0 A SYNERGETIC OPPORTUNITY

Converting the ET into a gairana-ray telescope provides the

opportunity not only to make a substantial contribution to

astronomy, but in addition to make direct use of the ET and

demonstrate the feasibility of many of the components that could

be applied to future use of the ET as part of the Space Station

orbital elements.

Three of the support services required for the telescope and

the future Space Station are attitude stability, reboost, and

energy storage. A common system solution to all of these is an

electrodynamic tether. The concept of an Alfven propulsion

engine was first described by Drell, et al. (1965) and applied to

scientific uses with a tether by Colombo, et al. (1974). In a

recent article by Bekey (1983), the present understanding of the

capabilities of tethered systems is summarized. An electrodynamic

tether would provide the three aforementioned support services and

its use with this telescope would demonstrate its feasibility for

use with the Space Station. An additional feature of Alfven

propulsion is that there are no effluents. Although this is not a

problem with this telescope, other telescopes that might be part

of the Space Station complement are quite sensitive to

contamination, specifically infrared telescopes and coronagraphs.

If magnetic torquing were combined with a gravity gradient

system and Alfven propulsion used for reboost, the entire system

would be devoid of consumables. Thus a 5- to 10-year lifetime

would depend solely on component reliability.
Page 88

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As a result of this concept definition and the IR&D work

performed in parallel at MMA a number of very clear conclusions

have been drawn.

1. The ET is an exceptionally well suited resource for

conversion into a gamma-ray telescope. It is ideal;

fulfilling the need for a large, rigid, light-tight,

gas-tight, thin-walled pressure vessel.

2. This gamma-ray telescope will provide the substantial

increase in collecting area as recommended by the

National Academy of Sciences. This capability is

unavailable outside of NASA.

3. A mission flown to deploy this telescope does not

substantially reduce the primary function of the mission

of delivering a payload to orbit. However, the

contribution to astrophysics alone would be justification -

for a dedicated mission.

4. The support systems developed for this application can be

directly applied to other ET applications and Space

Station systems, particularly if the ET is incorporated

within the Space Station orbital elements. Or vice

versa, many of the systems developed for a Space Station

can be used to support ET applications.

5. Final assembly of a large instrument on-orbit will

pioneer:
Page 89

1. A new role for man in space; and

2. A new, simpler and less rugged component design

concept in which the pieces would be packed rather

than integrally strengthened to survive launch.

These techniques will apply directly to the requirements

for the Large Deployable Reflector (LDR), an astronomical

telescope planned for the 1990's.

Since the External Tank is a valuable resource which can be put to

many uses in space, in particular the application described

herein:

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE SPACE STATION BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING

THIS AND OTHER TYPES OF ET APPLICATIONS.

Since the application described herein will provide "an advanced

high energy gamma-ray telescope of very large area, high

/

sensitivity and high angular resolution" as recommended by the

National Academy of Sciences:

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT NASA PROCEED AT THIS TIME WITH A

DESIGN DEFINITION LEADING TO THE DEPLOYMENT OF A LARGE-AREA

GAMMA-RAY IMAGING TELESCOPE SYSTEM BASED UPON THE USE OF THE

PRESENTLY DISPOSED-OF ET.

This design definition will need to address many of the tradeoffs

identified in this concept definition along with those system

elements which will be common with and services which will be

provided by the Space Station.

Since it will be critical to all ET applications to

demonstrate the ability to orbit an ET and it will be economically

beneficial to be able to determine by what amount the insulation
Page 90

on the ET may be reduced

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT AN ET BE TAKEN TO ORBIT IN THE NEAR

TERM.

Finally, since there are many possible applications for the

ET where meteoroid protection is necessary, including use of the

ET as a Space Station element

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A VERSION OF THE ET BE DEVELOPED WHICH

WOULD HAVE A METEOROID SHIELD.
Page 91

References

Albats, P.f Ball, S.E., Jr., Delvaille, J.P., Greisen, K.I., Koch,

D.G., McBreen, B. , Fazio, G.G. , Hearn, D.R. , and Helmken,

H.F. 1971, A Large Gas Cherenkov Telescope for High Energy

Gamma-Ray Astronomy, Nuclear Inst. & Meth.. 95 f 189.

Bekey, I. 1983, Tethers Open New Space Options, Astron. & Aeron. r

2i, 32.

Bethe, H.A. 1953, Moliere's Theory of Multiple Scattering, Phys.

Rev.. Mf 1256.

Bignami, G.F., and Hermsen, W. 1983, Galactic Gamma Ray Sources,

Ann. Rev. Astron. & Astrophys.. 21.

Chupp, E.L. 1976, Gamma Ray Astronomy (Reidel Publishing Co.).

Colombo, G., Gaposchkin, E.M., Grossi, M.D., and Weiffenbach, G.L.

September 1974, Shuttle-Borne "Skyhook": A New Tool for

Low-Altitude Research, Reports in Geoastronomy. Smithsonian

Astrophysical Observatory.

Draft Report on the Utilization of the External Tank of the Space

Transportation System. California Space Institute, La Jolla,

August 23-27, 1982.

Drell, S.D., Foley, H.M., and Ruderman, M.A. 1965, Drag and

Propulsion of Large Satellites in the Ionosphere: An Alfven

Propulsion Engine in Space, JGRf 70, 3131.

Fazio, G.G., Helmken, H.F. , Rieke, G.H., and Weekes, T.C. 1968, An

Experiment to Search for Discrete Sources of Cosmic Gamma

Rays in the 10*1 to 1012 eV Region, Can. J. Phys.. Mr S451.

Fichtel, C.E., and Trombka, J.I. 1981, Gamma Ray Astrophysic§r

NASA SP-453 (U.S. Government Printing Office).

Field, G.B. 1982, Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 1980 'sf

(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press), Vol. 1, p. 165.

Gidal, G. , Armstrong, B., and Rittenberg, A. 1983, Major Detectors

in Elementary Particle Physics, LBL-91 Suppl. UC-37. Lawrence

Berkeley Laboratory.

Greisen, K.I. 1966, Perspectives in Modern Physics f ed. R. Marshak

(New York: Interscience Publishers), p. 355.

Greisen, K. 1971, The Physics of Cosmic X-RayP -Ray and

Particle Sources (Gordon and Breach Science Publishers) .
Page 92

Greisen, K,, Ball, S.E., Jr., Campbell, M., Gilnan, D., Strickman,

M., McBreen, B., and Koch, D. 1975, Change in the High-Energy

Radiation from the Crab, Ap. J.. 197. 471.

Hartman, R.C., Kniffen, D.A., Thompson, D.J., Fichtel, C.E.,

Ogelman, H.B., Turner, T., and Ozel, M.E. 1979, Galactic Plane

Gamma-Radiation, Ap. J.. 230. 597.

Hayakawa, Satio 1969, Cosmic Ray Physics (New York:

Wiley-Interscience).

Koch, D.G., Ball, S.E., Jr., Campbell, M., Delvaille, J.P.,

Greisen, K., McBreen, B., Fazio, G.G., Hearn, D.R., and

Helmken, H.F. 1973, Performance of a Gas-Cherenkov Gamma-Ray

Telescope, Nuclear Inst. & Meth.. 108f 349.

Kraushaar, W.L., Clark, G.W., Garmire, G.P., Borken, R., Higbie,

P., Leong, C., and Thorsos, T. 1972, High Energy Cosmic

Gamma-Ray Observations from the OSO-3 Satellite, Ap. J.. 177f

341.

Leighton, Robert B. 1978, A 10-Meter Telescope for Millimeter and

Sub-Millimeter Astronomy, Final Technical Report for NSF

Grant AST 73-04908, Calif. Inst. of Tech., Pasadena.

Mayer-Hasselwander, H.A., Bennett, K., Bignami, G.F., Buccheri,

R., Caraveo, P.A., Hermsen, W., Kanbach, G., Lebrun, F.,

Lichti, G.G., Masnou, J.L., Paul, J.A., Pinkau, K., Sacco,

B., Scarsi, L., Swanenburg, B.N., and Wills, R.D. 1982,

Large-Scale Distribution of Galactic Gamma Radiation Observed

by COS-B, A&A. 105. 164.

McBreen, B,, Ball, S.E., Jr., Campbell, M., Greisen, K., and Koch,

D. 1973, Pulsed High Energy Gamma-Rays from the Crab Nebula,

Ap. Jrf 183. 571.

Morrison, -P. 1958, On Gamma Ray Astronomy, II Nuovo Cimento

Ser. X, 1, 858.

Nysmith, C.R. 1969, An Experimental Impact Investigation of

Aluminum Double-Sheet Structures,

Proc. AIAA Hypervelocity Impact Conf.. Paper 69-375,

Cincinnati.

Stecker, F.W. 1971, Cosmic Gamma Rayf NASA SP-249 (U.S. Government

Printing Office).

Swordy, S.P., L'Heureux, J., Muller, D., and Meyer, P. 1982,

Measurements of X-Ray Transition Radiation from Plastic

Fibers, Nucl. Inst. & Meth.. 19_3_, 591.

Whipple F.L. 1947, Meteorites and Space Travels, Astn^on. J.. 52f

131.
Page 93

Wills, R.D., Bennett, K., Bignami, G.F.f Buccheri, R., Caraveo,

P.A., Hermsen, W., Kanbach, G., Masnou, J.L.,

Mayer-Hasselwander, H.A., Paul, J.A., and Sacco, B. 1982,

High-Energy Gamma-Ray Light Curve of the Pulsar PSR0531+21,

29_£, 723.